Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AmericanAir88


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

AmericanAir88
'''Final (81/61/19); ended 12:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC) - This request was unsuccessful. — xaosflux  Talk 12:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 America1000 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


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

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: 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 Wikipedia maintains top quality through discussion, hard work, and dedication.” AmericanAir88(talk)  04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia through the nominations. I frequently nominate IP's who exceed their warning allowance and who do not listen/learn from mistakes. AmericanAir88(talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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 questions from TonyBallioni
 * 4. When is protection preferred to blocking?
 * A: Protection on Wikipedia 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 05:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 Wikipedia policy and ask other admins who are experienced in the area. Improving Wikipedia 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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 Wikipedia, 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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 Wikipedia 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. I am rewriting the answer to this question as I believe I took a wrong interpretation to G2. G2 applies to pages that are literally testing out Wikipedias functions. Test edits are permitted in sandboxes, but not in other spaces. I admit that I made a mistake for tagging those as G2. I have read more on CSD and agree that A7 should have been the proper judgement. I promise that I fully understand what G2 stands for now. 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.


 * 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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 sometimes 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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, etc 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 Wikipedia 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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 Wikipedia’s 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 Wikipedia safe from ill-intent. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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: When I come across an AfD that I will partake in, I begin research and analysis immediately. I ensure that all of my votes are neutral and have supporting claims. There are some cases where the nominator has made a clear claim that is very agreeable with, but I will always make sure the guidelines users bring up are properly met or violated on the article. I will walk you through a typical deletion method I go through:
 * The first step I do is read the main nomination and votes to see the building of a consensus. Reading other user's opinions helps give me a ground for research and analysis.
 * The second step I do is read the main article itself to spot improper references, original research, copy-violation, or anything un-encyclopedic. This gives me the first impressions and helps further research.
 * The third step I do is go through every "Find sources" topic to see if I can find reliable sources. I also search for details to satisfy certain guidelines such as NHOCKEY for a sports player. I search google, news, newspapers, scholar, WP refs, the NYT, local newspapers (if applicable), and other relevant websites. The timing of this step can vary based on the sources available. Some searches will bring up zero results, while others will contain hundreds, which I comb through to search.
 * The final step I do is come up with a vote based on my research and Wikipedia guidelines. Sometimes an article will fail the GNG, while other times it is more detailed such as FOOTY. I also take into consideration WP:HEY, which can happen when a dedicated user fixes the article from its nominated state. Sometimes I even partake in trying to fix up the article by filling bare urls or copy-editing.
 * Timing may vary per discussion, but I always dedicate myself to assuming good faith and researching the article. There are some cases where WP:SNOW can create a faster vote, but I never sacrifice quality for quantity. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 01:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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: Relisting is an important area of the Articles for Deletion sector on Wikipedia. Relisting allows for the building of a stronger consensus and helps give more attention to AfD listings that were not noticed well. When resisting, I ensure that it is justified and is beneficial to the deletion nomination. I will go one by one with all the resisting examples you have provided for me:
 * For the Tinsley Advertising, I felt a relist was appropriate as a result of no votes being issued on the subject. The article does have some mentions on Google books and WP refs, but the mentions are not enough to satisfy the GNG. The nominator also said they were "bringing it here for re-evaluation". A realist could have brought a stronger consensus, but no participation led to a soft delete with a REFUND application applying.
 * For The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific, the consensus was not established throughout the users. Some votes were not substantial such as the "I Don't think..." one, while other users claimed that redirects were plausible or a separate discussion. I felt that a relist would help create a better consensus through more oversight on the discussion. A new user found sources and casted a new vote after as well, strengthening opinions for a redirect/merge.
 * For The Walt Disney Company Argentina, the nomination was not well explained through Wikipedia guidelines. A few sources popped up and there was no consensus developed at all except for the nomination. The article nomination needed a relist incase of new evidence, sources, or interested user's coming. After the relist, it was relisted again with a new vote coming out recently.
 * For 2008 Omloop der Kempen, there was no consensus except the nominator. A soft delete could not apply as there was a bit of mentions and that the subject was in a different language, meaning users who are native could have chimed in. The creator of the article was also banned. After the relist, the consensus moved away from deletion to a redirect, proving the relist prevented a soft delete.
 * For Gharghashti, the decision to relist was a challenge. With a disambiguation and tribal names being mentioned by the nominator, a consensus was needed. There were some passing mentions, but just like with Omloop, users who are native or knowledgeable in tribal, could have chimed in. The article was also unclear if it existed. The relist led to a clear delete consensus strengthened by copied content. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 02:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For El Gilano, there were concerns of the article possibly meeting the GNG. SportingFlyer mentioned that it passed WP:V and that a farsi-language search would be required. This thought was strengthened by PichPich backing SportingFlyer up with a language concern. As for the two above, users who are native could have chimed in. The relist led to no new votes, leading to a soft delete with a REFUND application applying.
 * I promise that all of my relistings have reasoning and logic behind them. With a clear consensus, the AfD can go smoother, have less disruption, and encourage teamwork and collaboration while still maintaining Wikipedias quality. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 02:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Additional question from User:Reyk


 * 17. What, in your opinion, is the most important policy on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 discussion and editing, collaboration creates an encyclopedia with articles of premium quality. The entire sector of Conduct is vital to the success of Wikipedia. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 17:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Dolotta
 * 18. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
 * A: Honestly, my weakest area on Wikipedia is Files. I am talking about files on Wikipedia, not Commons. I am active in transferring files to the commons as part of the Wiki project and backlog drive, but I am weaker in Wikipedia files. For Commons files, I know that the licensing is proper (after a review) and how the process works. I have several files that I have successfully moved to the commons. My weakness is for Wikipedia images that are not suitable for commons. I am not the best with file endings (jpg, jpeg, etc) and can encounter trouble with sizing and such. However, I have uploaded several images to increase an articles diversity and clarity. The images I have uploaded are either requested or needed to improve clarity. I have no issues dealing with captains, alt text, and pixel size, but I am weaker in determining the best file type and licensing. When looking to upload or maintain files, I always ensure the licensing is proper. To address my weaker ability with Wikipedia files, I try to read up as much as I can and upload requested images that have valid licensing. I also will continue to add photos to the commons that are suitable to move from Wikipedia. Files may be my weakest, but I continue learn knowledge about them through research and asking. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 03:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 Wikipedia. I will never use bias or personal preference in any major contributions. Consensus is the building block of a fair conversation. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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: I would first never use foul language at all on the wiki. I will ensure that all discussions are peaceful and civil. Even though the user may have contacted me off wiki, I will head into the discussion with a completely neutral point of view. I will not be biased to the discussion just because the editor is my friend. If the other editor is someone I have interacted with before (In a bad way or good way?), I will try to assume good faith and see their point of view. I always assume good faith unless it is blatant vandalism. According to the scenario, I agree with the friends characterization meaning I will take action in a justified way. I will always ensure that the issue is solved peacefully and with proper discussion. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 04:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your reply. I have a follow-up question. If I were to put it to you that, in the situation that I described, the hypothetical friend could be viewed as stealth canvassing, and therefore being disruptive, would that make you change your answer, and if so, in what way? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging, in case my follow-up question has got lost in the traffic here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would change my answer as stealth canvassing is not permitted on the encyclopedia. I would never edit on behalf of someones personal gain instead of their goal for improving the encyclopedia. All of my edits and oversight is on strengthening the encyclopedia and helping encourage civility. If the user were to constantly badger and get threatening, I would report them to the proper authorities. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 20:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Foxnpichu


 * 21. You are fairly new to Wikipedia, 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 conversing people, I have gained a ton of knowledge through my 2 years. Age on Wikipedia should not be looked at as a number, but as a timeline for experience. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 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: The specialized editors motives need to be more deeply explored. If they are working on the project area for their own personal gain or advertisement, it is not a net positive. If they pick one topic to edit articles on, it can help the Wikipedia. The main concept to deciding if they are a net positive is their passion. Users who are dedicated to making the encyclopedia a better place are the ones who work in all areas of expertise, are friendly, and contribute flourishing articles and edits. If a user just wants to host their own content or advertise, they do not understand what Wikipedia stands for. Passion plays a big role in editing. One thing that unites us all here is our passion for improving the encyclopedia. We are all net positives in my opinion. The people who are uncivil and violate policies are not net positives, but burdens to the generosity of people volunteering. Wikipedia is for collaboration to create articles to inform the public and create unified general knowledge. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 04:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Question from MJL
 * 24. Why do you answer questions out of order? It's a little disorientating. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A: All of the questions that I answer go through a careful look over and analysis on a separate document. This is to ensure my answers are of highest quality. On some questions, it takes more time to craft an answer and I do not want to substitute quality over quantity. I guarantee that I will answer every question and hope to do so in the most mature, knowledgable, way possible. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 01:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Cthomas3
 * 25. Greetings, AA, and thank you for standing for adminship. In your opinion, when is someone WP:INVOLVED, and under what conditions would you consider recusing yourself from taking administrative action?  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A: WP:INVOLVED describes how editors should not act as administrators in disputes they are involved in. In my opinion, it is crucial to the encyclopedia that Involved admins do not take administrative action as it can be portrayed as a potential conflict of interest or canvassing. Wikipedia is always changing, and it is important for admins to work together with editors to ensure neutral, civil, and justified results and creations. As an admin, I would handle circumstances from a neutral point of view and ensure that I have no previous conflict of interest. I would never use bias to see an argument through. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>)  20:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Just wanted to say thank you for answering. I know it's been a rough several days for you, and it is much appreciated.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Question from Johnsmith2116
 * 26. Hello. As an administrator, would you hesitate to put page protection (at least temporary) on a page that begins to get a lot a deliberately unconstructive edits that come flooding in? For example, if a high profile sporting event has a particular athlete who is getting a lot of attention, and that athlete's Wikipedia page, upon completion of that sporting event, begins to get a lot of unconstructive edits from trolls, if called upon would you quickly put protection on that page to enable established editors to work on that page without disruption from IP users who are only there to disrupt? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A: Page protection is vital to safeguarding the quality of Wikipedia articles. Some examples of when it is used are when vandals and trolls flood the page with unconstructive edits, sock account engagement, recent media attention, and current events. The decision to protect a page should be based upon the amount of edits that are unconstructive, patterns, and the amount of users. If I encountered a report of this issue, I would first investigate the edit history and see what the trolls are editing. I will first assess how many trolls there are. They will all be given appropriate warnings on their talk pages. If the unconstructive edits continue to happen through the adding of unsourced material and trolling, a page protection will be the best course of action. The protection ensures that the recent events will stay safeguarded and accurate. Before protecting any page, I will ensure it is the best course of action to perform. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 15:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AmericanAir88. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Question from Wugapodes
 * 27. Thanks for putting yourself forward for adminship! Given the focus on your AfD participation, I'd like to ask about your deletion philosophy. Ignoring the cases where it is legally required, if Wikipedia is not paper why delete articles at all? Put another way, what do you see as the value of deletion? Wug·a·po·des​ 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A: Deletion is to ensure that Wikipedia is full of articles that are top quality. Although it may not be on paper, digital storage and organized categories matter a lot on the encyclopedia. Deletion allows for users to decide on a consensus to delete an article that violates Wikipedia's notability guide or threatens the principles we all live by. If we let a spam account create something non-notable on the encyclopedia, it presents us all as allowing advertisement and not caring about the safeguard of neutral knowledge. Deletion helps us maintain Wikipedia articles that represent our website as a place of premium knowledge where anyone can edit. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 19:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Question from Simonm223
 * 28. What is your position regarding the link between WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP and WP:EVENTCRIT? As an admin what would you do to protect the privacy of non-notable BLPs? Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A: On Wikipedia, it is important to ensure that all BLP's are treated with precision notability checks and sourced information. Biographies of living persons are important to the encyclopedia, but need the most careful viewing as they are subjected to vandalism and original content. For WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT, original research and routine references should be kept at minimal especially for BLP's. Just because an event is notable, does not mean the people involved in the event are notable. BLP's are also not diaries or journals, meaning that every event does not qualify for notability on individuals. Per WP:BLP1E, just because a person is on the news, does not mean they are notable for inclusion. Biographies based on events can cause disproportionate weight to the event and can dispute the neutral point of view. When a person is notable for one to a few significant events, excessive detailing can be harmful to the person (WP:AVOIDVICTIM). As an admin, I would protect the privacy of non-notable BLPs by ensuring that events are well covered and do not victimize certain people. Non-notable people are subject to deletion as they can dispute the neutral point of view on events and can cause excessive detail. A proper redirect would be more appropriate for a non-notable BLP based on an event. To protect privacy of a notable BLP event, a temporary protection can be added per a request or persistent vandalism/original content. It is important that BLP's be maintained and monitored with careful inspection and additions. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 19:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Puzzledvegetable
 * 29. How do you interpret Ignore all rules, and how would you apply it as an administrator?
 * A: I feel that "Ignore all rules" is proper policy that requires careful interpretation and judgement. According to the Five pillars, "Wikipedia has no firm rules". Improving the encyclopedia should always be done with the policies in mind, but if you take good faith and have proper jurisdiction, your edit can be included. As per WP:BOLD, we as users should be courageous and take pride in our edits. As an encyclopedia that encourages expansion and collaboration, I see WP:IAR as a motivating statement for users to stand up and help improve Wikipedia. Applying it as an admin would be to use good faith and consensus to determine conclusions and decisions. Changes made on controversial articles and featured content is subject to more scrutiny, and Conflicts of Interest should be handled in the proper way. However, the policies of Wikipedia should always be kept in mind and edits that promote vandalism, spam, attack, or unsourced content will be reverted and subject to user review. Wikipedia is a site with unlimited knowledge, and users have the ability to help expand and strengthen the knowledge. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 19:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Links for AmericanAir88:
 * 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
However, I did do the math out. AA had participated in 90 AFDs for both the month of July and so far in August. He participated in a total of 235 AFDs, so this is roughly a third of all his AFD contributions (that doesn't say much for an editor with only 2 years imo). This may be pause for concern for most folks, but if you look at the numbers it really doesn't show AA gaming the AFD voting system at all. The July/August votes has a 86.66666667% chance of casting a vote the same way as an outcome, but in total it was 88.5106383%. This means that his most recent votes lowered his overall average. Full disclosure, I put this on a spreadsheet, and it was just easier to count "no consensus" and "Not closed yet" as equivalent as the receiving an opposite outcome. My conjecture as to the noticeable uptick is not so much an attempt to pad an overall record (which wasn't boosted all that much from the general looks of things), but it likely came from (1) a recent interest in participating in AFD or (2) advice from his nominator to get involved more in that area. Neither situation is particularly troubling in my view.
 * 1) Support as nominator. North America1000 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. The Doctor Who  (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) Just want to add that the "88" stuff is disgraceful. AA88 is under no obligation to change his username. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Moral 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). Per this, and User:Cryptic 02:12, 5 August 2019, I think User:AmericanAir88 needs to quickly cram WP:CSD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I like your temperament. I thing you would have done well.  A weakness with deletion policy is hurting you, I advise you try this AfD table, sort by time open, and contribute to old contested AfDs, where to do so requires the most carefully explained reasoning, including knowing when exactly something should be deleted, and on how to read consensus and policy.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * Just a quick note to reaffirm my support. I've had a look at the various oppose votes and I don't find them persuasive. I think a few people are setting the bar a bit too high. We need to remember that we are voting on whether or not to give an unpaid volunteer a few extra tools to help out on an online encyclopedia. We are not electing a pope or president. AA is going to be fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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))  (edited 8/5) I'm sorry, the data provided in the oppose section is more that I can go along with.  I won't pile on oppose, but I can no longer support — Ched :  ?    —  21:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 06:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Why not? The candidate's answers to the questions are excellent. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to oppose: the answer to Q7 (written after I posted this) concerns me. Although I often vote "why not?" at RfX, which is basically an implied "per nom", I don't see how saying "per nom" at all strengthens the rationale; it only adds another approving voice to the consensus, not new arguments. That counts for something if we have a real consensus, but we might have one based on policy-non-compliant arguments, or at worst simply an illusion of a consensus produced by sockpuppets. So moving to oppose per Steven Crossin, SportingFlyer, and DBigXray. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, good content creator, sensible answers to questions, no concerns here. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Moved to neutral. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * Support. Moved to Neutral, based on the reasoning of several of the opposes. 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)
 * 1) Support. Whyever not? Calm, competent, no issues. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Support - in the know = a plus/plus. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 10:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. content creator is a plus. should be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I like what I see.  scope_creep Talk  12:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Sounds good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Mega support 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. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * asked me to copy this over from the talk page to make it more visible for folks:
 * With the username thing, the candidate has said his reasoning included making his initials a dead man's hand (poker). As for the other AFD thing, I'm afraid only the candidate and his nominator can respond to AA's intentions there.
 * I'll add here that the only reason I spent 20 minutes in Google Sheets today is because I feel like AA is a great editor whom I sincerely trust to have the tools. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MJL, When someone asked him to get involved in AfD the intention I believe was to learn more about various notability policies and judgement of consensus. But based on the AfD log what I saw was blatant gaming of the system. It was as if he was doing a ritual that he was asked to do. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Before July of this year, AA already had 145 AFDs under his belt. I therefore don't agree necessarily he needed to learn more about AFDs at that point. Even if you don't take in account the recent 90, his record at AFD is solid enough as it is. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support- You are ready. CLCStudent (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, an editor who will do just fine with the mop. bd2412  T 20:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  ~SS49~   {talk}  23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Support Netpos -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Support enthusiastically. I thank North America for nominating this administrative candidate who will be an asset to this project. I have encountered AmericanAir88 in many AfDs. I can see the candidate will do the unrewarding work that benefits the project. I also read through the answers AmericanAir88 has given in this RFA. AmericanAir88 will be an outstanding administrator and will do the unrewarding backstage work that this project needs. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 91.3% of the candidates AfD votes matched the result. The candidate started 41 articles (2 deleted). 6500 edits per year, with 53.6% in the main space. Lightburst (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) support per nominator statement and other rationales stated above. More than meets my standards. Sounds too inclusionist to me, but that's not a legitimate reason for me to oppose. And closing an AfD Does not require a lengthy discussion or rationale. Frankly, I avoid the place 'cause of too much drama. -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Tony, humble and know their limitations &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Tony and North America. net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - looks like a fine candidate. I've done a review of their recent AfD votes and don't see anything particularly spooky; some pile-on votes are not a deal-breaker for me. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Good contributions. I am not concerned by the objections raised by the opposers. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk]  10:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Net positive. Maybe lacking some experience but little cause for concern. Nigej (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Like others, I'm not concerned by the objections raised below and I see no reason why we should push away a qualified candidate. Just don't be a dummy. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support: opposes are highly unconvincing. User is obviously not a neo-Nazi, answering the dozens of questions out of order or not within a couple of hours is not at all a problem (and the candidate should be commended for their mature answer to the rather questionable question 24), and every candidate who intends to work in AFD is analysed and overanalysed to death. Anything looks like "pile-on AFD votes" or "voting just in prep for an RFA" if you glare at it a bit with a skeptical attitude but MJL's talk page analysis convinces me that this is not the case. As for the other questions, I think they answered the AFD-related ones well and some of the more dubious and even aggressive-sounding ones very sensibly. Throughout all of the opposition, I'm seeing no temperament concerns and no incompetence concerns and so I do not see why the candidate cannot be trusted with the tools. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In my defense, that question was more of a chance for AA to correct the record than my own feelings on the matter. In his since struck oppose vote, cited it as a red flag. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support samee  converse  16:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support - Thanks for all the work you do to improve Wikipedia, and for being willing to go through this difficult process! &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per . I don’t see any indication that this user will be anything less than exemplary as an admin, and has demonstrated a level-headed and measured approach in their editing. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - we need admins, and the concerns about recent AfD activity and the username aren't enough to dissuade me. schetm (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per response to question 27, the editor understands the spirit of WP:DEL, and I believe they will not abuse the tools. Further if they make a mistake as the opposition fears, I trust that AA88 will humbly work to fix it. Net positive. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) I see nothing to indicate that the candidate would misuse the tools. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) * Just to comment on the "88" in the username thing - there are at present 199929 editors with "88" in the username. 146,810 of which either begin with, or end with 88, and are not blocked . Most of which are unlikely to be nazis, and are more likely than not positive contributors. As mentioned elsewhere here, nazis don't "own" 88, and it can mean a hell of a lot of things. Please, don't forget that your fellow contributors are human beings too. Imagine how you would feel if someone implied that you have some sort of connection to nazis based on nothing but your username. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I understand some of the concerns regarding AFD in the opposes below, but even taking that into account, I believe the candidate is still a net positive and would be a good administrator. In particular, I was impressed by how thoughtful some of the answers to the questions above were. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Support – I read AA88's talk page, which, to me, shows strong character and a sincere desire to help build the encyclopedia–I think the concerns raised by oppose voters amounts to being rough around the edges and that can be straightened out by learning from other, more seasoned admin "on the job".
 * 10) *The objection to "88" in the username is silly. As has been pointed out, 88 means a lot of things. For example, 88 is a lucky number in Chinese; there are Asian markets called Super 88, and a car called the Oldsmobile 88, a band called The 88, a movie called 88 Minutes... none of it has anything to do with 14/88.
 * 11) *However, I share concerns about the "AmericanAir" part of the username. It's like you're a walking billboard for an airline. It's too commercial IMO. Although that's not the editor's intent, I think it's still the effect, and it'll be more high-profile as an admin. I note that User:AA88 is available and is, in my opinion, a better username ("AA88" sounds pretty cool when spoken, and has a neat not-quite-symmetry when written).
 * 12) *I share the concerns about relists in Q16. IMO (and I think according to the policies listed), it's better to !vote in low-participation AfDs rather than relist them. The answer to Q20 should have been, "If my friend asks me off-wiki to intervene, I will politely decline unless it's Levivich ." (There are still several days left in this RfA at this point; perhaps reviewing the linked policies and posting follow-up answers to some of these questions wouldn't be a bad idea.)
 * 13) *As for the CSDs, what I see is in the questions and opposes about that issue are a bunch of redlinks, meaning they were, ultimately, deleted. Looking through the deletion logs for the pages listed, I counted seven different admin deleting those pages. It's not a big deal to me if someone tags a page as R3 instead of G6 or G2 when it should have been A7  or G11 . It's more important to me whether the article should or should not be deleted at all. I agree that the CSD criteria are "tricky", so I don't hold it against someone for tripping over them. I think AA88's "deletion instinct" is good. (I also agree with !voters in this AfD that it was a waste of time, and should have been speedily deleted.)
 * 14) *The pre-RfA AfD pile-on voting might seem a bit tryhard at first, but I'm convinced by MJL's analysis showing the match rate went down, not up, recently.
 * 15) *I'm impressed by the editor's dedication and their comments in their answers about civility. Given the choice, I would rather have an admin who takes civility seriously and might make a few bad deletions than the other way around.
 * 16) *You can see on the talk page that they have multiple potential admin mentors, and that makes me feel like any rough edges or unfamiliarity with policy can be addressed fairly quickly because we have an enthusiastic student and qualified, interested teachers. We need admin; AA88 won't break anything; let's give 'em the mop. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 05:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Concerned with the fact that the user seems to have less of clue of AfD than me. Name not great either. However, seems to be a calm mind and is a decent content creator. I don't have time to scrutinize everything here but I would like to see this within the discretionary range for crats to determine consensus. wikitigresito (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Support A dedicated editor who will make an excellent administrator. The collegiate manner in which this candidate works with existing admins will help enormously. Poltair (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 19) Support My RFA criteria places me between support and neutral as I share some of the concerns about deletion raised by the Opposers, but what brings me in Support is the fact that Q9 and Q22 were asked, and that at least 1 user has opposed on this basis. We should have assumed good faith and not asked the question at all. Iffy★Chat -- 09:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. The opposes are (very) unconvincing. DexDor(talk) 11:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 21) Weak Support, a little on the less experienced side but I think they can be trusted. Polyamorph (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, probably just moral at this point, I strongly recommend changing your username to get rid of the 88 due to its unfortunate connotations, get some more experience, and come back in six or twelve months. It is good that you want to help, please do not be dissuaded. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  12:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 23) Support: Mainly "moral support"  at this point. Need a bit more experiance. Don't give up and give it a go in six months. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 24) Moral support Support Thank you for taking the plunge into the bearpit known as RfA. Please don't give up on the project. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to full support to counteract the fucking pointless blow-up about the number in AA88's handle. If this editor was editing about Race and Intelligence or another topic that neonazis flock to then I would get the connection, I would also see the connection if their name was AA1388, but AA88 is an aviation nerd who seems to have chosen a number at random. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support The "88" criticism is straight up trolling at this point. Only if there was some evidence of such political editing, but no. No major concerns, some sub-par AfD votes but that's it. --Pudeo (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Yes perhaps some of the AfD closes could have been a bit better, but I trust someone with the level of experience to ensure they are confident they are doing the right thing and in-line with policy the best they are able when using advanced tools. I think he would do a fine job and would be a net benefit as an admin, <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">N.J.A.  &#124;  talk  01:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support (from Neutral) After reading more from the candidate, especially at candidate's talk page, I think that the AfD issues can be overcome. Candidate is level headed and reasonable. These items rate way higher for me than some minor policy issues that can be corrected. I believe that AA88 will be an outstanding admin. And I still think the username thing is a stretch. I had never heard of the 88 association before. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. At this point it may be just moral support but the candidate meets my minimum criteria. "88", in Chinese, represents good fortune. I'm not terribly fond of a potential admin advertising a corporation but I do not think it should preclude them from serving. Ifnord (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) It's clear that this RfA is not on track to succeed, but I will toss in my support mainly on the basis that the Nazis tried to [//www.adl.org/hatesymbolsdatabase appropriate my number too] (along with a whole bunch of other ones.) Keep editing productively, take into account the legitimate concerns raised in the oppose section, and I'm sure a future RfA will be successful. 28bytes (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Sure, why not. — 🦊 23:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Destined to fail though it may be, 88 is perfectly acceptable in absence of evidence of nazi persuasions and editing history. Are we going to forbid all editors born in 1969 who were around long beyond 69 became a counter culture icon from participating in the community? I know of people who ran with 88 in the online community, many reason apart from HH for it to exist. Including the 8,8cm Pak 43. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  02:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support well qualified editor. Level headed, civil and willing to learn. No Wikipedian is competent or expected to be competent in everything. AA88 won't venture into areas they are less experienced in like AfD. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 06:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Particularly in light of their opening statement that they would help with but not limited to the AFD. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support, not least for flying on with flames pouring out of the one surviving engine, & the right to be 31 years old. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support After reviewing the candidate's contributions, I have no problems offering my support. Capt. Milokan (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support Looks to be a skilled, helpful and friendly editor, and likely to be careful with the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support After the last RfA's passed, why not. Conlinp (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Levivich. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Moral support 1988 is currently probably the most common birth year in the world (the average age of currently alive humans is around 31). We shouldn't let nazi numerology stand in the way of that and all the numerous non-fascist connotations of the number 88, including being a nice repetitive number to add to an internet handle. WP:DENY the fascists.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  04:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Thought he gave thoughtful answers to the questions, can be trusted with the tools. As for the 88 crap, why don't you all go ask Eric Lindros why he wore the number 88? Hmmm.. oh no maybe he's a Nazi!! sheesh. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support especially for his civility. Civility is something we need more of from our administrators.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 18:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Support for two reasons: First, in mine opinion within our community there is very little as important as civility and collegiality, and the candidate seems to have lots; second, because though there are editors i respect among the opposes, there are some utterly absurd opposes based on the candidate's username and, while it probably won't happen, it is my belief that such should be discarded by the closing 'crat, thus my support can assist in negating the nonsense. Happy days, LindsayHello 20:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Moving from oppose. Please note that all my concerns around deletion I raised still stand, however I refuse to stay in that column and be associated with frankly ridiculous opposes based on the candidates username, which I honestly feel should be discounted. The question about the candidates username has been asked and answered. 88 has many meanings e.g it’s lucky in Chinese culture, it could be the year they were born, or literally anything else - hell the candidate could like the element Radium. Opposing the candidate because a tiny minority in the world associates the number with Hitler, honestly, ridiculous. I ask those opposing, if you had a Chinese editor run for RFA and they had 88 in their username, would you also oppose? No? Then it shouldn’t happen here, and opposes based on the candidates decision to have it in their username forces me into this column. To the candidate - do not feel you have to change your username to get supports. Focus on the concerns raised by me and other reasonable opposes and you’ll do fine next time. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  22:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I am here largely because of the ludicrous oppose !votes opposing for ludicrous reasons. If anything, this seems to be just one example as to why RFA is an utter shitstorm to deal with and the toilet bowl of Wikipedia: instead of looking for sensible reasons as to why the candidate would be suited for the tools, we take to opposing them because the number "88" is "widely used by neo-nazis". Such an oppose might be valid if the candidate was evidently a neo-Nazi goosestepping around and not editing constructively, but this isn't the case here. The idea that the number "88" would scare newcomers away is ridiculous given how most people see the number 88 as a, well, regular number. If the number 88 was really that much of a problem, we all know full well that RFA isn't the place for that discussion; try an RFC, where it can be declared a violation of the username policy. An inappropriate username shouldn't be met with a declined adminship application, but a block, because simply opposing someone for such a username implies that it's okay (or at least tolerable) to have the username when they're not an admin, but somehow it's a problem if they are one. The more we continue with the "88 is bad because neo-Nazis use it", the more we let the neo-Nazis win. Anyways, I most certainly don't see a goosestepping Nazi saluting hate spreading neo-Nazi here, so the number 88 in their username should be seen by any sensible person as irrelevant to Naziism. I see instead an editor who takes civility seriously, and given all the issues we've seen lately with incivility, I value such an editor on the project. In other words, the number "88" doesn't concern me one bit; it's a frequently used number and symbol outside of neo-Naziism, and taking other things into consideration, there is no connection between neo-Naziism and this editor here. (So there, my reason for supporting this candidate before I get 50 messages on my talk page scolding me for !voting just to "balance things out") — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 23:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I'd like to echo the last two supporting comments. All this stuff about neo-nazism and the number 88 is quite frankly disgusting, and unbecoming of experienced users who should be intelligent/advanced enough to know better. Additionally, I see nothing wrong with following genuine WP:CONSENSUS at RfA. I think this website would be a more open and hospitable place if more admins did the same—at every page. Homeostasis07 (talk · contributions) 02:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Support The oppose vote based on the editor's username is red herring at its best. You can discount this vote if you discount these opposes. You don't judge a person by their face, so let's not do that for an editor by their username. They shall be judged by their actions and that only. <b style="font-family:'Fira Mono', 'Noto Mono', 'Monaco', monospace; background-color: #5AF; color:#FFE">viz</b> <b style="font-family:'Fira Sans'; color: #5AF">✦</b> 04:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - as a counter to editors opposing on the basis of 88, which can mean anything, and may very well be a favourite number. Nazis do not own 88. You can discount this vote if you discount these opposes.  starship  .paint  (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) This is an experienced user whose participation at FAC is fine – certainly not a red flag, as others are suggesting.  I agree with the concerns about an incorrect reading of the deletion policy, but for my part, as a voter, I am not expecting administrators to be perfect, even prior to appointment.  And I do not think my standards are too low, in that regard.  Support.   AGK  &#9632;  15:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. The "red flags" raised by the opposition do not worry me.  Calidum   15:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Moved from neutral.I am happy with the candidate, not expecting perfection from contribution history, he won't break anything and should be a net benefit with the tools. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Oppose votes based on their username is simply ridiculous. I see plenty of good points especially civility. If this RfA doesn't succeed, come back after a reasonable period of time, after improving yourself for the areas you are lacking experience. <u style="color:#087643;font-face:arial;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Masum Reza <sup style="color:orange;">📞  15:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 19) support - net benefit to have the tools. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - Seeing some hypocrisy from a certain someone made me decide to support this. Zvtok (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Username is not an issue to me. Had positive experience at FAC, even though I was the opposer on the second nomination. Has the ability to disagree without getting rude.   Kees08  (Talk)   01:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 22) Support People these days only support those that have no blemishes. We ran out of those individuals long time ago. Is AmericanAir88 perfect? No. But never have I expected some people oppose on the grounds of having 2 identical digits in someone's username. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Not a jerk, knows their limitations, unlikely to abuse the tools and quite likely to learn from the opposition here. --valereee (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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.. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 17:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC) The difference here is that I feel this comment is so beyond the pale about what levels of commitment we need from our admin corps. 28 questions have been asked so far of which 27 have gotten a response so far. AA had a dental procedural and communicated as much within this RFA. This is clearly a stressful process for him as well, but he has kept this trainwreck moving because he still feels like there is something he can offer this community that we're just not seeing. Is that naïve? It probably is. I'll even admit that he isn't the most mature editor I know on this project. However, I do know this: he cares a lot about this community and takes it very seriously. If he wants to dig his own grave, then I'll be right here digging mine alongside him because I rather have an admin who's fatal flaw is caring too much about things than one so willing to let them go. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 (Articles for deletion/Casper's)? 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 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 Talk  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)
 * I want to push back on something. I fully agree with AmericanAir's !votes in those AFD's you mentioned in your oppose.
 * 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)
 * 1) 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? <strong style="color:#555555">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 Talk  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).<strong style="color:#555555">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 Talk  17:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)? 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 la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(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)
 * 1) 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 Talk  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 Talk  22:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose (moved from neutral): I'm not seeing a demonstrated need for the tools yet, nor do I completely trust them to use the tools well, mostly in AfD. I've looked over the last month of their AfD contributions and I don't see any !votes which I would classify as substantial - many !votes are very short and most comply with the consensus of the article. While many AfDs lend themselves to short votes - I looked through a number of my own - I'm concerned AA88 doesn't quite have enough experience with difficult AfDs for me to feel comfortable with them closing AfDs in general, though I do admit they'd probably be fine with closing a lot of AfDs where consensus was clear. Also, reading through the questions, I'm not clear as to how AA88 would use the tools outside of AfD or vandalism. If there were a clear, demonstrated need in another area of the project, I would probably support, but I don't quite feel comfortable supporting at this time - I would like to see more votes in contentious AfDs where you can't just write a concise summary of support/deletion, over a slightly longer period of time. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , not asking you to change your !vote, but you should probably look at MJL's superlative analysis on the talk page that shows how AmericanAir actually has excellent AfD contributions even if one were to simply ignore their recent AfD participation. Like I said, this is just for your information, not to ask you to change your !vote. Thanks, Lourdes 01:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC) )
 * Thank you for pointing me towards that, I appreciate it - but I'm not really focused on the statistics, or that AA88's numbers went down over the last month of contributing. I spent some time on this and I looked through a large number of their AfD-related contributions, mostly because the nomination has been largely predicated around AfDs. I even checked to see which AfDs we voted in together, and they're all mostly Afds which WP:SNOWed, or AA88 closed the AfD as WP:SNOW. And if you're around a lot of AfDs which WP:SNOW, of course your statistics will be high! The one AfD I can find which we both voted which wasn't a snow, AA88 offered what I would consider a very weak AfD !vote: Articles for deletion/Queen Street (Ottawa). As I said above, if there was a need in another area of the project for the tools I'd probably support AA88's candidacy, but as it stands I simply do not trust them to close a contentious AfD on policy grounds, since I haven't seen any evidence which shows me they're able to do so yet, and they don't need the tools to keep closing AfDs which snowed. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) A noticeable uptick in admin-related activity since approaching NA1K for a nomination about a month ago, with numerous YGM templates exchanged back and forth since then. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course, if the new activity is done well; but by and large, it hasn't been.  Besides the AFD pile-on voting mentioned above, I take particular issue with the candidate's CSD tagging.  A cross-section of examples that stood out to me: —Cryptic 02:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The G2 tags I mentioned in Q10 remain inexplicable, despite the candidate's answer; "The articles were a test by those creators to see if their article could pass the review process" is so broad it could apply to any article.
 * List of programs broadcast by Six Flags TV was tagged A7 (and it plainly isn't a subject A7 covers) and G5 (on the basis that the creator was globally locked after creating the article).
 * Draft:Judy Rushin was tagged G13 and deleted less than five months after DGG undeleted and copyedited it.
 * List of Minecraft Skin Packs was a stub for fifteen minutes before being improperly redirected to Minecraft, then tagged R3 the next day by the candidate. (No, we don't need a list of a subset of Minecraft mods, particularly not one without any entries yet; but it's never right to redirect something from a title that would be deleted at RFD, and R3 specifically excludes pages that ever had non-redirect content.)
 * Many, many old but good-faith userspace drafts tagged and largely deleted per U5, with a smaller number G6'd with rationales similar to "Stale and only edit by user". U5 reads "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals... with the exception of plausible drafts"; even without the explicit carve-out for drafts, if trying to write articles isn't closely related to Wikipedia's goals, I don't know what is.  Some of these were already well-developed enough and on apparently notable enough subjects that they wouldn't be deletable from mainspace short of an AFD - I noted down User:Dharma.Geekette/Dr. Jean Khalfa and User:Dfdvorak/Bloomington Symphony Orchestra (Indiana).  (And yes, the second is a copyvio; that doesn't invalidate my point, since neither the candidate nor the admin who deleted it noticed.)  User:Chgobios/bios from April shows this isn't an entirely new thing, and the candidate continued to mistag drafts even after Ritchie333 tried to give some guidance at User:Donaldb4/new article name here FORGOTTEN SCOTS and User:Dmaz99/Graduate-Professional Student Center at Yale (GPSCY).
 * The speedy deletion criteria are picky, but for good reason: they let users know what kinds of pages they can write without having some admin unilaterally delete them just because they're old and subjectively look like junk. (I note, with some irony given your mention of him in Q3, that Legacypac was outspoken in his desire for a speedy deletion criterion covering "old junk", with no more nuance than that.)  If you're going to volunteer yourself for something as general as "reducing the wikipedia backlogs" and "do[ing] anything I am asked to perform", you've got to show enough competence in the areas you're already doing that users can trust you'll do a good job in the areas you don't already have experience in.  I have no such confidence. —Cryptic 02:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose, moved from neutral after some consideration (I really hate being in the oppose column), largely per my concerns over the candidate's experience in deletion. I have based this on rationales provided by others in opposition, Cryptic and SportingFlyer's rationale in particular, and per the answers to questions 7. In particular, I am concerned that while the candidate has correctly mentioned that the outcome of XFD discussions is reached by weighing consensus, I felt that a combination of their answers to the RFA questions and examples provided by others determines that they have not demonstrated sufficient experience to make me confident they can weigh consensus in borderline cases, so I kept looking, in particular, for participation in requested moves discussions which I find also a good yardstick for one's ability to demonstrate experience. I found two discussions, where their rationale was per above and per nom. But this isn't a be-all and end-all, so I looked for other experience in closing borderline discussions (e.g. requested moves/RFCs) and have not found any (if I have missed some, I would not consider it badgering to reply to my oppose and point them out, so please feel free to do so). All in all, everything considered, I appreciate the candidate's experience in content contributions and the rationales of those in the support column, but with the candidate intending to work in XFD, I have seen sufficient evidence that gives me enough pause to end up in this column. I am very sorry.  Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  02:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am re-affirming my oppose after a review of the candidate's contributions, due to one specific AFD which has cemented my concerns I've highlighted above - Articles for deletion/Serious Truth. Admittedly, this AFD is from one year ago, but I am noting this for a few reasons and I came across this after further review of the candidate, as I wanted to find reason to support the candidate that I may have overlooked, but found this. I approached an administrator to ask for a copy of the deleted article as I couldn't review deleted content myself, for other non-administrators a copy of the article in question before deletion I've placed at this diff. In short, the article was an AFC that was approved by the candidate, and taken to AFD where the discussion was closed as delete. The candidate voted to keep the article as meeting notability criteria based on their AFC review, and it later appears to have became evident that the article creator was employed by the subject of the article, among other concerns such as notability. This of course may not be easily known by the candidate when they accepted the AFC, I'm just providing this for context.
 * However, I've then gone to look at the article that was nominated for deletion, which the candidate at the AFD originally asserted that It establishes notability with several good secondary references. This article is not a stub typical non notable BLP. It contains hard information that is referenced. I've had the opportunity to review the articles 13 references. 11 of them were either citing YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, SoundCloud or Discogs, none of which assert notability. The other two sources (a NY times article about a riot at a school where I actually don't see the subject mentioned by name, and a brief newspaper article about the other two founders of the record label receiving a prison sentence, which doesn't mention either the record label or the subject of the article). I feel that this is something that should have been picked up, if for some reason not at the AFC process, at their initial comment at AFD when it was nominated for deletion. All this considered reaffirm my concerns. I don't expect perfection of anyone and I am rarely if ever in this column (as I truly hate opposing), and I appreciate this specific example was one year ago, but unfortunately I am not seeing a substantial improvement in deletion debates sufficient to overcome examples I have raised and others have pointed out to express my opinion any other way. Again, I am very sorry and I would be very happy to support an RFA in six months once improvement in this specific area that the candidate has noted they wish to work in. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  07:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The pile-on !voting is too obvious: e.g. July 11 - ,,,,  - 5 !votes between 17:25-17:36 (~2.5 minutes for locating AfD in list + !voting). All in very obvious SNOW situations - and furthermore in the exact same order as in Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 5 (and given the rather wide topics here - unlikely to come from any other list... And it is quite telling that only the really easy SNOWy ones were !voted on). In Q15 I don't like "WP:SNOW can create a faster vote" (that's actually a situation one should be critical). The answer on relisting in Q16 is highly concerning, particularly given that their policy error was pointed out to them in the question. Most relists by non-admins are WP:BADNAC (see WP:RELISTBIAS) - the main exception to the rule being clear WP:NOQUORUM on an article with a failed PROD (and even in that case - it is more helpful to !vote as opposed to relisting). In regards to relisting, AA88 justified - relisting Articles for deletion/Tinsley Advertising however this is a clear WP:SOFTDELETE situation and their relisting, beyond RELISTBIAS, is counter deletion policy. In Articles for deletion/The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific, most of the keeps should've discounted, and is clearly WP:BADNAC#2 (the outcome is a close call). Articles for deletion/The Walt Disney Company Argentina should've been SOFTDELETE AFAICT (I don't see a PROD). Saying "the decision to relist was a challenge" on Articles for deletion/Gharghashti - indicates BADNAC#2. And these are not isolated - going through the AA88's relists paints a similar picture. Mishandling relists (damage limited to some wasting of time) - doesn't inspire confidence in closing tight AfDs. Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - As others below - I could see myself supporting a RFA2 in 6 months - a year - should AA88 get solid AfD experience under their belt a exhibits a good understanding of deletion policy.Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I recognise that it's unfair to base an oppose on one incident, so I want to be clear that's not what I am doing here. I fully agree with the wider concerns given above, but just want to add one additional issue from my own experience. This fairly recent AFD seems a poor nomination to me. The nomination states that the article 'fails WP:FILMMAKER', yet even at the time of the nomination the article stated that the subject had written Die Hard 2 and Bad Boys, therefore clearly meeting criteria #3 of that very guideline. The remainder of the nomination, commenting on the inactivity of the article creator and their history of deleted articles, is irrelevant to an AFD nom and actually kind of inappropriate since it amounts to a personal attack on the creator rather than an objective assessment of the article. <i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>syrup 09:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that the candidates frequent use of WP:ANYBIO in AFD discussions seems odd to me - both in the Doug Richardson AFD mentioned above as well as this one, this one and this one, to name what I suspect are just a few of many. To my mind simply saying 'Fails ANYBIO' is meaningless, and a lazy wave at policy without properly understanding it. ANYBIO is 'quick pass' guideline for individuals who are clearly notable, without reference to any other SNGs, and without even necessarily having a lot of RSs. Plenty of individuals would not meet any of these three very specific criteria, yet are clearly notable by other means. Essentially, as I see it, it's a test you can pass, but not 'fail'. <i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>syrup 11:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose sorry, but there's too many problematic issues. AfD concerns; content creation; maturity. Per Corbett and Icewhizz perhaps. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, rather regretfully. I think that puts the concerns succinctly. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - sorry but too many valid concerns raised. Brush up on stuff and come back soon! GiantSnowman 13:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Based on my findings that I asked the candidate in Q7. Good experience at AfDs is very important, especially for someone who plans to close AfD. I am a regular at AfD and I absolutely dont want admins who lack a strong grasp on their Notability criterions. It is quite obvious to me and I can see some other editors above have also found evidence based on time duration, that the candidate seems to be adding pile on votes to improve the AfD stats. As User:Pontificalibus has stated above This is indeed a case that I am worried about. I frequently see AfDs that are victims of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and counting heads would be disastrous there. User:MJL in his support vote above has stated that it is likely he was asked by someone to participate in Afds. Yes, possibly. But when someone asked him to get involved in AfD the intention I believe was to learn more about various notability policies and judgement of consensus. Based on the AfD log what I saw was blatant gaming of the system. It was almost as if he was doing a ritual that he was asked to do. AA should have shown better judgement that is expected from a responsible editor here. The username is not a reason to oppose for me but I wish he changes his username and uses a less promotional name. In a short period of time the candidate has done some good work. I would be glad to support this cadidates RfA2 after he gets more experience in AfDs. If this RfA succeeds, I would request AA to not close any AfD until he gets his AfD log vetted by another admin who is a regular at AfD. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per XfD-related problems. XfD is is an area of admin work where it is notably tedious and time-consuming for the community to undo wrong admin decisions and where wrong decisions often drive productive editors away. In my view, a candidate with such a contentious track at XfD as the nominee should not be given the tools. I will welcome a re-nomination in 6 months. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose as per Eric, Icewhizz and DBigXray - The relists IMHO are fine however their comments at AFDs as well as the commenting on snowy AFDs are concerning and as such I cannot support at this time. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those opposing over his username should be ignored in their entirety, I genuinely do find it disgraceful and depressing that people have opposed over something that really isn't worth opposing over, 88 are just numbers as far as I'm concerned. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, the day we start letting cryptofascists steal numbers from us is a very dark day. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We're living through very dark days indeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Inappropriate username.  I'm sure its origin is perfectly innocent in this particular case, but a person desiring advanced tools to interact with other users in a position of perceived authority on a global platform should be willing to change it.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify which part of the username you have an issue with? Iffy★Chat -- 16:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The same reason as has been already extensively discussed by others. Since I'm here anyway I will reiterate that the username is likely perfectly innocent, but what I look for in an admin candidate is one with the maturity to realize and seek to avoid potentially problematic usernames and not stick with them just because they 'sound cool'.  This is little different than User:Niggardly wanting to be an admin.  A perfectly innocent English word, a bad idea as a username.  20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already commented on this at the candidate's talk page, but honestly I am shocked to see a seasoned admin repeating this nonsense. Neo-nazis do not own 88, a number repeated daily by schoolkids across the globe in their 8-times-tables. The birth-year of a good number of Wikipedians I should imagine. Are current admins, , and also guilty of not being mature? What about , someone who's written dozens of articles on women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists? Should she change her username too in case someone thinks she's a nazi? Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I respect most of those in the oppose column here, even though I supported the candidate. But AmericanAir88 has already gone on record that the username has nothing to do with Nazism, so that should be the end of the matter. I don't think they should be bullied into changing it.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullying? It's utterly absurd to claim people registering their opinions are some form of bullying. And yes, they should consider changing their usernames too.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhhm, sorry to comment here, but I got tagged because I'm an administrator with "88". Your suggestion that everyone with the username "88" should change because of the association with neo-Nazis is outrageous.  The answer is education, not trying to avoid it like You-Know-Who.  88 was a legitimate number long before Nazis and will be long after Nazism.  The swastika is a symbol that dates back to 10,000 BCE and is used hundreds of temples and places of worship; would you seriously suggest that those temples destroy those symbols merely because the Nazis hijacked it?  (There are some instances where people have tried to destroy such symbols in temples, not realizing its history before Nazism).  I would consider this concerted attempt push this user to change his username handle merely because it offends some people (and is not on the face offensive) to be bullying. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When I see an "88" in a username, the first thing that comes to mind is fortune and good luck in traditional Chinese culture. In any case, banning symbols used by non-Western cultures that were later hijacked by the Nazis may be necessary in certain circumstances but it's ironic because the way non-Western people interpret the symbols is given less importance than the way the West interprets them. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 05:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose at this time. Two reasons: The answer to Question #10 is incorrect; that's not what a "test page" is; and also there are a lot further concerns about incorrect CSD tagging as detailed by Cryptic. Second reason: the nominee locates and removes a violation of the copyright policy, which of course is the correct thing to do. But he didn't request revision deletion (a pretty important step); and he didn't post on the user talk page that we don't accept copyright material (also an important step, as a lot of people are unaware of our copyright policy). Educating editors as to our expectations is a pretty important part of the job, and it didn't happen in this instance. Well, it did now, because I have done so. I can see myself supporting a future RFA once the nominee becomes better versed in our core policies. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to neutral Oppose too many concerns; mainly per Serial Number. The username complaint is silly and I have no concerns there. Lepricavark (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: the answer to Q7 concerns me. Although I often vote "why not?" at RfX, which is basically an implied "per nom", I don't see how saying "per nom" at all strengthens the rationale; it only adds another approving voice to the consensus, not new arguments. That counts for something if we have a real consensus, but we might have one based on policy-non-compliant arguments, or at worst simply an illusion of a consensus produced by sockpuppets. So moving to oppose per Steven Crossin, SportingFlyer, and DBigXray. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I will add as a comment that I find concerns about the number 88 in the candidate's username completely unwarranted. As there is obviously no advocacy going on, I consider the presence of "AmericanAir" in the candidate's username to be a non-issue as well. My oppose is purely based on AfD activity and answers, not the username. Double sharp (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too many doubts about knowledge op policies. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per deletion concerns. Beyond the AfD stat abuse documented by other opposes, the answers to deletion-related questions leave me unimpressed. In Q6, the candidate incorrectly says that CSD gives users a chance to contest or improve (the point of CSD is to delete as fast as possible in unambiguous cases, so non-admin input can occur but is not expected). Q7, a defense of "per nom" comments, is unimpressive: as they state at the start of the answer, AfD works by consensus, not by weight, so a "per nom" statement should not matter. Q10 shows a radical interpretation of what a "test page" is for CSD G2 (it is not nonsensical, but the candidate does not seem to realize it is way off how others practice it). Q11 is OK in isolation but adds to my concerns: it could have been answered by three letters ("G13") but the candidate goes on to list 8 criteria and adds a bizarre "fair jurisdiction" clause. I find the answer to Q13 hard to believe due to data from Icewhiz's oppose. The answer to Q16 is complete trainwreck (see Icewhiz's oppose) - in isolation, I could overlook it as a minor point or RfA pressure, but there are other points of data. On a more minor point, the answers given by the candidate have a very low signal-to-noise ratio. Judging by a cursory check of their non-template contribs in the User talk namespace, it seems to be a case of RfA spotlight affecting the candidate's behavior (the likely reasoning being that if you answer questions in the most indirect way possible you minimize the risk of angering someone). Still, I am not confident in their ability to communicate effectively around admin issues. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC) EDIT: for the record, I will note that I totally disagree with the reasons for some opposes. Username concerns are quite a stretch (barring further evidence than have been presented). As for the willingness to keep the nomination alive: a candidate who disagrees with the bulk of the opposes after having considered them should IMO remain in the race rather than withdraw; it is probably not good tactics but it is certainly a positive to my eyes.  Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 09:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * you say "non-admin input is not expected" in a CSD scenario, but the templates themselves generally feature large "Contest this deletion" buttons. I would have thought that allowing a right of reply (even though often it doesn't actually prevent the deletion) is a good reason for admins to CSD rather than delete directly. Having two pairs of eyes on the matter, the tagger and the deleter, in case it's an obvious misunderstanding is another reason. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "two pairs of eyes" argument, but that is not how I read what the candidate said. By CSD gives users a chance to contest or improve, I understand "user" to mean "non-admin users" or even "page creator"; in which case, it is true that such users can contest the deletion / improve the article before the hammer falls, but they have to intervene within a day or less, so clearly the process is not designed to allow that (unlike PROD, for instance). (You would not say a call to the fire department "gives a chance to homeowners to put out the fire themselves".) "Not expected" might have been unclear; I meant something along the lines of "could or could not happen but the process itself is not overly concerned with it". Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 08:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, you make a good point. In fact, I've often wondered to myself when carrying out a CSD, "has the creator had a chance to respond yet"? But if it's a clear and unambiguous candidate for deletion, I certainly don't let that stop me deleting,even if the tagging only happened minutes earlier. Either way, I would recommend to AA88 that they mug up on the CSD categories prior to a future RFA, and make sure the tags they're using are appropriate to the case, the G2 above being a case in point. Opposes on these grounds can be avoided with a little effort! Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's really no problem with promptly carrying out a CSD without worrying about whether the creator has had a chance to respond. Most CSDs are eligible for REFUND on request, and any that aren't (copyvios, BLP-vios, etc,) shouldn't be waiting to be deleted anyway. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Lots of valid concerns raised by those that have come before me, so I won't rehash them here. I'll instead just say that I don't feel the candidate is ready for the mop, at this time, although I appreciate their willingness to step up and put themselves out there for the community's critique and consideration. Striker force Talk 15:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose While I think the objections about the handle are frivolous and the nominee appears to have the temperament to be trusted with advanced tools, the answer to question 17 bothers me. As someone who is far more a donor than an editor, I donate money because I believe in the Content aspect of the Wiki movement. Conduct is, of course, very important in making Wikipedia work, but I cannot endorse any admin that doesn't place Content as the most important policy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose It's not just that they got Q10 so horribly wrong, it's the fact that, in something as widely viewed by nitpicking Wikipedians as RfA, they didn't even check WP:G2 to see if their answer was correct before posting it. If they had, they hopefully would've answered something like "At the time I thought that a test of whether or not an article would be deleted would qualify under G2, but now I see that it's only for tests of 'editing or other Wikipedia functions'". I would expect a Wikipedia administrator to be frequently double-checking themselves before implementing policies and guidelines, as policies and guidelines change and memories can fade. I also have some concerns about an administrator keeping a username that at least gives the appearance of a conflict of interest, but those are secondary and easily remedied. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Just to clarify here, I have no issue with the "88" portion of the username, it's the "AmericanAir" portion that gives the appearance of impropriety. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * 1) Regretful Oppose. While there are few specific requirements I have at RfA, one thing I really want is for a candidate to have a very good understanding of our deletion policies and criteria. Those who create content often put a lot of work into what they do, and seeing their creations deleted can be very disheartening. Admins owe it to content creators to have a very good reason for deleting their work, and that applies especially to CSD which has the least provision for contesting deletion of the lot (and with some of our trigger-happy deletionist admins, often no chance whatsoever). Unfortunately, AmericanAir88 just doesn't have a good enough understanding of CSD criteria (for example, the explanation of WP:G2 is completely wrong). Coupled with other deletion-related concerns (and other concerns) voiced by others, I must oppose this nomination at this time. I can see myself supporting in the not-too-distant future, but I'd want to see near perfect answers to deletion-related questions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just want to expand a little. Someone (I forget who, sorry) suggested that getting a CSD reason wrong doesn't really matter as long as the page is correctly identified as needing to be deleted, and I have sympathy with that view when we're talking of pages nominated by an inexperienced editor for an admin to check before deleting. But that depends on admins understanding the CSD criteria, and it would not be acceptable for an admin to delete things for the wrong reason. Thinking that G2 applies to "a test by those creators to see if their article could pass the review process" is an instant disqualification for adminship, even if it is a perfectly forgivable mistake for an inexperienced editor. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, regretfully. While the user does meet my content creation criteria, the issues brought up above dictate that I oppose this nomination as perhaps too soon. I would encourage AA88 to spend some more time here, brush up on policy, and try again in a year. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel constrained to add that while I still oppose the nomination, for the reasons I stated, those who are opposing based on the number 88 in his name, have, IMO, gone off of the deep end. don't let the asshats overly concerned about names get to you.  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, with regret. AmericanAir88, I think you have the temperament to be an admin, but I don't think you have the experience yet. I don't see any single red flag, but rather a series of sub-par decisions and answers, that collectively give the impression that you are checking boxes, rather than providing well-thought-out opinions. Similarly, your answers to questions have a lot of boilerplate. For instance, in your answer to question one, you express a wish to work at WP:AN, possibly the most difficult and toxic venue on the project, and where you haven't got the experience to work, which suggests to me that you are simply listing things from the backlog rather than asking where you have the expertise to be helpful. Your answer to question ten is somewhat literal-minded, and misses the point of CSD#G2. I have a similar concern with many of your contributions to AfD. To be clear, I don't expect perfection of admin candidates, and I don't oppose often. I expect admins to have the right attitude, and the ability to use the tools productively in one or more areas. Your attitude is fine, but I suspect that too many of your administrator actions would be disputed and lead to dramatics. My advice to you would be the following. Do more work with content. Keep working at AfD, but aim for quality rather than quantity; before bothering to !vote, ask yourself whether your comment is doing something more than just raising the numbers on one side. Do some thorough reading of the CSD criteria. And avoid the admin noticeboards. If you came back here in some months, I would expect to support. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Too many concerns over their knowledge of deletion policy. With more experience I’m sure I will be able to support a future RfA. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Concerns with limited knowledge of deletion policy.  -  F ASTILY   20:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose the nominee is to be thanked for their contributions and recognized for the guts that it takes to accept this nomination– and to read the comments coming in. However I cannot support a potential admin who says on their talk page (when it was suggested that they withdraw this RFA) I want to see myself as the lone Captain America who is standing up to the army of opposes. (diff). That can be read as admirable determination, or conversely as the wrong approach go about things here; I read it as the latter. This nomination is pretty much sunk, but I think it is important to quote that line as it strongly reflects the wrong approach to, or a lack of understanding of, the consenus processes that are at the root of Wikipedia work. The opposes are not here to attack you but rather to vet you. I do thank you for your edits and hope you will come back in a few years. Do not get discouraged. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm now kicking myself for not responding to this sooner, but I see that diff has been used my more than one user as justification for opposing. The most important bit in that diff was In my eyes, I want to see it through to show that I will not let the opposes ruin my motivation. No where does AA say this is an attack or that the opposes aren't even a bad thing. He picked a recent pop culture reference that wasn't the best of analogies. This process can be stressful for folks, so can we cut him a little slack? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the quote is poorly chosen. At the same time, this process is all about finding someone who is equipped to make good choices.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 95% of which is about the lack of grasp of policy, and riding on the coat tails of snow closes for AfD. The remaining 5% is that anyone who sees themselves as "the lone Captain America" does not show sufficient maturity, or grasp the fact that this is an encyclopaedia, not the fecking Avengers. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Was going to sit this one out, but the whole "the lone Captain America" comment doesn't sit well with me, considering that Wikipedia is a project built on community and consensus. One can't just say something like "I want to be an administrator, and I don't care what the community thinks about me" ... since that's the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works. Steel1943  (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't usually oppose, but after thinking about it for a while I've found that the rationales of the opponents are stronger than those of the supporters. That said, I wish AA88 the best of luck in his future endeavors and hope he gets more AfD experience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This is one case where it's hard to decide if you should or should not support, for me I just don't think your fit for admin because of how you delete things when you shouldn't have deleted them, I hope you can get more experience. TurboSonic (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Insufficient deletion policy knowledge which forms a core basis of admin knowledge. Also Q10 answer does not reflect a strong command of CSD. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - It's the total package: the appearance of a lack of maturity, the building up of AfD stats with pile-on comments, some holes in policy understanding apparent in the candidate's answers, and, yes, a little bit the username. Sorry if that seems petty to some people, but I really don't want an admin whose username is an "homage" to a commercial airline, and the fact that AA88 has not even thought to float the idea that they could simply change their name to avoid all potential problems just underlines what to me seems to be a lack of maturity and selflessness. I struggled with this, but, no, not at this time, anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He has thought of changing the name before and mentions in in the above linked diff . It's his identity, so why should we let Nazis steal it from him? They don't own the number. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MJL, please read people's comments before jumping in with both feet. BMK has referred to the airline in reference to the name. He made no mention of the Nazis. - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I took avoid all potential problems to be a reference to the number, but if that is not the case then the remaining portions of my response stand (which is to say: it's his identity on the project. Why take that away from him?). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Purely hypothetical question: there is an edit war or general conflict at United Airlines. Might AmericanAir88's username cause a conflict with WP:INVOLVED were they to step in, even if they had nothing to do with the conflict? (I know it's kind of a ridiculous question to pose, and just to be clear, I'm approaching this with levity/not really looking for a response/not holding it against AA at all, but that would be the concern with a corporateish-sounding username/one of the "potential problems.") SportingFlyer  T · C  07:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine that AA would be unfairly perceived as having a COI (which.. having watched his talk page for a while now is as often as you may think). I suppose the AA88 username would solve it, but I really don't like the idea of making users change their username if it's not a policy violation. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The candidate's unwillingness to withdraw their RfA in the face of the obvious imminent failure of their bid for adminship (see their talk page) simply reinforces my impression of a lack of maturity on their part. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, I feel that the willingness to stand and weather all of this unpleasantry shows both maturity and a determination to see things through to the end. I believe that it is commendable to get all of the feedback that he can get, not that there would be anything wrong in withdrawing. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose:  I don't doubt this editor's sincerity but it's obvious that the candidate has not yet achieved readiness for adminship.  If I had to predict when, I'd guess maybe in a year or two.  Aside:  I think AA88 (which is not in use) would be a great username, easily achieved with a changing username request.  – Athaenara  ✉  11:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -- The answers to the optional questions do not give me a good impression. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose based on the answers to the questions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 20:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) The candidate's recent and ongoing exchanges at this FAC highlight an indignant, immature editing attitude. An admin must always be receptive to criticism and be prepared to entertain opposing viewpoints in good-faith. Unfortunately, I see considerable evidence that the candidate does not currently display these traits in the course of their daily editing. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind sharing a diff or two? I'm curious as to what specific interactions you are referring to there. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you curious? Why have you edited this page about 27,000 times? Just drop the stick, already. There are any number of examples on that FAC that support Julian's comments. I get the impression that the candidate thought the FAC reviewers were his servants, pinging them incessantly and then saying things like comments like: "The users have not responded to my further three pings." --Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mkativerata has said it better than I could have regarding the FAC behavior. I don't mind answering questions about my vote and patching holes in my rationale where identified, but the FAC in question is a very brief read – either you agree with my assessment or you don't. Asking for diffs here strikes me as an unwelcome charade. Nonetheless: the user is demanding (per above, repetitive pings to make the same point; to opposers, "Please address Homeostatis's support comment") and overly self-assured in the face of constructive criticism ("[I] did several sweeps of the article myself"; "I cannot tell you if this is enough to violate 1a" in response to a 1a oppose; "Deep Space Homer is well crafted will a great amount of information for readers"). The user's characterization of RfA opposers are a partisan "army" convinced me that the FAC is not merely an unfortunately string of awkward retorts, but representative of conduct incompatible with adminship. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you go: striking reviewer comments and regarding a review article as "unreliable". Review articles are secondary sources and are more reliable than research articles. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-<i style="color:turquoise">)¯\_(ツ)_/¯)</i> 22:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Thank you for the response. I genuinely was curious because I never gone through a FAC before. I really didn't have an ulterior motive beyond wanting to ask. I'm personally trying to get involved in the good article/featured article space, but I never had a frame of reference as to what to expect (as it relates to that specific FAC). My apologies if this seemed like badgering you or caused you trouble in any way. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I was name-checked here and was an involved party to this particular FAC (I'm a frequent FAC contributor), I'd like to point out that it's not unusual or uncivil in the slightest for a nominator to strike out criticism they feel has been resolved. I've seen FAC coordinators do it all the time. Some of them even go so far as to remove ("archive") massive portions of the review to the FAC's talk page when they consider those criticisms no longer relevant/appropriate. And pinging non-responsive users (yes, even the coordinators) is encouraged. In fact, the template encourages you to go even further than that—to leave messages on their talk pages. And I concurred that the "secondary sources" not included in the article weren't worthy of inclusion—they consisted of nothing more than minimal – even trivial – mentions of the FAC subject, so disputing the efficacy of including those sources was very much merited. Homeostasis07 (talk · contributions) 02:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Juliancolton. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  00:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per XfD issues brought up in other oppose votes. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 01:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per lack of answer to Q28, the newness of the candidate, and the name issue. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen the answer to Q28 and it doesn't assuage my concerns. Specifically the statement that "events should be well covered" seems to ignore the possibility that sometimes the best thing Wikipedia can say about an event, especially crimes where lasting significance of the crime has not been established, is nothing at all. Some events should not be well covered. They aren't relevant to an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -- The lack of answers to some of the questions after a few days of a dental procedure shows the candidate is not serious. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, what?  Is this serious?  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're on the verge of WP:BLUDGEONing the oppose !votes. I believe this is the second time it's been pointed out to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondish time, yeah. The first time was a misunderstanding which I apologized for above. I've loosely tallied the different rationales for opposing as well as my responses. There have been about 30 opposes based of Deletion policy and AFD contributions (it's probably should be consider two separate concerns, but no mater), 5 on temperament, 2 on lack of answering questions, and a few others. I've tried to keep times I've responded to an oppose roughly once for each general point. If you'll also notice, more often than not the flow of my replies either ends with (A) me conceding a point or (B) the other editor having the last word.
 * , I have to agree with . Xtools has you at 14KB of comments added to this page. I think everyone gets the point that you support the candidate. Maybe enough said?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have an admin who's qualified to be an admin. Please stop commenting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , for the benefit of future RfA candidates, how many days after being under general anesthesia do candidates have to answer their 25th and 28th questions, before it shows that they're not serious? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for now. I'm not terribly comfortable with the CSD answers above, but in 6 months, if AA88 demonstrates a better understanding of deletion policy, I can easily see myself supporting. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  20:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for the reasons stated by others, concerning deletions. Jmbranum (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose based especially on deletion. I had been aware of the candidate at AfD for a few months, and intended to urge them to give more substantial opinions there.  (I do not think the candidate made a special push to get obvious  AfDs just before coming here--they've been doing it all along. ) It is not being right that matters--anyone can be close  to 100% right if they comment only on the obvious, but such opinions do not held AfD decisions, and it's  helpful to supplement not repeat the arguments of other editors. The criterion for consensus is the strength of arguments, and saying something several times does not make it true. . The criterion for becoming an admin and making admin closes at AfD is knowing what arguments are substantial, not just saying the article does or does not meet policy, but showing why.  Someone is ready to become an admin (at least, ready with respect to this particular admin function) when they can give full correct explanations of the reason for making a particular decision. The non-admin closes add to this problem, as some of them really should have been left to an admin--I tend to regard over-eagerness to make non-admin closes as a worrisome sign. The CSDs mentioned would only sometimes be proper single-handed closes--some of then sound too much like closing in annoyance at the contributor, and especially in such cases it helps to have a second admin involved to decrease the likelihood of foolish protests. The relists were perhaps some of them unnecessary, but I do not regard this as a necessarily bad sign, as relisting is a safe option. The best course forward would be to engage substantially and in detail in some actually contentious decisions where the right choice can be difficult. Those are the AfDs that show knowledge, and those are the AfDs where we need additional voices. There are some other signs of over-confidence in other respects also, and again, I think a greater attention to difficult real problems will help.  DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Based on the candidate's record at FAC. Asking several reviewers when will their FAC be promoted (coordinators, not reviewers, decide if, and when to promote), telling opposers to refer to support comments and excessively pining reviewers shows immaturity and impatience. They have been there three times and they still don't know that they are not supposed to strike out reviewer's comments and what are RS. When a reviewer suggested to include a review article, they dismissed it as unreliable because it was "just a review". All this shows that they either don't take others serious or are slow to learn. Either trait is not good for an admin. Keeping that it mind, it seems unlikely that their attitude towards AFDs will change. Similar to their refusal to withdraw this RfA despite there being several suggestions to do so, all of their FACs have been closed unsuccessful because the candidate would just dismiss the reviewers' suggestions to withdraw on the grounds that they wanted to get "wider input from reviewers". This kind of resistance is good in war but not in encyclopedia building. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-<i style="color:turquoise">)¯\_(ツ)_/¯)</i> 20:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, with moral support for re-nomination in about 9 months or so. There are too many minus epsilons here that add up to a minus delta. The most substantive issues concern AfD and CSD concerns, as articulated above by DGG, Cryptic, Steven Grossin, Boing! said Zebedee, and others. I do see evidence of pile-on AfD !voting in June-July, most of which looks fairly perfunctory. As DGG says, short perfunctory XfD !votes are not particularly helpful or illuminating. It would be good to see the candidate once in a while do an in-depth analysis of sources and policies in an XfD comment, and maybe even a some examples where he added some sources and helped to improve an AfD article to save it from deletion. Juliancolton's oppose above (and the Captain America thing) also raises valid concerns about the candidate's temperament and perhaps being a bit too partisan and combative in his approach to various discussions. It's not supposed to be mainly about "winning" a particular argument, but about also learning, listening achieving consensus and improving the outcome. As explained in my initial comments in the Neutral section below, I am also still bothered by the somewhat promotional nature of the candidate's username. There is a difference between having a COI and having a promotional handle. Setting the "88" issue aside (where I must admit I don't have a clear opinion), when I see a username like "AmericanAir88" or "UnitedAir530", to me it has a whiff of product placement, or branding and looks like a handle that a customer service representative for that company might have. It just pokes me in the eye a bit every time I see it, and it presents more of a problem since the candidate does edit articles about American Airlines. Overall, this RfA feels like a "not yet" case. Nsk92 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Some of what I saw this week, together with the answer about G2, gives me concern there is a pattern of the candidate thinking he understands policy without understanding it. The candidate uploaded the copyrighted image discussed here with the rationale that it is a 2D image of a 3D artwork. When the file was nominated for deletion, his comment was, "I uploaded this as a result of a requested image request on the talk page. Here is the Diff." I think this comment reveals a lack of maturity and of taking ownership of one's actions. Additionally, the poor CSD tagging is very concerning. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 00:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose The concerns noted above by other editors about AfD and CSD actions concern me greatly. So too does the candidate's answer to Question 27, about his deletion philosophy. His first statement, "Deletion is to ensure that Wikipedia is full of articles that are top quality", is certainly not my understanding of Wikipedia's deletion and retention policies. Wikipedia has many, many stub and start class articles, which are not "top quality", but per WP:ARTN, because the subjects of those articles are notable, they are kept, to provide basic information on topics which Wikipedia considers "worthy of notice". Conversely, there are reasonably good articles about subjects which do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and they are deleted (articles about local mayors come to mind, many of which I've seen at AfD). The candidate does go on to say "Deletion allows for users to decide on a consensus to delete an article that violates Wikipedia's notability guide", and mentions other issues related to deletion, but the first statement seems to me a profound misunderstanding of WP:DP (and I note that WP:DEL-REASON has a note right under the header, "See also: Wikipedia:Notability § Article content does not determine notability.") RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak oppose I was going to support at first, as they are a good editor, but this comment on their talk page made me change my mind. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per ADF flood and lack of understanding. Concerns about his username are pretty stupid IMO. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Oppose – While I feel that AmericanAir88 has the necessary experience and expertise to be an admin, I feel that some of their recent behavior, particularly the concerns raised on AfDs and FAC reviews indicate that they do not yet have the level of maturity that admins should have. I would suggest that they shore up the deletion policy and address their current behavioral concerns before pursuing adminship. That being said, I have no problem with supporting them in a future RfA, once the highlighted issues have been ironed out. Concerning other "oppose" comments on the username - are you kidding me? I see no issues with the username at all.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Admins should not have "88" in their username. While some cultures regard 8 as a sign of good luck, it's important to be inclusive of everyone and avoid things that are offensive to a large number of people and could scare new editors away. It's not really a huge burden to change a username, so why not take the time to do it as a courtesy to potential new users who aren't aware of Wikipedia's culture/people? – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 21:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak oppose – AmericanAir88 is clearly a good-faith, constructive editor who might make a good administrator someday. I just think they need a bit more experience first. Taking the time to develop a better grasp of the various deletion processes and their myriad nuances, getting accustomed to some of Wikipedia's communal norms (e.g. not crossing out other people's comments at their behest, like in the Simpsons FAC), and just getting more of a feel for administrative work will do wonders for next time. Good luck. :) Kurtis (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, the username does not bother me in the slightest. I don't think the average person sees the number "88" and thinks "neo-Nazism", and "AmericanAir" is similarly ambiguous enough to be inoffensive. Kurtis (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember that everyone's experience is different. I'm not saying everyone will be as instantly repulsed by 88 as I am, but Wikipedia is already short on minority (in the US sense) editors. The cost of avoiding this political landmine is small: just a username change. The candidate has even stated that the number has no special meaning. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but I still don't think that 88 is even close to the "landmine" you say it is. If it was a username like "Neobiker88" or "HayleH88", then we'd be having a conversation. But since the username is decidedly not related to neo-Nazism, 88 becomes just a regular number. Kurtis (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: regretfully. Too many valid concerns raised. For the record, I don't think the number is of any concern, I am surprised that that's even a thing (we ought not to let nazis get away with co-opting such generic things with infinite legitimate uses so easily, I still haven't gotten entirely over even Swastikas). AmericanAir though, I can see how that would concern some of us. Usedtobecool  ✉ ✨ 07:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Concerns about maturity, the AfD stuff, slightly niggled about the username (both the "AA" bit and the "88" bit) plus concerns about judgement after letting this RfA drag on for so long without withdrawing. Sorry. — sparklism hey! 07:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Mainly due to temperament concerns highlighted on the FAC review page noted above. FWIW, I think the whole concern about "88" in their username is pretty ridiculous. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose based on the interactions about this RfA on the candidate’s talkpage. Nothing there suggests the kind of maturity and judgement we need in admins. I have no concerns at all about their username. I hope this candidate will try again in a while when they are better prepared. Mccapra (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose due to some concerns related to policy understanding as well as activity patterns at AfD. ST47 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose  Cassianto Talk  19:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. WP:NOTNOW based on weaknesses in deletion policy & content creation. The candidate is transparent (accountable) and communicates well. p.s. Tip for the candidate: I've also receive bias based on my username, little do they know, I never selected it for Wikipedia, it was a username I created for counter-commenting on Yahoo News articles, when I came to WP I was not interested to join but wanted to ask a Q and make one edit, I mistakely thought at that time a username was required, I didn't want to expend effort inventing one, it was only temporary to ask my Q and make one edit, the easiest was just to use a name I'd already just created for Yahoo posts. So it might help a little in face of the bias to do what I did, change preferences so signature produces abbreviated name (for me IHTS; for you AA88). Good luck. --IHTS (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 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)
 * Waiting for the candidate to answer questions.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Moved to oppose-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC) moved from position #1 to avoid bot reading error. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  Help resolve disputes!  09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Moving to oppose.  Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  02:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) 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)
 * - 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  Help resolve disputes!  13:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nosebagbear and User:Steven Crossin have already said what I was about to say.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  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)
 * Neutral for me then - I'm somewhat concerned by their AfD performance, but when coupled with the CSD issues identified in the opposes I'm concerned about an admin candidate with insufficient experience in their mop-desired areas - I think given time they'd be a good admin, but the months while they picked up the experience I fear a degree of collateral damage. I'd like to clarify that I'm fine with their name (I feel requirements to change it are cruel and harsh) and overall experience/editing levels, and obviously their content is great. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * (Moved to oppose) 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * 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? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, moved from Oppose, moved from Neutral (see oppose no. 6 and related discussion on talk page. Squeeps10 00:24, 5 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)
 * Neutral . Now to Oppose. Moved from Support, based on the reasoning of several of the opposes. 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!   01:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, moved from support, per Cryptic, as misuse of speedy criteria has long been a pet peeve of mine, and having read Cryptic's oppose the answer to Q6 makes me a bit uneasy. I originally interpreted this as merely being extra-careful, which I respect, but I now wonder whether it amounts to fundamental lack of understanding of the CSD policy. Anything that meets the CSD can be deleted without being "nominated" - that's the whole point of the CSD. I hope that if this passes the user will carefully read WP:CSD before jumping into work there. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * CSDs can be deleted without being nominated, but it is generally regarded as almost always poor practice. All admins who are active in deletion make errors, myself included. I hope I'm slightly more careful, with somewhat more experience than the average, but I make about 2% errors, and I do not think any reasonable amount of care compatible with handling the workload could reduce it below 1%. that may sound low, but out of my 40,000 deletions, it would 800. errors--but since a 2nd ed. has nominated them first, it's only 16--and that's the level we should be aiming at. There has been 11 million deletions total in all of WP--if half are articles, doing it single-handed would have been 100,000 lost articles  DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per SportingFlyer's oppose. I think that AA88 could likely do a good deal of admin work quite well, but if given the tools they should avoid closing any AfDs where the votes are close. I also wasn't thrilled with their answer to Q20: it's easy to say that one will be neutral ahead of time, but the better decision is to just not intervene with the article. signed,Rosguill talk 07:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral (moved from oppose) I still share many of the legitimate concerns voiced above, but I don't want my !vote associated with those who are making an issue out of the candidate's username. Lepricavark (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a bit silly? People support and oppose for all sorts of reasons, many of which - especially opposes - are contradictory.  Is it your reading that every oppose !vote agrees with every other oppose !vote, even those that say, specifically, "I don't agree with X", or those that write that their !vote is "per Y", which presumably means "Not per Z"?Right at this moment, this is not a particularly close RfA, so your putting yourself here doesn't really make much of a difference, but if it was close, would you still stand on principle and park yourself in Neutral even if it meant that the candidate has a better chance of being promoted with you here instead of in the Oppose category? You can certainly do whatever you wish with your !vote, but I just don't see the sense or logic in your decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are reading far too much into my comments. No, I don't expect every oppose !vote to agree with every other oppose !vote. This is not an ordinary situation. Here we have a few editors (apparently not including you) acting as though we should abandon a number to white supremacists. Such an opinion is not enlightened or woke or reasonable or anything of the sort; rather, it is absurd, outrageous, and worthy of ridicule. It's one thing to personally avoid the number (although still silly), but it's very problematic to demand that other people adopt the same fringe position. I am not comfortable remaining in the oppose section under such circumstances. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, I'm not aware enough of their editing to make a determination. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral further voting does not seem particularly constructive at this point, and I'm undecided in any event. However I do want to mention that I don't think the Lone Captain America comment was a good idea. Complaints over the name aside, there are a number of legitimate opposes. Indirectly implying that everyone who disagrees with your credentials is part of some evil fantasy movie army, or more realistically someone who is irrevocably wrong, that you must stand alone against is not exactly someone I want to see resolving conflicts at the various noticeboards. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral support but the XfD participation does concern me. I've on the fence for a while, so I'll put this down here. With 4-5 more months with good XfD participation and it will be an easy support, but I am concerned that they will make the correct decisions in XfDs.  J947 's public account 21:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can't see enough to vote either way, so I guess I end up here. I hope to see AA88 back again after fixing some of the items listed above. Not bothered by the username in the least, in fact, I like it. Glennfcowan (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC) moved to support.
 * 1) Neutral I don't want to pile on at this point, but I find it concerning that the reason the candidate has not withdrawn is due to that (and this is repeated many times on their user-talk) they want to show that they always stand their ground and never back down. Having the courage of one's convictions is one thing, but admins are not perfect nor always right, and having an admin that will not back down in the face of emerging community consensus seems like it will lead to serious issues down the road. <b style="color: black;">Crow</b><i style="color: black">Caw</i> 14:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In point of fact, that attitude indicates why they should not be an admin. An admin should -- ideally -- not dig in and be unwilling to change their minds in the face of changing facts. No one expects them to be perfect, but we do expect them to try to meet that ideal. AA88's attitude is what leads to molehill disputes becoming disruptive mountains, which is not something we need in an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now where would anyone get the idea that what editors want in an admin is someone who won't back down? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at the list of RFAs by year, the last time an RFA was closed as "unsuccessful" was 16 Oct 2017. There were, however, six RFA candidates who had the good sense to withdraw. This candidate lacks the good sense to know when to back down gracefully, which only convinces me more that they are not a good choice for admin.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. It's obvious that this RfA will not succeed, so I'll just offer a friendly suggestion to learn from the feedback here and to keep on editing, and maybe try this again after more experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral (Moving from oppose). Although I still have concerns regarding the policy angle, AA88 has may, in future, turn out to be a good admin. I'll add my voice to the suggestion that he withdraws for now and comes back a little later. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - While many of the opposers raise valid points, I won't vote alongside people opposing AA88 for the apparent crime of being 31. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the second time I've heard support or neutral people bringing up the age of AA88 as an oppose reason, but I can't see anything to do with the number 31 in the oppose section. What exactly are you referring to?Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with this question; the only time 31 is mentioned on this page is in timestamps and as a reference marker. Nothing to do with age, though, at all. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My guess is that Johnbod and RE are positing that the 88 in the user's name represents their birth year. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I was. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ^^^Holmesian :)  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not one of the rationales they provided (aliteration, liking the number, dead man's hand). Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be one more piece of data for someone to try to dox him. A question worded differently, like "Is the 88 in your username in reference to 'Heil Hitler'?" might have been better (though I do not fault the folks that asked the question since their first thought was HH and mine was a birth year). I initially thought the questions were trying to guess his birth year, before someone mentioned that the number is related to neo Nazis.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Good day to change your name, just a little. cygnis insignis 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral with leanings towards support. If the candidate didn't directly state that AfD would be an area of focus I'd be in the support column.  Has the right temperament.  Highly productive editor.  He'd be fine blocking vandals.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 19:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral but offering moral support in the hopes that you will take the conversation to heart, step up your editing, and return here in six months to a year for another try. Sorry that this has been a tough experience for you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral  Mainly because too many of the few BLP edits do naught. Convincible either way. Collect (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I have some concern that the candidate's experience with difficult inter-personal conflict is limited, and they might end up getting out of their depth in some situations. Their answers to some of the questions employ bland generalisations that don't convey much of particular meaning, and I find their answer to my question 20 disappointing. However I am here in 'neutral' because the candidate seems sincere and open in their communications, and seems to wish to always do the right thing by policy. The opposes based on the use of the number 88 are unfair, and I have no problem with the candidate wanting to keep the RfA open to the end, nor with their comment about Captain America. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral I was close to support but there are some concerns raised that AmericanAir88 can and should reflect on, well done for answering all the questions and for staying the course, thanks for your contributions, try again in six months. - moving to support.Govindaharihari (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral As I waited for AmericanAir88 to answer my question, I was leaning oppose due to many valid concerns listed in the oppose section. The answers that they have given to the questions are fine, but for the most part are far too general and just a summary of the policy statement. AA seems to be worrying so much about not answering incorrectly that they aren't really answering them at all. I was very much hoping for some introspection on a number of the questions, and while the answers aren't wrong, I didn't get a lot of feel for how they would actually apply the policies in practice. I give the candidate a lot of credit for sticking this out; while I understand that many have advised them to withdraw, I'm impressed that they have not only stayed active and involved, they have fulfilled their promise of ensuring every question was answered and maintained positivity and poise in the process. It wasn't quite enough to move me to Support (not that that would have made the difference), but I will be very likely to support the next time around. I am confident with some additional experience, AA will be an excellent admin.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:27, 11 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, 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)
 * and I have never edited for pay. I do Wikipedia 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. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>)  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)

I know I may be bias because I'm firmly in the support column, but gosh dang those are some good answers to the questions asked! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, pet peeve patrol: "I may be bias ed ".Sorry to be a pedantic curmudgeon, it's just my nature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to thank for their continued commitment to answering questions because there have been a lot of them. Regardless of how this closes they've shown themselves to be an asset to this community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest to snow close this RFA. It's not likely that this RFA will succeed. <u style="color:#087643;font-face:arial;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Masum Reza <sup style="color:orange;">📞 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be a SNOW case, as the outcome was not (and is not) immediately obvious. While it may be an uphill battle at this point, 56% support means that this RfA still has a small possibility of at least reaching the discretionary zone. ComplexRational (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a long way from warranting a SNOW close - it'd be like closing an AfD as snow when 1/3 of the !votes are Keep. RfAs are only snow closed when it's 90%+ oppose. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm late coming to this ~ apologies ~ but as i'm reading through i notice that in Q12,, you were asked about edit summaries and a rather lowish usage of them; may i suggest that you set the preference that reminds you if you do not provide one? Communication within the community is so important, i find the setting a useful reminder. (If someone mentioned this in a section i haven't reached yet, i'm sorry for the repetition.) Happy days, LindsayHello 20:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the commentary about the 88 aspect of the candidate's name, and as one of the original commentators, I would point out that there was no suggestion that the candidate held any views of a fascist/nazi nature. A lot of peoples concerns was whether it may be a red flag for those (such as me) with that awareness, which might hinder interactions when a sysop. It is because of the candidates apparent inability to consider that sensitive aspect that is perhaps the reason for opposes (or neutral in my case). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2019 (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.