Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Airplaneman 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Airplaneman

Final (125/3/1); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 12:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Airplaneman (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, I truly am honoured and humbled to have the opportunity to present to you Airplaneman's second request for adminship. His first was nearly 6 months ago, when I myself felt compelled to oppose. Since then, particularly since I got my own mop, I've kept half an eye on Airplaneman and he's occasionally sought my advice. Since the days of his last RfA, Airplaneman has come on leaps and bounds, both in terms of his experience and in terms of his maturity.

Airplaneman primarily makes "small" edits– wikignoming, vandal whacking etc– and has accumulated around 28,000 edits, but he also does a tremendous amount to help out new editors, having got involved with the adopt-a-user scheme and has adopted 5 inexperienced editors to date. Having said that, he has also contributed to several good articles, including Mac Pro and MacBook Pro as well as creating a few modest articles and reviewing several (17 at the time of writing) GA nominees, which he's documented here. In the course of these reviews, and in his editing and guidance of less experienced editors in general, Airplaneman has shown himself to be reasonable, mature, and knowledgeable of relevant policies and guidelines, be it core policies such as NPOV or verifiability or the dull points of the MoS.

As was very much established in his last RfA, Airplaneman is highly unlikely to do anything stupid with the mop (or, I suppose, wings would be more appropriate!) such as blocking Jimbo. I think the last RfA also established that he's also sensible enough that, should he work out how to delete the Main Page, he won't put his knowledge to use (except, perhaps, to share it with his nominator). Humour aside, the risk of abuse of the tools is non-existent and he is sensible enough to know not to go blindly mashing buttons in areas he's unfamiliar with, making the risk of negligent use minimal. Thus, I'm extremely pleased to be his nominator and I hope the community determines that, if Airplaneman is given his wings, he will fly through the backlogs and not crash-land at ArbCom! I commend this statement to the house. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Co-nomination

Airplaneman is one of those editors I think of as a sort of "Renaissance man". Jack of all trades, master of none all, too. He's a highly active user, with nearly 29,000 edits in all. Over 11,000 of those are to the mainspace, which shows a true dedication to content work. He has done both WikiGnomish edits as well as quite a few GA reviews, as HJ mentioned above. He also has about 3,700 article talk edits, and has consistently demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with others on improving our articles. He also has about 2,000 deleted edits, and has experience in patrolling new pages. I couldn't find any worrying speedy taggings (many of which were G6, but also included a few A7 and G12) in his most recent 100 deleted edits.

In addition, Airplaneman has made over 2,000 edits to projectspace and projecttalkspace, indicating a willingness to be involved in the project's administration, discussions, and other various "behind-the-scenes" areas. He is especially involved in WikiProject Apple Inc. and the Percy Jackson task force of WikiProject Novels and has worked to bring up four articles to GA status within these projects' scopes. However, that does not mean he limits himself to one or two narrow topics.

Of course, edit count is not everything, and I definitely encourage all users unfamiliar with his work to examine a couple hundred of his most recent contribs.

In addition, I have seen Airplaneman's involvement at XfD recently, when I closed a few older nominations, mainly in TfD. I can certainly say, TfD (and several other XfD processes) will greatly benefit from an extra admin familiar with the area. While admittedly less active in some areas (such as file work, as he notes below, and the all-important portal namespace ;P), Airplaneman doesn't plan to use the mop much in those areas, and I know he is able to quickly catch on if needed to assist with a particular backlog.

In short, Airplaneman is an experienced, trusted, and respected user with very diverse edits and a solid knowledge of policy. He has massively improved from his previous RfA. So, why not, for a net positive. —fetch·comms 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind words. I accept. Airplaneman ✈ 12:21, 18 August 2010 (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: I plan to frequent CAT:CSD, WP:RPP, and xFD discussions (namely WP:TFD), areas where I already contribute to on a regular basis. Through new page patrolling, I have requested that some articles be deleted per the criteria for speedy deletion, so instead of adding to the backlog, I would like to help reduce it. The same goes for RPP. Although I only occasionally participate in AFDs and do not plan on focusing on this area, the main XFD area I would like to help out in is TFD, which is currently listed on the administrative backlog. Additionally, I plan to grant user rights at WP:PERM and monitor the administrative backlog, which I will try to help clear. After I am more comfortable with the tools, I will consider branching out into areas I have less experience in, such as WP:UAA and file work.

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

A: I value each and every one of my edits, all of which (well, maybe excluding those to my userpage ) I have made in an attempt to help improve this encyclopedia. If I had to pick a few, though, I would consider my contributions to the article MacBook Pro, which I successfully brought to GA status, the highlight of my content additions. Revamping and expanding that article really helped me better appreciate the hard work that other editors put into writing the world's largest encyclopedia, whether it be a newbie creating their first page or an established editor pumping out recognized content. I twice unsuccessfully nominated the article for GA status, succeeding on my third try. The GA process introduced me to many policies and guidelines I had been unaware of before. This has helped me become a better GA reviewer and editor in general.

Helping new users has also been a generally fulfilling task for me. It makes me happy to see new people come here to volunteer their time here, and the least I can do is give a few pointers to help them get started. I also believe some of my best contributions have been to reviewing Good Article nominations. It is fun collaborating with others to produce some of the encyclopedia's best content. Last but not least, I see my revival of WikiProject Apple Inc., with the help of others, namely mono, as an important step in facilitating the collaboration and improvement of articles related to Apple. Inc.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have not been in any conflicts that have caused me considerable stress, although I can recall one memorable disagreement last summer. I was involved in a dispute (I think it was my first content dispute) over section headings for the MacBook Pro article. The discussions can be found at User talk:Airplaneman/Archive 1#MBP and Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 4#Model Headings. I tried to keep a level head and look at both sides of the situation while avoiding heating up the discussion as much as possible and still being able to prove my point. A third opinion was sought, and the matter was resolved peacefully. I handle disagreements by trying to stay calm and seeing the other person's point of view. If it begins to get heated, I will simply walk away from the computer, do something else, and come back later when I've cleared my head. This is just an online encyclopedia, and I do not feel that it is worth it to get stressed or generally unhappy over things that, in the long run, don't amount to much in your real life. Fortunately, I do not recall ever having to do this.

Additional optional question from Gimmetoo

4. You find a non-admin account with a username similar to an admin account, with a note on its user page saying it is an alternate of the admin account. After some searching, you don't find any edits from the admin account to the non-admin account that would confirm the non-admin account as an alternate. The admin account has not edited in months. Do you block the non-admin account as a potential imposter until it is confirmed by the admin account? Explain why or why not with reference to any policies you think relevant. If not, state what you would do.

A: No, I would not block the "impostor" account on the grounds of assuming good faith. First, I would ask the non-admin to log in with their admin account to confirm the relationship between the two usernames. Also, I would compare the editing styles of the two accounts, and see if they are similar. Since it is extremely hard to exactly mimic another user's contribution and writing/communication style, (for instance, I am prone to using ellipses and smiley faces way too often and utilize parentheses on a regular basis) if I find evidence of similar editing habits, I will continue to AGF. It is also difficult to change your editing habits, so if the non-admin account is suspiciously similar to a banned sock, I would first contact the non-admin and admin accounts privately via email and try to work out the issue. If the result of those discussions is inconclusive (at best), I would open an SPI case. If the non-admin account is editing just like the admin account, however, I would continue to (politely) urge them to confirm the relationship between the admin and non-admin accounts ASAP so current and future confusion can be avoided. In conclusion, as long as the non-admin account is not being disruptive and continues to make useful contributions, I do not think a block is warranted, although I will keep tabs on the account's contributions and maybe mention confirming the account via the admin account a few more times. If there are any signs of disruption that warrant a block, however, I will take necessary action just like I would on any disruptive user.

Additional optional question from Doc Quintana

5. What is your interpretation of IAR?

A: The IAR policy simply says that, if following a policy or guideline (hereinafter "rules") prevents one from improving or otherwise maintaining the encyclopedia, it may be ignored. In other words, it says "use common sense"; I agree with that. Most (but not all) common-sense actions are backed by rules here, and IAR fills in any missing links. I cannot recall specifically citing IAR in any of my decisions here (I'm sure I have once or twice; I just can't remember), but I'm sure it'll crop up when I'm mopping. IAR certainly doesn't mean "ignore all rules whenever you feel like it". Rather, as I said earlier, the IAR policy calls on discretion and common sense when ignoring rules to improve the encyclopedia, which brings up the inevitable question: does the action actually improve the encyclopedia? That needs to be discussed, and that's what talk pages and other discussion boards are for.

Additional optional question from Groomtech

6. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: No, I would most certainly not "issue orders". Admins aren't dictators, the police, or your parents; they're just editors with a few extra buttons and should not think that they are more important or have the ability to "order" other users around. So no, I do not see "issuing orders" independently as part of the admin role. However, admins may find themselves enforcing bans reached through community consensus because they have the capability to block. I cannot unilaterally ban a user from a page or topic, but if they are disrupting the page or topic in question, I will ask them to stop editing or refrain from disrupting the article(s) in question. If multiple good-faith attempts to stop the user from disrupting have not worked (including dispute resolution, request for comment and discussion with the user on their talk page or the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question), I would consider proposing a ban of appropriate proportions.

Additional optional question from Airplaneman

7. So, what's changed since the last RfA?

A: In my closing statement of my first RFA, I made clear I would address (or at least attempt at addressing) the issues raised by the opposers before a rerun. In hindsight, I am actually glad that my first RFA happened but did not pass, as the suggestions given by all who participated have helped me become a better editor, and the questions have prompted me to brush up on my general knowledge of policies. I have continued my participation in XFD, and made sure my talk page posts haven't gone on extreme tangents. Nevertheless, I did this not so I could shape myself into the "ideal candidate", but simply because I wanted to improve. What has also helped is just that I've been here longer. I've seen more, done more, and therefore, I have learned more.

I filed an editor review in early July. I explicitly stated that I was not considering running for RFA. I still had the issue of two less-than-stellar Good Articles to smooth out. Additionally, I just did not feel up to it. A few weeks later, however, I was otherwise convinced by HJ Mitchell to give it another shot. So I set to work ironing out the remaining article issues, with the help of some specific advice obtained from my editor review. And here I am.

Additional optional question from WFC

8. I've held fire on this question, and ask this now that you appear well on your way to a successful outcome. Has RfA been too picky in the past? Not necessarily in your first one, but generally?

A: Well, yes; in general, I feel that RFA has been just a bit too picky, at least during my tenure here (April 2009 and onwards). I think the negative aura surrounding RFA nowadays (in general) only exacerbates the issue; some of the comments I have seen, especially in the past few months, could have been toned down. This varies from case to case, however. For instance, I do not believe my first RFA was too picky. Valid concerns were raised, and almost all of the opposers were nice about it. In general, I have seen some great editors apply for adminship over the past year who could have handled the mop being opposed over long-past or single-instance issues that they have since learned from, which are examples of RFA being too picky.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Airplaneman
• Requests for adminship/Airplaneman 2

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats are on the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• The following !votes were added before transclusion and therefore (unfortunately :D) removed: Airplaneman ✈ 12:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Beat-the-nom strong support per my experience with this user at WP:APPLE and WP:NASCAR. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  For the record, NSD's post-transclusion comment is at/around #55. –xeno^talk 14:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. I've been looking forward to this for a while, so best of luck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Um..beat the co-nom support since HJ already supported. Airplaneman was one of the first editors I met on Wikipedia and helped me out when I needed help. I see him working around in the Percy Jackson task force and know that he will use the tools well. Derild4921☼ 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Another beat the co-nom support. Good content work, good editor, good noms, good responses, good good good. TFOWR 12:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - trustworthy editor, more than sufficient experience. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support per TFOWR :) ••Pepper•• 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support support, support, support, support, support. That should hit home my point. :) Bejinhan talks 12:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Can't beat the co-nom anymore support per me. —fetch·comms 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Support;(edit conflict) I think Airplaneman appears to be hardworking, familiar with policy, and a safe pair of hands. bobrayner (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - (edit conflict) I've collaborated with Airplaneman most through the PJTF and found him to be clueful, helpful, and mature. He seems to have infinite patience with new users and shows up all over the 'pedia doing useful work. In addition to not doing anything stupid with the mop, I think he will also add a lot to the project. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 12:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Support - your user and talk page colours are a little disturbing, but your editing record seems substantial and well balanced. Looks fine to me. Euryalus (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    Haha, you're not the first to bring it up :). I've made some adjustments. Airplaneman ✈ 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

11. Support. He has occasionally come across my watchlist, always with good and useful edits. bd2412 T 13:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - I think he has earned his mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 13:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - Great candidate all around. No concerns at all. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Definintely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Support. Per my experience with him at WP:APPLE. - EdoDodo ^talk 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Strong, Strong Support because of my experience with him during GA reviews and WP:NASCAR. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 13:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Support Dedicated and experienced contributor and clearly trustworthy. Rje (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Support Why not? Airplaneman should do fine with the tools :) Good luck my friend!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Supprot Absolutely. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Absolutely Strong Support Seen him around, no reason not to. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
22. (edit conflict) Support Much improved from last time around --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Super Support He's been working hard to improve, and he's definitely ready now. Brambleclawx 15:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
24. User:Dlohcierekim15:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - good to see that content editors are being nominated this week! Moxy (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - I've seen this candidate around the project, and he always seems competent to me when I encounter his work, His contributions look good, and he has gained lots of relevant experience. Should be a net positive, and I see no reason not to trust him with the tools. I'm also impressed that he altered his user page to a colour scheme that doesn't make my eyes bleed any more, but that's not part of my support rationale - just an encouraging indication that he is receptive to positive criticism - a good trait in any editor, and doubly valuable in an admin.  Begoon^talk 16:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support - per nom and co-nom, two fine testaments that speak for themselves. Airplaneman with a mop is a good idea. Best wishes for the Rfa and beyond, Jusdafax 16:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Support – I've also seen this user around the project, and all I see is great work. Definitely a net plus for the sysop group. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Support. (Someone pinged me about this RfA, so a quick Wikibreak break was called for). I supported Airplaneman last time, and all I can see since then is improvement. Looking at his Talk page, I see someone who is brilliant at helping others and great at communicating. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose for ripping off my userpage :) –MuZemike 17:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Sure - good luck! Connormah 17:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Support - I opposed last time mostly on what I thought were poor answers to questions. I still thought you were a good potential candidate who just needed more experience. I've seen you around the encyclopedia a lot, doing good things, and I see a vast improvement since then. (In particular, your answer to the IAR question was very thoughtful, completely different than the last RfA.) I'm happy to support you this time around. -- Atama頭 17:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Support. Excellent, helpful, good-natured editor. A great addition.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Support - A RfA that your not voting on..Wow. Give this man a Mop. Mlpearc powwow 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Do they use mops on airplanes ?

    That's what I was getting at with my pun, but it seems to have been overlooked! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    Not by everyone :P Mlpearc powwow 03:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

36. Support I've seen the user around and I'm quite certain I can trust this user with the tools --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
37. (edit conflict)doesn't beat the co-nom but would have if he'd known about the RfA earlier support :) Good user who would be great with the mop. Have to add this: I thought he was one already. (Don't all RfAs have that? Mr. R00t ^Talk 18:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Support, have seen the user around a few times, nothing springing out against them. A good candidate I am glad to support. --Taelus (Talk) 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
39. Yes. I see no reason why not. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
40. Support for the second time. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Like Atama, I ended up in opposition last time; mainly because you botched one of the questions so badly. That question has already been asked, your answer is better, and your record since the prior RFA has been very good. Courcelles 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
42. Most definitely. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
43. Support, excellent user. Ironholds (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
44. Support. Thank you for making me realize that The Accidental Asian was not yet an article! —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
45. Support an rfa that i too have looked forward too Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
46. Support - nobody has more enthusiasm for the project than this candidate; clueful and trustworthy; should be a great sysop--Hokeman (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
47. Support - has always come across well to me. And I usually avoid RfA but I thought I should comment especially on this one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
48. Edit-conflicted support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
49. Support - No problems with this user. Can we still pretend airplanes are light like shooting stars? :p Netalarm^talk 23:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    Sure! :D Airplaneman ✈ 23:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

50. Opport ;) Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 23:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
51. Support Based on interactions, very nice user etc.. Ryan Norton 23:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
52. Weak support: The Jimbo joke is even less funny (considering it was never funny) than the last time. However, overall positive experiences, good content work, blah blah blah. Have fun (or not).  1year  02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
53. Support Seen editor around many times and would be a good candidate IMO. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
54. Support Risker (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
55. Super strong support per my experience with this user at WP:APPLE, WP:NASCAR, and WP:GAN. Also a good vandal-fighter. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 02:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
56. Support- Trusted user. Tommy! [message] 03:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

    Even though I hate flying. But you're okay ;) Tommy! [message]

57. Support. This is one candidate whose contribs I don't even have to check. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
58. Support. I've reviewed the editor's contributions. Hopefully, the RfA would be a successful one. Best. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
59. To be honest, when I first saw this RfA up I thought I was going to have to go neutral based on my initial impressions. But upon review of recent contributions, the answers, and the effusive noms, I can see that Airplaneman has improved dramatically in the last few months since I formed my rather misguided opinion of him, and am somewhat perplexed as to why I had anything but a positive view of what is obviously an excellent contributor. Best of luck. sonia♫ 03:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
60. Support - Good contributor, support for all the previous reasons I did the first time around. Shadowjams (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
61. Support - Yes, everything seems good here. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
62. Support Sorry for not voting in the previous RfA, but now, I will support. Minimac (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
63. Support. Tiderolls 08:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
64. Eminently suited for the sysop bit. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Looks fine. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
66. Support Based largely on excellent experiences with this editor. Will make a fine admin. --j⚛e decker^talk 12:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
67. Definitely! GedUK  12:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
68. Support Looking forward to more interactions with you. ZooPro 13:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
69. Support Insert standard "uhhhh, thought you were one already" comment. Jmlk17 16:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
70. Support - impressive contributions, and has definitely shown the tools will be used well. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
71. Support no problem supporting Inka 888 17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
72. Support A trusted and proficient editor. Very happy to support the candidate's nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
73. Support - looks fine. AlexiusHoratius 19:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
74. Believe Airplaneman's fully ready this time around. ceranthor 21:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
75. Support. No problems that I can see. --John (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
76. Support. Many positive interactions in the past, no concerns. decltype (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
77. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
78. Support. Airplanman is diligent and really wants to improve Wikipedia. He also goes out of his way to help others make their articles better. He has my strong support and my vote. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
79. Support - no concerns. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
80. Strong Support I really liked the answers for questions 4-6. Excellent editor. :)--Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 23:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
81. Support Improved answers to questions since last time. Good all-round backlog-fighting candidate. GDonato (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
82. Support supported last time and still see good stuff here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RP459 (talk • contribs)
83. Support Candidate has improved since 1st RFA. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
84. Support, I'm seeing lots of good adjustments made since prior RFA. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
85. Yes!  7  06:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
86. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
87. Support - per Keepscases. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
88. Support. Looks like a good candidate. Esteffect (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
89. Support I don't like the phrase "common sense" for personal reasons, but that's definitely not a reason to oppose or be neutral here, the question answers fit very well otherwise. If you can redact that phrase, i'd be happen to change my opinion to strong support. I just dislike that phrase that much, sorry, but it's a pet peeve. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
90. Support. Sufficient experience, see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
91. Support Excellent editor. Will be an assert to the project. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
92. Support I come across you on my watchlist, and I see you are reviewing a GAN. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
93. Support Seems capable...Modernist (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
94. Support no bad experiences.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
95. Support. My first interaction with you was at RfA. I have found your RfA participation in the past to lack explanation, which was the "relevant" reason for me asking question 8. That said, your answers are all thoughtful, and having reviewed your contribution history I have no other reason to think that you wouldn't give due care, attention and feedback on any decisions you made with the tools. --WFC-- 03:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
96. Support, looks good. Nsk92 (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    Absolutely strong support. Airplaneman is excellent both as a wiki editor, and as a teacher to new users. He is deeeply dedicated to Wiki, experienced, and trustworthy. But above all, he is extremely patient,a must quality for any administrator. Good luck Mr Airplaneman. CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 09:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

    !vote of a suspected sockpuppet indented. Airplaneman ✈ 03:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

97. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support. Although I have already expressed my strong support, I again reviewed some comments and felt guilty for not mentioning Airplanman's patience and I thank CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS for bringing that out. Encyclopedic work is not only important but also a hard work; it requires patience, knowledge, thorough analysis of any particular subject, and enough intellectual capacity to complete any particular task based on merits and not on arbitrary opinions, interpretations or decisions. This kind of work requires minute examinations in which merit is the only criterion; it also requires special character traits—to be inviting enough yet not soft; to be encouraging and kind yet demanding; to cooperate yet not lower standards; and above all—it requires hard work. These are all the traits Airplanman posses; he is building his reputation and authority solely on merit and skill, motivated only by noble causes. I thank Christakis for being more elaborate because I think it is important to elaborate and present reasons, not only to express support and vote. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    Note: duplicate vote indented. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

98. Support. Airplaneman has greatly improved upon the issues that took down his last RfA. I believe that his being an admin would be a net positive to the project. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
99. Support He can be trusted with the tools. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    Note: WP:100 Kayau Voting IS evil C U NEXT YEAR 10:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

100. Support - In view of the overwhelming number of support !votes, I have searched hard to find a reason to oppose, or to be neutral. I couldn't find any - of course.--Kudpung (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
101. Support When I've seen him, he does great. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 16:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
102. Strong Support You dealt with my comments in your editor review like a pro, and you followed up with me to get specific advice about your articles. Your answers to the questions were all completely sound, and everything points to you being an outstanding administrator. Looks like I might just be piling on at this point, but it's my complete pleasure to support. Look forward to seeing you with a mop, well done Airplaneman. Nomader ^(Talk) 18:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
103. Support —DoRD (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
104. Support Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
105. Support. Nice person, competent editor. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
106. Support Good editor. Both GAs were good YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
107. Strong Support: I am glad you are having another go as a candidate. You have shown yourself to be a great candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
108. Support. Per answer 7. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
109. Support --Guerillero | My Talk 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
110. Support Appears to be a very reliable editor whose access to the admin tools would greatly benefit the project. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
111. Support Our recent interactions clearly show that Airplaneman is ready for the tools with the poise and experience that I'd expect in an administrator. Royalbroil 01:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
112. Support Competent enough and stable enough. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
113. Support Cheers mate, · Andonic ^Contact 07:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
114. I opposed last time for lack of experience, and I see that Airplaneman has made a real effort to gain some experience. What I see is a user who is very keen, very helpful, hard working, and will be an asset to Wikipedia and the community. Even though I feel that some of the GA articles reviewed could have been a little more exacting in order to preserve GA standard, I really admire the attitude shown here of willingness to get involved, and of being encouraging to those involved. Despite the overall very favourable impression I have gained, I would ask Airplaneman to proceed slowly and carefully - errors like this can be demoralising. Assume good faith of all users including IP accounts, and if you don't understand why an edit has been made, then investigate it, ask a second opinion, or even speak to the person who made the edit before reverting. That said, I feel Wikipedia is going to benefit greatly from Airplaneman's enthusiasm and generally helpful good nature. SilkTork *^YES! 07:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
115. Support I supported last time and see no reason to change my view. Polargeo (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
116. Support: looks good to me. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
117. Support wiooiw (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
118. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits (29,000!) including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, article rescuer, and Barnstars. P.S. I did not take part in the 1st RfA. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
119. Support. Bwrs (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
120. Support - I've seen him do a good job patrolling new pages; I don't see why he shouldn't be trusted with the tools. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
121. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
122. Support. I see a net positive. — ξ^xplicit 04:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
123. Support. I believe this user will make a fine administrator. –Grondemar 05:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
124. Good user. BigDom 09:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
125. Support - but what happened to the original? Something fishy is going on... Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Keepscases (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm assuming you're using the same rationale as last time? Airplaneman ✈ 17:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

   Lol. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

   Shakespeare once wrote "Hell hath no fury like an editor with a burr up his arse". Oooh, he tried to get you banned from RfA due to moronic questions and oppose rationales! It's good to know that in response to his criticism you've attempted to better yourself and not act like a twelve year old girl who has been denied her teddy bear. Ironholds (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

   In Keepscases's defense, their participation at RfA has improved dramatically since that RfC just over a year ago, so I would say that they've definitely "attempted to better" themselves, and succeeded. In that RfC, even I recommended a topic ban from RfA, but I certainly wouldn't today. If that RfC is truly the reason for this oppose it's a real disappointment. Airplaneman wasn't even very active in the RfC (less so than I was), only endorsing some views from others, and didn't participate at all on the RfC talk page. I'd hoped that more than a year later, Keepscases would have moved on. -- Atama頭 23:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

   Keepscases's dramatic improvement is rather undermined by, y'know, opposing somebody because they opposed you on something. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

   This is true. :( -- Atama頭 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

   • Do you plan on opposing all editors who run for RFA if they supported a statement in that RFC? Seems strange, opposing somebody from trying to make the wiki a better place by dealing with, in the mind of the people at the RFC, a user that was causing disruption at that time.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose for taking the bait on question #8. This question has nothing to do with the RFA, and it raises more questions about the candidate, particularly their definition of "picky"-ness, than it answers. Townlake (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Well, at least he was trueful. That is one thing that admins should have.--Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 14:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, being trueful is rad. That said, I won't be discussing my rationale further; I only provided it as a courtesy. This RFA is clearly going to pass, and I wish the candidate well in adminship. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   I didn't know I was only supposed to answer questions directly related to this RFA, but I respect your opinion. Airplaneman ✈ 15:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   I honestly thing that question #8 is very relevant to this RFA as it gives good insight into the candidates thoughts and feelings on current issues on the wiki. Anything to better understand a candidate is appropriate in my mind, and I would like to thank you for taking some time out of what I am sure is a busy schedule to answer.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   I believe Q8 to be totally irrelevant and inadmissible. It and its answer (which, BTW, I think is excellent) should, in my opinion, be disregarded.--Kudpung (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   For those curteous enough to read, I did justify it in my support rationale. --WFC-- 04:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   Zing! Townlake (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   Clearly some lack that courtesy... --WFC-- 05:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose description as a "vandal warrior" had me worried. Then the part about having a lot of policy knowledge sealed the deal. This is not the type of person I want as an administrator. However, I do note that airplaneman has contributed positively to many articles, so that is why my oppose is weakened. AfD hero (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Because keeping vandalism off the project and having solid policy knowledge is a terrible quality in an admin candidate? — ξ^xplicit 06:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Yes. Vandal fighting engenders an us-vs-them spirit that runs contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. Furthermore, taking the rules and bureaucracy of wikipedia too seriously creates a lawyer-like situation, and inhibits honest reflection of on the bigger picture about what is good and bad for the encyclopedia. I have seen this robotic transformation happen to many admins. AfD hero (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   I must agree with Explicit here. Are you honestly saying that we should just allow vandals to run amuck and destroy Wikipedia? Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review

   If you don't mind, may I see some examples so I don't keep doing this? Airplaneman ✈ 12:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for your response; here is an example that occurs often. There is a topic with many concise interconnected articles, all of which which add to the coverage of the topic as a whole, even though individually they may not all meet the notability standards. They all get merged into a single monster article with the same content but poor readability. Bureaucratically speaking, this was correct, but from a broader perspective it has actually reduced the quality of the encyclopedia. AfD hero (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   I honestly don't ever remember doing something like that, nor would I ever support it. I have proposed article merges for borderline-notability articles (two recent examples include here and here) to enhance the main article, but never to make it worse. Exactly where did I do that as frequently as you say? Airplaneman ✈ 03:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   No, that wasn't referring to your merges. You asked for an example of where bureaucracy hurt WP in the bigger picture, so that you wouldn't make the same mistake - I was giving an example I've seen many times from other admins. For people who know the rules so well, it is easy to get caught up thinking "what is the rule for this", rather than "what is best for the encyclopedia". If you can pledge that you will make an honest effort to guard against the natural tendency towards mindless rule following, and always keep the big picture in mind, then I will change my opinion to support. You don't have to be wild-eyed running around breaking rules all the time. I just want you to take a second from time to time as an admin, take a step back, and give things a second thought. Most admins do not do this. AfD hero (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   We have rules for a reason. For example, if we didn't have notability standards, we'd be full of crap about MySpace bands and some 10-year-old's pet cat etc etc. However, rules are written by people, which makes them inherently imperfect, which is why we have WP:IAR. I think I understand the point you're making (that just because "the rules say it", doesn't necessarily make it correct), but I'm certain that Airplaneman understands that. Even so, admins need to be well versed in and up-to-date with policy, since so much of the job revolves around it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   To be perfectly honest, I think this is a worse ratioanle than Keppscapes' above. You might as well say "oppose, I don't like admins who know what they're doing"! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose User name is offensive to Brits. I think Fixedwingaircraftman would be more appropriate. BigDom 07:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was German... Herr Pleinmann. -- Atama頭 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral The fact that there's no "what's changed since the last RfA?" response in the candidate's own words is problematic. I'd oppose on that basis, but it seems that no one else has bothered to even ask you the question, so it'd be hard to consider that your fault... at least not yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   Facepalm – I knew I would forget something. I will ask myself the question. Airplaneman ✈ 12:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.