Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sky Harbor

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


Sky Harbor

Final: (84/0/1); Closed by bibliomaniac15 on 02:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) – For your consideration, I'd like to present Sky Harbor, one of the most dedicated, thoughtful, responsible users I've had the pleasure of nominating for adminship.

Sky Harbor made his first edit in April 2005, has a clean block log, and currently has 7,945 edits to his name, nearly 70% of those being in the article namespace. That may not seem like a huge edit count to you, but these are substantial edits. He has brought 2 articles to featured article status (Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System), at least 2 more to good article status (Philippine National Railways and Iloilo International Airport), and major expansions and improvements to many others. Some other examples of his dedication that I can cite off the top of my head... going to the National Library of the Philippines to take pictures for its article, writing polite letters to media giants for violations of the GFDL, and his efforts to establish a local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. I could go on and on.

He is most active in improving Philippine-related articles, especially those related to airports, banks, and infrastructure. He frequently actively participates in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, where I have found him to be extremely polite and helpful to everyone he interacts with. He is already currently an administrator on the Tagalog Wikipedia and Tagalog Wiktionary, but he is most active right here on the English Wikipedia, and I have complete confidence in his abilities to use the adminship tools responsibly. TheCoffee (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Just to correct Coffee there: I am a bureaucrat of the Tagalog Wikipedia. However, barring any more hesitation from me, and taking a bold step forward, I gladly accept. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Actually, I am very flexible as a Wikipedian, and I can accept any work that is thrown my way. If I were to give any personal preferences, I'd still prefer what I currently do now: cleaning up articles against the messes left by anonymous editors (who for some reason in this part of the world are very notorious for vandalism, a fact reflected on Philippine-language projects) and mediating in potential conflicts between editors. If needed, I can also handle potential backlogs in places where they can really use the help (AfD, RM, ANI, etc.), and learn to hone my skills as I go along. Adminship is a learning experience: it is one where experience is necessary, though you find out that the experience you already have is inadequate, and you will need to pick up the ropes again as you go along.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I can't say that I am proud not of a single work, or a few. What I can say however is that with complete confidence, I am proud of my entire experience on all Wikimedia projects, the English Wikipedia in particular. Originally I thought I'd sign up just to correct mistakes on the article pertaining to the Philippine national anthem (Lupang Hinirang), but over time, I grew to love the project, so much that I invested virtually all my time and energy just to make Wikipedia a bit better for everyone. I guess that's what keeps me going: it isn't about making the best, but on how to do things better than before, and choosing what is the best will only add a glass ceiling which I may not be able to break. When you do something, we are urged to strive for excellence, and as the bar of excellence continues to inch ever higher, we are urged to reach for those higher bars as well, and not limit ourselves to our favored comfort zones, not just for our benefit, but for the benefit of the millions of people who have benefited (and I hope will continue to benefit) from what Wikipedia offers them.
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: Although I try my best to stay out of conflict, there will always be altercations which I cannot avoid. Though my most recent brush-in with editors happened over at the Tagalog Wikipedia a few months ago (over editorial policies related to which version of the language is used in article content), the last case of one here was back in 2008, when I had to defend an editorial decision to use the name "Iloilo International Airport" in the related article over "Iloilo Airport", and subsequently "Kalibo Airport" over "Kalibo International Airport" (which has since been moved to the latter per an RM). Other conflicts which I have been involved in include long-winded discussions with other editors over the state of "Filipino" versus "Tagalog" (of which a very long transcript may be found here) and multiple discussions involving the state of Philippine copyright law on Wikipedia.
All in all I try to handle conflicts calmly, with a cool head, and always looking out for the best. I even go so far as to calm people down when they are all riled up, or I try to appease them as much as possible and within the bounds of what I believe is right for the sake of the project. Whenever something strikes me hard, I accept the fact and move on, knowing that though I may have fallen now, there will come a time where I can always rise again. Acceptance may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it is better than constant edit warring, POV-pushing and other disruptive activity that only breaks down the harmony of Wikipedia and makes life a bit (or perhaps a whole lot) more insane for everyone.
Question from Stifle
4. You appear to have a long history of uploading images which do not comply with various image policies in one way or another. Please outline the steps you have taken to familiarize yourself with image policy before standing for this RFA.
A. Actually, the vast majority of non-compliant images were uploaded well before Wikipedia became much stricter with regards to image licensing policies (around 2005-early 2007). In respect to such, I have followed in the last three years changes to the policies to ensure that I follow them faithfully. I double-check (and in some cases triple-check) images to make sure that they comply with image policy here by checking through the relevant policy pages. In developing an Exemption Doctrine Policy for the Tagalog Wikipedia, I pored through pages worth of policies (using the English Wikipedia EDP as a basis) and relevant laws to make sure that images uploaded are in fulfillment of Wikipedia's goal of providing free content for everyone, and that no one has to resort to using fair use images to provide context where free ones are available. If you notice, my more recent uploads are much more compliant with the relevant policies involved whenever fair use needs to be invoked.
Optional question from decltype
5. There is currently an ongoing debate about whether quotations of non-free text in user space, such as on your user page (even the one where you quote yourself), is a violation of WP:NFCC. Assuming that such quotes are deemed unacceptable, regardless of whether you are elected admin or not, what will you do if you accidentally come across them on user pages? Do you feel that all editors would be obligated to pursue the removal of such quotes upon seeing them?
A. If I were to run into those types of quotations on a user page, I would inform the user first about the erring text, and then from there, we'd find a way to make the text (or, if the text really must be removed, the spirit of the text) fit into the general context of the user page in question. The question of whether or not they should be removed is a trickier question to answer, since in the Philippines, the question of whether or not quotations can be copyrighted is not adequately addressed by law. Should Wikipedia pursue policies which run towards prohibiting users from adding quotations onto their user pages, then by all means they should remove it, but we should help them at least try to make the quotation fit without violating relevant policies on the matter.
As for quoting yourselves, well, if you said it, and you believe that what you say should be put on your user page, then by all means put it. I always believe that we can do what we want to do with our own words, and if I want to put my own words onto a user page (even if I am quoting myself), then I should, and I should recognize that by doing such, I can no longer enforce any rights over that quotation.
Additional optional question from Likeminas
6. Recently I have noticed that many sections on the demographics of several countries use pictures of unknown people to make a graphic depiction of the ethnography. For example a picture of three blonde girls wearing a Mexican football jersey is accompanied by the caption “Mexican girls”. It has been argued that images of unknown (not famous) people leave us depending on the word of the Wikipedia editor who uploaded them, thus, violating WP:RS and WP:V. Nonetheless, some people have argued that we should assume WP:GF, and trust that editors who upload pictures of (not famous) people give an accurate description of them. Opponents of this argument, claim that the citizenship or nationality of those unknown people is itself unknown and unpublished. Only that the Wikipedian who uploaded it is the source, which in turn is an WP:OR violation.
What is your stance on this issue? Do you think it is appropriate to use pictures of (unknown) people to depict the ethnography of any country? Please elaborate.
A. The thing about ethnography and images is that the latter is very subjective, and that regardless, they will always hinge on the good faith of the uploader in question. If the image was taken in good faith, and if the uploader is willing to specify when, where and the background to which the pictures were taken (which is not the case with the example above), then I'd place my trust on the uploader. However, should he/she choose not to, then I'd have reasonable room to doubt. In general, however, though I appreciate the depiction of "normal" citizens as a means to showcase a race or a people, known figures have that credibility to back them up, and pictures of those Mexican girls, for example, should be used in a complementary role alongside pictures of more known Mexicans such as Vicente Fox or Benito Juárez, and not be showcased in a dominant role, where they will be the subject of further scrutiny.
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: That's a hard question to answer. In my part of the world, a lot of things will strike off as being not notable to the average, reasonable, non-Filipino person, and in fact it has been the subject of various AfD's in the past (the most notable one on my part was the AfD on Quezon Avenue MRT Station). However, I do believe in the fact that the subjectivity of notability is what provides Wikipedia the flexibility to deal with various issues surrounding whether or not an article is notable in any sense of the word.
I recognize the fact that I will always have inclusionist tendencies, particularly because things here will not be adequately covered by reliable sources, even it is notable. I believe that something is notable not when the media reports on it, but when people recognize that it exists and it is an integral part of their lives. However, I do believe at the same time that in using a populist definition of notability, we need to be prudent and discerning on whether or not the people's right judgement is a greater right for Wikipedia to retain. This is where my exclusionist tendencies come in: though there is a group of people who recognize something as notable, it has to be something that all of us can relate to (one of the unspoken reasons why I voted "Keep" on the AfD on the death and funeral of Corazon Aquino) and is one that generates enough visibility in order to reach that end, whether through reliable sources in the media and in print or through highly-visible "unorthodox" sources like popular blogs. Notability is something that cannot be taken for granted: granted that what may be notable to you may not be notable to me, but I have to prove that my notability overrides your non-notability, and this is done by exhausting all legal means of doing so.
8. An article is sent to AfD at 8am UTC on September 1st. Assuming it is not a WP:SNOWBALL or speedy delete candidate and the debate is proceeding orderly when would be the earliest you would consider closing it?
A. AfDs for me are highly flexible processes, and as such I would wait and see before coming to a conclusion. In cases where there are long, fruitful debates, I'd give the AfD as much time as possible, and perhaps if no further comments are left within at least 3-5 days from the last comment, I'd close the AfD with a rationale for doing so.
9a. Hypothetical AfD 1: Nominated as "not notable company," two commentators said "per nom" and a third said "doesn't seem notable to me." After 6.5 days a fourth opinion is offered which reads "Keep - clearly notable per coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are over 100 GNews hits for this company; of course a few are PRs or trivial, but there are plenty of good sources too. For example, The Guardian New York Times The Washington Post and many more." How would you proceed?
A. This type of AfD is common for Philippine companies, actually. If someone made pahabol (rushes at the last minute) proof that a company is notable despite votes leading to the latter, I would leave the AfD open and see if others would contest. If no one would contest, I would automatically relist the AfD to determine consensus on two levels: first, whether the submitted sources are reliable and, on the second level, on the notability of the company itself from the sources submitted.
9b. Hypothetical AfD 2: Nominated as "seems spammy and probably non-notable," four commentators point out that the subject is notable & provide sources. A fifth opinion is offered that says "speedy delete - notable or not this a clear copyright violation" but offers no proof. How would you proceed?
A. This actually hinges on two outcomes:
  • The first situation presumes that the four commentators who provided sources rewrite the article, since it is spammy to begin with. If they do rewrite the article and use the citations they provided, then not only would the speedy delete be rendered invalid, but it may go the way of a "Keep", especially if other editors decide to review the rewritten article and compare it with the previous version.
  • The second situation, on the other hand, presumes the four commentators do nothing. The speedy delete contention may be valid in this case, but there is a strong case for notability. As such, I would hope for the first situation to occur. However, if it does not occur, I would hope the commentator who said that this is a copyvio will provide proof first. If proof is provided and it is indeed a copyvio (or if I find that it is a copyvio after investigating myself), I would close the AfD as "Delete" but without prejudice for recreation. If there is no proof given (and if I do find out that such copyvio is non-existent), I would give significantly less weight to the delete contention, and close it as "Keep", but tag the article with a cleanup tag.
Questions from Tony1
10. Do you think it would be useful for ArbCom to consider the creation of a subcommittee of admins and non-admins to run a tightly constructed process such as AdminReview for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of (or the threat to use) admin tools in breach admin policy? Be critical, please: has its time come, or is it unnecessary? Possible pitfalls? (AdminReview is still in draft form as a community-driven idea, and probably needs to be set out more simply.)
A: I'm still reading up on AdminReview, so I cannot give a concrete answer on the proposal based on its own merits. However, I do agree that there must be a check and balance between administrators and users, and that there must be a way for non-admin users to be able to give some weight as to whether or not administrators are indeed liable for misuse of the tools. We should recognize that Wikipedians are not just there to edit articles, but are there to make sure that the different hierarchies which form the community do work together harmoniously. We recognize that administrators are human, and policies like this one perhaps go the way forward of both further humanizing and democratizing the administrator position and the entire administrative process.
11. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been very rude to another editor in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use such a strategy?
A: Of course. I do believe in the fact that when you block an erring user, the victim always appears like he/she came out victorious, but at what cost did it come? Is it right to be overtly firm from the get-go? Of course not. Firm requests to retract serve as a means to clarify statements to make them sound less offensive, as well as to give an insight as to the way the normally-civil user thinks. Perhaps he/she didn't mean to come off that way, and he/she would prefer to be apologetic and more civil with his/her remarks. As they say, to err is human. However, a block should only come if the user is persistent in being uncivil to the point where the rudeness strikes as appalling not just to the victim but even to innocent bystanders who watch the drama unfold, and only as an absolute last resort.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support; what TheCoffee says is true. Icewedge (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per the nomination statement and TheCoffee's response to Stephen below. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, I'm strongly inclined to support someone who looks good if they are trusted at other Wiki's. What's good enough for Tagalog is good enough for me. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Great content contributions and the fair use rules did become more strict after 2005, per TheCoffee's rationale below. miranda 06:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I find no merit in the complaint about the fair use image issues below. I also see a lot of very useful editing, and a decent understanding of how things work here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Clean block log, good attitude, familiar with the role from other wiki. --StaniStani  07:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per nom, with a recommendation that certain information on your user page might be better of not there to be honest, but that's up to you. Fine candidate. Pedro :  Chat  09:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Opposers not convincing. Pmlineditor  Talk 09:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Opposers seem concerned by Orphaned imaged tags - This is because this user actually creates content! Francium12 (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, basically per Nihonjoe. It is not appropriate to hold incidents from the deep past against this candidate, particularly when said incidents occurred at a time when the rules were different. We should be examining the candidate's recent contributions to evaluate their ability to judge consensus, resolve disputes and work in a collaborative way. I have done so and I'm not just satisfied, I'm impressed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support per nom and per S Marshall FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Suport. Very good contibs and nominator statement, and I remain unconvinced about the opposes and I agree with S Marhall, we should not hold events from the past aginst people. AtheWeatherman 10:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Support - There is currently a lack of actice Filipino admins, so okay...--23prootie (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, the candidate has a clean track record, and has done nothing that would lead me to believe that they would abuse the tools. The oppose !votes are highly unconvincing. –blurpeace (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support The image questions have been adequately answered, and everything esle looks good.--SPhilbrickT 12:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, image issue dealt with, and everything else is dandy. Ironholds (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Stephen 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Dekimasuよ! 13:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No reason to believe the user will abuse the tools. hmwitht 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, not seeing any reason to do otherwise. Good luck! Shereth 14:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support You've certainly been here long enough, and, looking through your contributions, I can't see any reason to oppose. Timmeh (review me) 14:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I can't see anything wrong here.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I don't see any major problems.--Res2216firestar 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support You seem like exactly the right kind of person for the job. I see the now-stricken "issues" with images as a boon rather than a fault, speaking to your understanding and responsibility toward changing policy. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. While a great content contributor, his WP: work is also not lacking. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support--Giants27 (c|s) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Per the nom and all the above. SkyHarbor will make a great admin. Airplaneman talk 17:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Intentions to make Wikipedia a better resource are pure. Good luck! Starczamora (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Seems like the right kind of editor to be an admin. RP459 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Has done great at the English Wikipedia and has the trust of the Tagolog Wikipedia, should definitely get the mop. -- Atama頭 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Everything seems to be in order. Matheuler 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Looks pretty good --Caspian blue 22:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. The low edits in recent months are counterbalanced for me by the long, solid history and cratship on the tagalog wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I salute this guy and his efforts in making Wikipedia a better and brighter place, so suppport. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I am going to join this so far unanimous support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards for excellent arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizal National Science High School and as I happy to see User:Sky Harbor/Awards and as the candidate has been around since 2006 without having ever been blocked. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Keepscases (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Fully qualified candidate; no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support also, good choice for the first word of your username.--The LegendarySky Attacker 02:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -Very active on the Filipino Wiki among others.--Jondel (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support: absolutely.. South Bay (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. A good candidate. Kanonkas :  Talk  07:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support User has been around since Oct 2005 and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - this one must be a veteran editor. Alexius08 (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Active and good candidate, Magalhães (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Not the answer I was hoping for, but there's no indication that you'll consciously or inadvertently misuse the tools. decltype (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Good track record, satisfactory answers to questions, trusted user on other WMF projects. GlassCobra 14:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. No problems I can see. Malinaccier (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. A highly qualified candidate. @harej 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Thought I already did this, support. iMatthew talk at 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. SupportWell researched answer to my question, and in general strong editing credentials. Likeminas (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support — I have a sneaking suspicion this person will be a net positive to the project. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Excellent candidate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I was coming here to oppose, due to those imaging license issues I saw in his talk page archives, until I saw the comments in the oppose section. Since that's cleared up, I'll support, seeing as that was my one and only concern. Until It Sleeps Wake me 07:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Looks great. Aaroncrick (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. OK, I'm happy enough. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. support Candidate seems very good. Has a good understanding of policy and has substantial content contributions. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Good luck. America69 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support He has the standards of being an admin! ax (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Notably good replies to questions. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. I've been waiting for this moment, and now is the time to do it. I'm giving my absolute support. And having known him on-wiki and off-wiki, I honestly believe this was long overdue. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making me remember my comments on Efe's RfA last year. :)) --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Looks good---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support with appreciation of the well-thought answers. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. One of the prolific Filipino Wikipedia users and a strong advocate of cleaning the wiki system from vandals and unverified sources, I am giving my all out support together with other language groups (tl, war, bcl, ceb, pam) --Exec8 (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. No worries here. -- Banjeboi 11:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Because there is a combination of good content work and a sound, mature, common sensical approach to policy and process issues in the answers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support—Impressive answers: good writer, thinker. Tony (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support no reason to think there would be any problems. Excellent replies. Image issue not recent and seemingly not even intentional or malicious so can't hold the past against you forever. --candle•wicke 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support – I wasn't familiar with Sky Harbor when I first noticed this RfA. I did a look-over, though, and all I see is positive. Strong contribs, good demeanor. Excellent and interesting answers to the questions. Absolutely. JamieS93 00:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - no problems with the early image issues - that's the nature of progress here! Good content work & answers. Skier Dude (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support – clear answers to questions, everything looks fine to me. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support A good editor, although I did sway towards neutral because of what Axl said. Alan16 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. I've always seen Sky Harbor having Wikipedia's best interest in mind. --seav (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Good answers, no concerns. It is beneficial to Wikipedia to have admins from many different parts of the world, so that disputes can be addressed by people who have some local knowledge. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Sky Harbor. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per nom, no concerns. MLauba (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Seems like a fine candidate. — Σxplicit 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Wield the mop well! Vicenarian (Said · Done) 20:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Absolutely - a smart and safe pair of hands. Admirable answers ice the cake. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I see a talk page and archive full of about three years worth of image upload and licensing issues. --Stephen 05:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Moved to support on clarification --Stephen 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image licensing notices on his talk page are mostly due to "fair use" logos uploaded as early as 2005, before the rules became as stringent as they are today. After the notices were given, you'll find that Sky Harbor complied responsibly by adding fair use rationales, and this shouldn't be interpreted as lack of knowledge with policies. TheCoffee (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In July this year he received notification for an orphaned free-use image and, as far as I can tell, did nothing, just letting it expire. You would expect a proficient user to add it back into an article and remove the tagging, or to realise it is no longer needed and tag it to be deleted as the original uploader. --Stephen 06:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem if he chooses to let it expire, it would just sit in a category for a few extra days. — Σxplicit 06:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may answer those: some of the logos were replaced by other users, which I believed were of better quality than the previous logos which I uploaded. As a matter of prudence (and, in some cases, technological advancement, since some of the old PNG logos were replaced by SVG ones), I let them expire. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, essentially for the same reason as Stephen. Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose answered adequately - switching to support, since he's an otherwise excellent editor. Ironholds (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Generally good contributions. However the reasons for seeking adminship are unconvincing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sky_Harbor&oldid=1147981983"