Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AirshipJungleman29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AirshipJungleman29

[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (24/7/2); Scheduled to end 21:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

[edit]

AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) – Hello there, I'm Airship. I've been editing for a couple of years now. My first love was and remains the improvement of content, and I am inordinately proud of the work I've done bringing several articles up to featured and good status. Apart from that, I have got involved promoting nominations at DYK, playing a large role at WP:GAR, closing discussions, and generally bouncing around the place. I believe that I could be an efficient and useful addition to the admin corps. I have never edited for pay, and I have no alternate accounts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I believe I have the experience and knowledge of Wikipedia to contribute productively in most admin areas. For example, I have greatly enjoyed closing several discussions, but have tended to steer away from more divisive closes because of my non-admin status. I feel that as an admin I could make a real impact at (the perenially-backlogged) WP:CR. Other areas where I have contributed on the non-admin side of things include AFD/CSD nominations and DYK, but I think I can become useful anywhere (as long as no coding is involved).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: If I had to pick one, rewriting Genghis Khan into an FA-quality article—it took nearly two years and was a real labour of love. There is also Ai-Khanoum, the first article I took to FAC, which I honestly believe is close to perfect. On a wider scale, most of my content work (eleven featured articles or lists, in addition to eight good articles) has been on woefully undeveloped topics, and to shed some light as I have done is a legacy worth having to me. I am also proud of playing a large role in helping kickstart the previously pretty-much-dormant GAR process last year.
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: Yes, absolutely. One thing I have been chastised for was for being too passive-aggressive in heated discussions. I have since tried to consistently apply WP:COOL when involved in disputes and to always keep this xkcd in mind; I also had two off-wiki encounters which really left me thinking. I now believe that to actively participate in furious arugments is the easy way out, and that it takes real guts to comport yourself with dignity even when those around you are almost setting the air alight with anger. That is the standard I aim to keep to, on-wiki and off.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Clovermoss
4. Given your interest in DYK, is there anything differently you would do in situations like these in the future?
A: I think I had a point about systemic bias and you get disagreements over DYK prep-setting fairly often, but looking back now I'm a bit startled at my truculence. Thanks for giving me (another!) opportunity to reflect and learn from the past, and a belated apology to you and Bruxton for my grumpiness. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Rjjiii

5. Wikipedia:Did you know (DYK) struggles to find admins willing to review facts and promote them to the main page. Based on your experience in the non-admin steps of the DYK process, what have you seen discourage other admins from doing this work, and how do you plan to handle those challenges?
A:

Discussion

[edit]

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
[edit]
  1. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. C F A 💬 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Leijurv (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Finally 🥳 This has been on my watchlist for awhile. Glad to see it turn blue. Folly Mox (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Hello, based department? Yes, this is that guy I've been telling you about... jp×g🗯️ 22:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of concerns about his zealousness, I will simply say: if someone is responsible for almost a dozen featured-article stars being on as many articles (including some true big boys like Genghis Khan and Byzantine Empire), I suspect he probably knows what he's talking about with respect to articles meeting or failing our quality criteria. Fain to give succor for a dozenscore more of him! jp×g🗯️ 23:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I didn't know they aren't one.--NØ 22:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support plenty of impressive content work and a very pleasant person to interact with. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After seeing some of the diffs raised, I think it's unfortunate that others haven't had the same level of good experiences with Airship as I have. Still supporting as I'm still confident in them... but I do see why others would feel differently. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Oh heck yeah. As much as I resent your inevitable Wikicup victory (/j) this is such a welcome surprise. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely. For those of you in the back, they got Genghis Khan to FA. Kind, competent, just an awesome editor. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. one step closer to reestablishing the Mongol Empire through the medium of wikipedia ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Every interaction I've had with them has left me impressed. Strong content creation, clearly competent, kind. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Great past interactions, will be great for the role. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. AirshipJungleman29 is one of those rare Wikipedians who has that sixth sense for content, and I'm not just talking about the many FAs and GAs that adorn their userpage like a decorated general. I know their work best at DYK, where they are one of the most active promoters of all time, and I can't overstate how impressed I am with their work there. AJ's understanding of how articles are supposed to be structured and written, and determination to make sure others' articles meet that standard, has had significant and measurable positive impacts on DYK and GA. Even when we disagree – especially when we disagree – I've always found them to be reasonable, knowledgeable, and willing to admit mistakes, and they always have the best interests of the project at the heart of their position. Happily offering my strong support! :D theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Was looking forward to this for a while Mach61 23:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Airshipjungleman does incredible work at good article reassessments. I don't know how he does it, given how much crap he has to put up with from people with WP:OWN issues there, particularly from the roads and mathematics areas that often have some of the lowest quality GAs and the most disruptive GAR participants keeping it that way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I've reviewed deleted edits and (logged) csd tags back to the start of the year. I've got some minor quibbles about pages tagged U5 that technically didn't qualify (though all did as G11s), and some user pages whose image on Commons should've been tagged for speedy deletion after the page here was deleted, but this is the only thing I found that I'd consider a genuine error. I'd advise continuing to csd-tag pages that are that borderline instead of just speedying them unilaterally, but that's best practice anyway. No other concerns; thank you for the self-nom. —Cryptic 00:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Airship is a regular at DYK and their work there is mostly what I know about them. I don't always agree with their decisions on nominations, but I've never seen them do anything truly outrageous, and they're the kind of person with whom you can disagree and still have a reasonable conversation about your differences. DYK is short on admins and giving AJ a mop will be a big help to the project. RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose as someone who saw the nominee go after so many GAs of roads for iffy reasons. I cannot in good faith support Airship. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU, are you able to provide more evidence of these accusations (links to AN or talk page discussions, reviews, etc.)? Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I can. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs show him closing discussions. He only nominated one of the three. Also, can you please elaborate on why the reasons were iffy? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @LilianaUwU: I'm not sure I understand your characterization of these examples as "go[ing] after [...] GAs of roads for iffy reasons". Your first example, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 85 in North Carolina/1, was closed by the nominee but not nominated by them, nor did they participate in the process other than to ask the nominator a question and to request an editor seeking to improve the article respond once they were done with all fixes rather than partway through. Your second example, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/A4232 road/1, was also closed by the nominee but not nominated by them, and indeed nobody other than the person who initially nominated the article for reassessment participated in the process. Your third example, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix/1 was nominated by the nominee for what seems to me like fairly clearly outlined reasons. Is there something I am missing? TompaDompa (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, Lightburst's concerns about civility are more than enough for me to oppose, even if my original reasons aren't good enough. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose It is a hard no from me x 10. I may offer ups some diffs later to show just how snarly and dismissive AirshipJungleman29 has been to me and many other editors. Congrats for the work they do but there is no way they should be an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not have the right temperament and also assumes bad faith. I worked in WP:DYK so I often see them being curt with other editors. When the DYK editors were building a set of Christmas related hooks, Airship added a hook that did not fit the theme. After some discussion and agreement that the hook should not be in the set an admin removed it, so Airship reverted the admin. Even the nominator admitted that it was not related. A time suck ensued and it took a another admin to remove the hook again.
    Next Airship displays a hostile attitude with others at DYK like this disappointing message. Recently AirshipJungleman29 mocked me when I came to them with a concern, saying "Thanks Yoda.". AirshipJungleman29 is an editor who knows their way around but makes abrupt unilateral decisions, like in the case of this article I have at DYK now. For some reason Airship likes to remove all section headings and create a wall of text. From what I have seen they do not discuss before jarring changes. I also noticed this same misunderstanding of MOS:OVERSECTION with another DYK article, Phyllis Boyens and that heading removal was undone by an admin. I just saw the link in question 4 above that shows similar. Read their talk page history and WT:DYK history. Lightburst (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Lightburst. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose after repeated testy interactions with ASJ regarding GARs in 2023 and earlier that appear not to have been resolved (see User talk:David Eppstein/2024a#Holding a grudge). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support 100%. Changing vote to oppose after seeing the disappointing revisions posted above and below, all of which were very recent. I commemorate their content creation, it's great that we have someone working on this kind of content, but I just don't think they are what we should expect out of an admin upon further consideration... λ NegativeMP1 22:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose The diffs provided above are all I needed to see. SirMemeGod  00:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wasn't going to vote but after clicking on this rfa I came to the conclusion that the candidate was not prepared for admin bit at this time. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. The situations referenced in both my question and in the comment by J947 both happened this July. I'm sorry but it doesn't feel right to me to support the candidate at this time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CAme here intending to support, but the diffs raised by Lightburst and David Eppstein concern me given situations AJ29 would face as an admin. Not enough to oppose, but I am concerned. I have no concern with Liliana's diffs as I believe that's an honest misread of the situation on Liliana's part. Star Mississippi 01:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AirshipJungleman29&oldid=1247982987"