Login
Login

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/AmericanAir88#Simonm223's oppose

{{RfA talk header}}

Oppose #4

re: 88 {{tq|they probably aren't aware of its use by white supremacists and neo nazis}} {{U|Catfish Jim and the soapdish}} - I'm in my mid 60s and wasn't aware of it, I'm not sure it's fair to make that insinuation. (even though I'm sure it's not intentional) — Ched :  ?  — 19:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

:Which is why I mentioned it... it's likely to be innocent although some will have picked up on it. BMK asked what the significance of the number is in q9, I imagine for that very reason (unless he has an aversion to standard sized piano keyboards or the time in days for mercury to orbit the sun) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

::I must admit I have not heard of the use of the number 88 in that context before either. Had to google it up after seeing the above comments (the first search hit was this ADL page [https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88] explaining the background). I am sure the candidate did not know this stuff either, as his answer indicates. Still, I think that, regardless of the outcome of this RFA, it might be good for him to change his username to something less problematic. Nsk92 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

:::I didn't pick up so it is a non sequitur. I'm well read in politics, western politics and current affairs and have no idea where it comes from. It think it meaningless in relation to this. scope_creepTalk 21:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

::::It's a hate symbol used by neo-nazis as a code for HH (H as the 8th letter of the alphabet)... an acronym for Heil Hitler, as well as a reference to 88 Precepts. It's common for example on prison tattoos, especially among racist/white supremacist gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood. I don't think for one minute that it is intended in that sense, but it is worth considering whether it is problematic for a prospective admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

::::I think it very pertinent in the current political climate within the USA that someone who is happily including 88 within their username may understand why it may be brought up within contested actions. I am an almost 60 year old, and well know what 88 stands for amongst Nazi inclined groups. I am also aware that Air America was a CIA front for moving operatives and materials in Cambodia and Southern Vietnam in the third quarter of the 20th century - but as that is now history I have no issue with a reversing being part of the username. What I want the candidate to understand is that potential risks of even an username must be born in mind when interacting with strangers from other backgrounds. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

:::::Seems to be a sensible move. scope_creepTalk 22:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

:::::"Air America" was also a Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr. comedy about said airline and, more recently, a progressive talk radio network that launched the career of Rachel Maddow and helped transition Al Franken from comedy to politics. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

::::::Which is why I said I have no concerns over an aspect of a name that is now deprecated. 88 is still pertinent to be a potential source of misunderstanding when dealing with people - something I am disappointed to note that the candidate does not yet appear to get. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

{{od2}}FWIW, 88 means "love and kisses" in amateur radio and I see no reason not to AGF. Miniapolis 01:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

:Combined with the username, my first assumption would be that it's an AA flight number. Many usernames on aviation-related websites such as airliners.net follow the same pattern. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

::Sure, the user could be a really big fan of overnight flights from Pennsylvania to Ireland. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

:::The username could also mean that they "love American Airlines". - ZLEA T\C 22:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • If this rose up high enough to edge into discretionary, the 'Crats are going to have a hell of a time determining whether this is a valid argument to make - so many of the opposes rest on it, that it would functionally decide it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

::Are you sure? I think I count 4 that actually cite the username as a reason. A few specifically say it isn't an issue, and the rest don't mention it. Hugsyrup 10:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

:::Can you list the opposes that are based on the username? I can only see the following that even mention it...

  • :::4 (mine) Specifically states that the user name itself is not a problem
  • :::14 DBigXray: Again states that the user name itself is not a problem
  • :::17 Gamaliel: States username is a problem
  • :::36 BMK: Doesn't like usernames as a homage to a commercial company but oppose mostly due to other concerns.

:::Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

::::I think my count of 4 was based on numbers 17, 24, 36 and somewhat 37, although not all of those actually really oppose the username and 24 explicitly says it's secondary. Either way though, I'm in agreement with you that it's entirely inaccurate to say that 'so many of the opposes rest on it'. Hugsyrup 13:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

:::::Ah yes... 24 has a minor mention of the username as potentially having the appearance of COI (so not anything to do with the 88 thing) and 37 isn't really about the username.

:::::So in fact the only oppose that is potentially about the 88 thing is 17, and even that isn't clear. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

::(replying to Nosebagbear) Just to note, the username policy states exactly that {{tq|usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person}}. AA88's response to questions 8, 9, and 22 clearly indicate an aspect of individuality, which leads one to question the nature of this argument. ComplexRational (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

:::There's a difference between what's allowed by the username policy and what's wise for an administrator. How would it look to the untrained observer if AA88 ended up closing an AfD on a rival airline, or resolving a content dispute at List of American Airlines accidents and incidents, for example? It's about avoiding the appearance of impropriety. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

::::Thank you for making this distinction. It is a fair point, indeed not everyone will be aware that AA88 has no conflict of interest. I'm not sure how much help a highly visible user page disclaimer (or anything similar) would be, though it should clarify even for semi-regulars at AfD, for example. Alternatively, AA88 could build up a "clean" reputation in clearly unrelated topics first, but the community's views and the possibility of compromise must of course be considered. ComplexRational (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

::::: "8" means rich in Asian culture. Two 8's means doubly rich. Why is it linked to negative hidden meaning in a particular setting and not others? Even if we really want to go down this slippery slope argument, you can't have the cake and eat it too. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Squeeps10's oppose

  1. Oppose, moved from Neutral The username now bothers me. (In addition to sounding promotional, the number 88 has neonazi connections. It probably doesn't mean anything, but alarm bells are going off.) The fact that the candidate seems to be skipping questions is another red flag, and the editors above me have also pointed out the AFD issue. Hopping on late is not an issue, but it seems like the editor has started showing activity in AFD solely because people typically view AFD participation as a must for RFA. Squeeps10 23:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. :{{re|Squeeps10}} It seems incredibly discouraging that we are going to let neonazis set the rules for which numbers are perfectly acceptable for usernames. AA had his preference for the number way before it took off as a thing for nazis to use to identify one another. The thing with dog whistles... is just that: it's meant to muddy the waters and get innocent people caught in the crosshairs (see okay sign debate). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. :{{u|Squeeps10}} as the person who wrote the essay on blocking neo-nazis, I think the username likely just means they were born in 1988. It's what numbers mean most of the time (I don't know, just theorizing.) Normally neo-nazis are more than happy to let us know they are neo-nazis. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. :: I can certainly understand your concern, {{ping|MJL|TonyBallioni}}, and agree that I probably worded it badly. For reasons I don't feel comfortable disclosing, I have...rather a problem with neonazis. My concerns are more than likely unfounded. 88 does also mean "good luck" in China and "love and kisses" in amateur radio. Or it could mean nothing. However, I believe my other concerns are perfectly valid, and stand by them as a reason to oppose. Squeeps10 23:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. :::I mean, I 100% agree that neo-nazis are bad and should be blocked on sight. Heck, I sunk an RfA because I felt an extremely popular candidate was insufficiently anti-nazi, I just think that it's very unlikely this particular candidate is a neo-nazi , and that it is not fair to oppose without further evidence that they are in fact a nazi. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. ::::No, I understand what you're saying, and I agree, just... past experiences. Alarm bells are going off and it wouldn't feel right to support knowing this. I still stand by my other reasons. Squeeps10 23:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  7. :::::As the person who asked about "88", a potential neo-Nazi connection was indeed my concern - and, yes, I think Tony is correct that many times the number in a username is the year of birth. Having read A88's answer, I'm in a bit of a quandry. I see no indications of neo-Nazi-tinged editing in their contribs, but if "88" was their birth year, I wish they would have just said so. The answer "It's my favorite number" is, to me, a weak one, and doesn't quite dispel my concerns. Combined with a username that is a "homage" to a commercial airline, and my unease increases. I suppose one could say that is a trivial concern, and I guess it is, but it's enough for me to hold off supporting for the moment and remain neutral until I see how things develop, especially the fact that the candidate's AfD participation seems not to be as much of a strong point as it seemed at first. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  8. ::::::Beyond My Ken has worded it better than I ever could. Squeeps10 23:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  9. :::::::{{re|Beyond My Ken}} I'll be honest. I known this user for several months now. I have never once seen anything that could remotely indicate to me that they are a neo-nazi (in any single way, shape, or form). The number and the username line up to be a dead man's hand as he indicated above in his answers. Can we just assume good faith and move on from this username issue? It'd kill me inside if an innocent editor's otherwise good character was torn to shreds just because of a numerical coincidence. There are only 90 two digit numbers; Nazis made the same claim as AA to one of them. It's not anymore his fault that this happened than people who use the A-OK hand sign. {{eC}} –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  10. ::: {{re|Squeeps10}} Understandable to be concerned. 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.
    However, I did do the math out. AA had participating in 90 AFDs in 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. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  11. ::::Excellent analysis. scope_creepTalk 00:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  12. : I agree with MJL, we've established he's not a nazi, let's AGF and continue with our lives, shall we? I will move to neutral. Squeeps10 00:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  13. ::{{Hp|Squeeps10}}No, please move to support. And then, we can continue with our lives.... Just joking Squeeps. {{u|MJL}}, it would be great if you put your analysis on the main page rather than here where it might be missed by others. Lourdes 01:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC))
  14. ::{{u|Squeeps10}}, I'm a bit confused because your vote is both in oppose and neutral currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  15. ::{{Hp|Squeeps10}}Fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  16. :::Ah, I thought I removed it. Fixed. Squeeps10 01:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223's oppose

  1. Oppose per lack of answer to Q28, the newness of the candidate, and the name issue. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. :I think 28 questions is a ridiculously high number and I would not hold it against the candidate if he refused to answer any more. I think there should be a limit as this is getting out of hand.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. ::Meh. The best way of avoiding being asked so many questions is to withdraw at a stage when consensus is clear—without it having to become painfully clear—and when there is no longer the excuse of receiving useful feedback. ——SerialNumber54129 13:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. :{{rpa}} scope_creepTalk 13:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. : I think the whole lot has been unfair and particularly this oppose vote. The outcome is that eventually the number of administrators will be down to such a low level, probably a good while up the road yet certainly, that the WMF will step in and take over the whole process and it will be a software solution. scope_creepTalk 13:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. ::The truth is that I've reported, and seen blocked, usernames with less obvious organizational connections than that of AA88. And the fact that when they were advised of the nazi connection their response was, nah, but I like it, with the speed they responded there suggests something of a lack of the introspection I'd hope to see from an admin. Furthermore Q28 is both a serious personal concern of mine, and one where I have some issue with AA88's comportment in specific AfDs we've both participated on. Frankly, a quick review of my participation at WP:BLP/N should demonstrate that the use of media causes célèbres to assign notability to an otherwise non-notable BLP is something of a significant issue for me as an editor. The enforcement of the policies cited in Q28 depends on admin cooperation and based on AA88's comportment at past AfDs I don't believe I could expect them to uphold those policies in a manner I'd expect of admins currently holding the mop (such as Masem). So actually I have a pretty legitimate concern underpinning my opposition. Compared to the very thorough {{tq|I like what I see.}} support of certain other editors here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  7. :: There are currently 3 RFAs open, the other two of which are well on their way to passing (one completely unopposed at this point). There are enough candidates at this point that we don't really need to worry about promoting each one to avoid WMF robo-admins. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  8. :I do not think that not answering your own question (yet) is any ground for an oppose - contributors are volunteers who spend their free time editing. It is a reasonable question, to be fair, and if they yet answer in a manner to your approval will this change your !vote? I consider this oppose reason to be as premature, and suggest you strike it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  9. ::If they answer my question and if I like their answer sufficiently I may choose to change my !vote. I have done so in other RfAs. For now, it's been a day, there's no answer to my question, and based on past experience with them, the lack of an answer fails to assuage my specific concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  10. :::That is a better rationale than the first one. I'm glad you posted it. At least the nominee can see what your thinking is and address it. The Rfa is only 50% in. scope_creepTalk 14:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  11. ::::Also as a clarification on the naming thing. I'm not happy with either half of the name. The 88 is minor - as has been mentioned, there are plenty of non-nazi uses of those repeating numbers (though a correction: while double-eights are liked in China, the gold-star is triple eights). Honestly my concern with regard to that half of their name is more to do with their response, which I found hasty and a little dismissive of an issue that is as serious as a heart attack. However when I mentioned organizational connections and invalid usernames, it's the AmericanAirlines part that is more specifically disconcerting. While I'll gladly WP:AGF that they have no WP:COI - that name could cause bumps down the road because of a perception of COI. Their unwillingness to consider changing a username for that reason is more concening than surrounding the numrological element. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  12. :::::It is a long way of being as serious of a heart attack. There is levels of seriousness and it is not that. Your fundamentally saying there is no trust on here. It would 40 seconds to inform everybody of Wikipedia. This leaves a precedent that any editor with a slighly dodgy name, without them having foreknowledge of what that actually means, being voted out, without one iota of evidence being presented to support it. It damages the process even more. It is conjecture. On top of that the name has already been checked by the WP:ACC team, I think every editor gets a check by that admin team, if they are serious editor. We are now rejecting a resonably decent candidate who could have got plenty of help from the other 1147 admins and would have a been a reasonably good admin. I think if there was more support for the candidate the offer of changing the name would have been forthcoming. Last year we passed 10 people, we needed about 150. This year we need the same amount and we are going to get about 12. I'm not sure. Slowly but surely these machinations are doing more and more damage because were not addressing the need for administration. Sure if it was terrible candidate, but they're not. Personally I don't think we are capable of saving the administration department. It on a slow slide to oblivion. The whole thing is a complete farce. This is the last vote I'm making on here. I can't take part in a system that allows good candidates to be rejected in this manner. scope_creepTalk 19:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  13. ::::::{{tq|we needed about 150}}[‍citation needed‍]. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  14. ::::::: I'm sorry if you don't see the rise of white supremacist violence across North America and Europe as being serious, but I do. And I felt their response to that concern lacked deliberation or sufficient introspection. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  15. :::::::: I'm sorry but white supremacism is perhaps a problem of your own backyard. The world out there - 7.5 billion people - has other problems, most are much more serious. One of the problems for example is US warmongering politics which results every year in thousands getting killed and millions losing livelihood. So, if I was to follow your "brilliant" line of reasoning, I should object to the "American" part of username. However, I'd much more prefer if we all try be serious and don't propose introducing a ban on demonyms or digit combinations under silly excuses. — kashmīrī TALK 19:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  16. :::::::::^ That. If we really wanted to analyse usernames, then we'd all be in a world of shite. When it's blatant, that's different, but this whole "88" thing is frankly a distraction from the important thing; which is the candidate's inability to weigh consensus. ——SerialNumber54129 20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Famous hockey player Eric Lindros wore 88 on his jersey his entire career. No one ever accused him of being a neo-nazi. If you really want to go hunting for neo-nazi users on Wikipedia try [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=88&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1&ns2=1 searching for all Usernames with "88" in them], and go off on your witch-hunt. -- œ™ 08:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • :Generally when I go after a username I suspect of being here to push Nazi WP:FRINGE I'm a heck of a lot more certain than just "has 88 in the username" but, as I said before, it's not so much the presence of 88 in their username as the fact that when their (Corporate brand + numerology with iffy connotations) username was questioned, they demurred on the basis that they liked it. This seems insufficiently introspective. Simonm223 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • :{{u|OlEnglish}}, Easier to digest list of just usernames starting with, or ending in 88 that aren't blocked, complete with edit count and registration date (around 150k of them) - [https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/38277] SQLQuery me! 23:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ::That query doesn't exclude blocked users whose name ends in 88; there's about twenty seven hundred of them. And as long as we're throwing arbitrary statistics around, that's more than the number of unblocked 88*/*88 users with 30 or more edits. —Cryptic 00:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • :::And frankly, the response to the 88 question was the least significant of the three reasons I gave for oppose which were, in order of descending significance: 1. Their answer to Q28, 2. The use of American Airlines in their user name, 3. The response they gave to the question about the 88 portion of their username. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)