Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Starship.paint

< Wikipedia:Administrator elections | October 2024 | Candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Starship.paint (talk | contribs) at 07:25, 23 October 2024 (Clarify reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nomination

Starship.paint (talk · contribs · he/him) – Hello, dear reader! This is starship.paint here. I joined Wikipedia in 2011 and since then, I have contributed over 64,000 edits. From 2011 to 2016, I mainly edited in the topic of pro wrestling, where I have brought multiple articles (example and example) to Featured Article or Good Article status, (example and example), and having articles featured at DYK (example) and TFA. In 2016, a certain individual prompted me to start editing in other topics, including the contentious topics of recent American politics, gender-related controversies, abortion, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. If elected, per WP:INVOLVED, I will not use the tools in all of the above topics' disputes (except against blatant vandalism). I believe in compromise and working together with editors who may not share the same view, but of course we must still rely on reliable sources. I believe that my record shows that I am here to serve and improve Wikipedia, and I hope that given my contributions, you will lend me your support in this poll. starship.paint (talk / cont) First posted 12:22, 13 October 2024. Last updated 13:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay.

I have never engaged in paid editing and I have never had another account on Wikipedia. starship.paint (talk / cont) 12:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: If elected, I’ll start by hanging around AN and ANI to gain some experience, and after that I will also try to help out at AE (but I will not administrate in involved topics). My work in contentious topics has led me to better appreciate the importance of AE. It is not the solution to every conflict in a contentious topic, but sometimes it is still warranted. Unfortunately, according to an active AE admin, link: there are very few admins doing any sort of AE work and many of those doing that work are doing so intermittently, and hence I believe I can eventually help assist in this area of need for topics in which I am not involved. I may dabble in ITN (judging consensus in ITN discussions to post items in the news on the main page) and branch out to other areas as I go along. I want to help Wikipedia become a more conducive place for editors to work on content.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In terms of concrete achievements, I (along with User:Ribbon Salminen) created Wrestle Kingdom 9 (from a redirect), got it through DYK, GA, and FA, which earned myself and Ribbon Salminen the WP:Four Award (and the article got TFA too).

I do have another FA (with TFA), other GAs, as well as around 20 other DYKs, the majority of which are not related to pro wrestling. During the process of attaining these I have reviewed other topics’ articles for FA, and DYK.
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 edited in several contentious topics but I do not think many significant personal conflicts arose from these, or from what I recall, any official sanctions for those topics. I try to be civil and even-tempered, I aim to collaborate and I think I have good relations with some editors who have different opinions.

That being said, I must highlight, Wikipedia has not really caused me stress, except for one occasion in 2019 during the Wikipedia-WMF saga WP:FRAM, during which I received my only block (an indefinite one, plus talk access revoked, both lasted for less than a day). During WP:FRAM I helped to chronicle and summarize the events that had occurred. I was blocked due to me asking a named WMF staffer whether they owned a Twitter account with the same name that had been posting about WP:FRAM. I did not know it then, but this was WP:OUTING.

Being indefinitely blocked was traumatic, as I thought I may never be able to edit again. My appeal was quickly successful, after which I went to disengage myself from WP:FRAM and undertook not to repeat the same mistake. It was some time before I eventually edited normally again. After the incident I became more wary of conflict. I reverted less, moved on more, discussed if I wanted to continue the matter. I rarely template the regulars, preferring to write my own messages.

It struck me how one administrator said regarding my indefinite block that he would have blocked for two weeks instead. Perhaps the matter could have been resolved by then. Certainly, that would have reduced the emotional turmoil I had experienced. It was a lesson - behind every editor is a human with feelings. Administrators wield sanctioning powers that may affect people. When people are blocked, sometimes they do not even appeal, sometimes they do not return even after a successful appeal. This does not mean that these blocks were wrong, but this is what we risk when using them, so we must always consider carefully.

As an administrator, one would do well to remember the human behind every username.

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 Thryduulf

4. Why did you choose to seek adminship via election rather than via a standard RFA?
A: Thank you for your question, Thryduulf. I consider RFA a daunting process and potentially unpleasant. The elections are less daunting to me, given my feeling that the candidates are all in this together, living a shared difficult experience. Comparing recent RFAs and recent ArbCom elections (with a process resembling these admin elections), I believe that the admin elections are likely to be more pleasant. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Ganesha811

5. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?
A: Thank you for the question, Ganesha811. First, never say never, I don’t want to rule anything out, as I am open to learning and improving, but I will do my best to proceed carefully in any area. Second, as I have been primarily a content editor, I am indeed unfamiliar or lacking in technical knowledge in several areas (e.g. sockpuppetry, unpaid editing, copyright violations, speedy deletion, history merges, WP:PERM), I certainly would not jump hastily in these areas! Third, if I want to help in an area I am not familiar in, I believe the simplest avenue to start is by asking an editor who is very experienced in the area on advice and perhaps small assignments so that I can progress and improve. starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Trainsandotherthings

6. As someone who has edited significantly in contentious topics, how do you view the change from the former discretionary sanctions system to what we have now with contentious topics? Could it be improved further?
A: Thank you for your question, Trainsandotherthings. The change was definitely positive in some regards - for example, alerts under the former name 'Discretionary sanctions' could lead to editors' misunderstandings such as 'Given your edits, admins can punish you however they want!' The new name, 'Contentious topics', more clearly indicates what the true issue is. Another key change was the requirement for discretionary sanctions alerts to contentious topics alerts. From what I remember, discretionary sanctions alerts generally needed to be re-given every year to count as awareness, which gave leeway for wiki-lawyering over alerts and awareness, whereas contentious topics alerts simplifies the requirements for awareness, such that after the first alert (or after other actions), editors are presumed aware, but can still "refute this presumption on appeal". starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from hako9

7. Among all the policies/guideline on wikipedia, if you were to make changes to any one of those, which policy/guideline and what changes do you think you could make the best case for, while persuading other editors?
A: Thank you for your question, hako9. Overall I am quite happy with the policies and guidelines, but I can raise one policy I recently supported changing - the CheckUser policy (as suggested by User:Sean.hoyland). In the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, we have seen persistent abuse by sockpuppets of banned editors (not exclusive to one 'POV'). I believe that in contentious topics which have more sockpuppets, the threshold for executing a CheckUser should be lower (e.g. edit warring can be grounds to use CheckUser). This will more easily allow us to root out ban-evading editors. Unfortunately, even if editors here are persuaded, it may not be enough - when I originally supported this change, I was responded to by User:Barkeep49 who said CU policy has a globally established floor (one which is monitored by the Ombuds who report directly to the Board of the WMF … we're already operating close to, if not at, the floor … "make it easier to run CU" isn't something ArbCom or even enwiki can decide. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Valereee

8. Re: your answer to Q3, can you discuss your understanding of the various reasons an administrator would decide to block indefinitely rather than for a limited time period, and in particular why an indef is often best not only for the project but for the person being blocked?
A: Thank you for your question, Valereee. The thing about time-limited blocks is that they run the risk of editors simply waiting out the time period, and then resuming their previously disruptive behaviour once the block expires. Certain behaviours (e.g. the worst violations of WP:BLP) can be so disruptive to the point that an administrator would not want to risk the project suffering further damage unless the editor can persuasively assure that they will not resume the disruptive behaviour. You posit that indefinite blocks are often best for the person being blocked - but I think I haven't yet been persuaded on this point. Perhaps, as an admin, you have seen much more examples and evidence for this than I have. Of course, an indefinite block may be beneficial for people if this scenario plays out - if they want to continue editing (legitimately), they are forced to reflect and explain how they can change to no longer disrupt the project, and if they follow their own advice, they will be able to edit Wikipedia more smoothly in the future. If they are not able to explain how to change, there is a possibility that they are not suited for Wikipedia, and if they remain blocked without further action they can focus their time and effort on other things. This assumes no block evasion, but we know that this does not always apply. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Bunnypranav

9. You’ve mentioned editing in contentious areas like American politics, gender-related controversies, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. How would you approach using admin tools in such sensitive areas, especially where the line between vandalism and legitimate but controversial edits is blurry?
A: Thank you for your question, Bunnypranav. You listed three contentious, sensitive areas that I am WP:INVOLVED in. For topics that I am involved in, it would have to take really obvious vandalism for me to take action myself, so obvious that any reasonable administrator would have done the same. Examples of obvious vandalism in such topics include this and that. If there is a chance that the edit is controversial but legitimate, it can be discussed on the article talk page, or a noticeboard, or referred to an uninvolved admin. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Alalch E.

7. What would you do if you encountered a draft that is an identical copy of an article deleted via AfD, in which the consensus was to delete it as an Wikipedia:Attack page, whereby not all editors agreed that the article should be deleted, some arguing in good faith that it is not an attack page?
A: Thank you for the question, Alalch E.. If the consensus is legitimate and particularly if the draft is regarding living or recently deceased people (per WP:BLP and WP:BDP), I would delete the article under WP:G10. We have a duty to report fairly on living people that we cover. However, I would be willing to provide a partial WP:REFUND of legitimate references in the draft to any editor willing to work on a proper article on the subject. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Gamaliel

8. You were one of the most active and prominent editors involved in editing the Gamergate harassment campaign article and have the 13th most number of edits to that page. Editors on both sides of that conflict were widely criticized on Wikipedia and in the news media. Do you feel your behavior in that conflict is up to the standards expected by the community to fill the role of administrator? Why or why not?
A: Thank you for the questions, Gamaliel. Gamergate was and is a controversial topic. I tried my best to edit in accordance to policies and to adhere to reliable sources, as I do for every topic. I do not recall being sanctioned for editing in this area or being singled out for criticism by the media (you can enlighten me if I am wrong). Perhaps you can be more specific on any behaviour or wrongdoing you want to discuss. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Gamaliel

9. Several years ago you called for ArbCom to investigate and possibly sanction Wikiproject Women in Red for a tweet presumably published by one of its members. Would you make the same request today? Why or why not? How would you investigate and sanction an entire WikiProject? What would you say to members of that WikiProject to assure them that you can remain neutral on issues related to that project?
A: I would not make the same request today due to, as you referenced, the difficulty in investigating and even sanctioning a WikiProject. In addition, the request was found to be off-topic per above. Regarding assurance, I will say, consider me WP:INVOLVED with regard to Women in Red. I will recuse, as much as possible, for actions explicitly related to the WikiProject, if I am aware of the WikiProject's involvement, baring blatant vandalism. This doesn’t mean that I recuse from articles about women, though, there has to be more explicit involvement of the WikiProject. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

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

AfD record: 89.10% match rate, n of 138. 42 keep !votes to 80 delete !votes. Mildly subjective comment: these are good numbers but they go back more than a decade so they're not a strong basis for any conclusion about the candidate. He participated in 7 AfDs in the past year, all related to I/P; the !votes here are typically short and, obviously, given the topic area, the AfDs are well-attended and no one vote is likely to sway the discussion by itself. I spot-checked a few older AfDs and found only very brief !votes; if they were more recent I might have looked harder to see if it was evidence of vote-stacking, but since it's from more than a year ago I don't think it's a big issue. tl;dr, ignore the numbers, and evaluate the candidate on other things. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN & FAC notes. Five GAN nomiantions, but no reviews; list is here. All ten or more years ago. Seven FAC nominations and 12 reviews; list here; again, all old -- the most recent is from 2016. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Mike Christie for reviewing my record. From what I remember of the FACs, they kept failing (until they finally passed) because few editors were willing to review a pro wrestling article. The difficulty in passing FAs due to low interest in FAC reviews of pro wrestling articles did lead me to stop trying for FA after the successes. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidates/Starship.paint&oldid=1252864345"