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

Interstellarity

Final (5/18/2); withdrawn by candidate, closed by Primefac ( talk) at 19:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Nomination

Interstellarity ( talk · contribs) – I have been actively editing for the past 5 years and hoping to take the next step in running to be an administrator on Wikipedia. Back in 2013, I was given a block for vandalism. In 2019, I was successfully unblocked and since then, my contributions have shown that I care about the quality of content that Wikipedia has to offer. I am not a perfect editor, no one is, and I have made a ton of mistakes since then, but the thing that makes me stand out from other contributors is that I work to learn from my mistakes and not do them again. During those past 5 years, I have developed a lot of experience in a wide range of areas on Wikipedia such as fighting vandalism, dealing with inappropriate usernames, citing good quality references, participating in AFDs, dealing with RMs and improving the headings and paragraphs in articles. I'm not an expert in all the tasks Wikipedia has to offer, but I am hoping that taking this step will be a good stepping stone in making Wikipedia a better place for everyone. All of my edits on Wikipedia were made free from compensation. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Hi everyone and thank you for participating in my RFA. Your comments were very much appreciated and will take them all into consideration. Unfortunately, despite only being only hours in this RFA, the community has made it clear that I am not ready to serve as administrator just yet. I ask that any experienced editor to please close this RFA as withdrawn. I will continue to work throughout Wikipedia and if and when the time is right, I may try again. Best regards, Interstellarity ( talk) 19:13, 2 January 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: I want to be able to expand on my work as an editor on Wikipedia. I want to play a more active role in editing Wikipedia in ways such as helping deal with vandalism and inappropriate usernames, something I developed years of experience in. Being an admin is not my ultimate goal on Wikipedia, but I'm hoping that in many ways, I can help Wikipedia in any way I can. I don't intend to be active only in admin areas, I still want to help improve articles any way I can whether it would be spelling and grammar or making the article sound better, I consider it to be a small step in helping make Wikipedia better in the years to come.

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

A: I have worked on the articles of the United States and History of the United States. I worked on the history section of that article and wanted to make the periods as descriptive as possible. It wasn't easy find the perfect description of then, but after working with several editors on what the best way to divide up the history section would be, I finally came to a consensus. I have also have contributions to the WP:Vital articles project stretching back as far back as years. I have put several hours into maintaining those lists so that it categorizes Wikipedia's most important articles. I believe this list will help Wikipedia make good quality articles for years to come.

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: If I answered this question with I have never had conflicts in editing, I would be lying. Whether I am an admin or not, there will always be conflicts in editing. I have experienced my fair share of editor disagreements that caused me stress. For example, an editor might be frustrated if I make too many bold changes. In this case, I try my best to discuss the issue with the editor and seek common ground on with editors to reach a consensus. I have no doubt that if I become an administrator, I will have to deal with more conflicts. I will usually try to explain my actions and intentions to the other editors so that they can understand where I am coming from. Sometimes, it helps to take breaks from Wikipedia and respond later when I am in a better position to respond.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Ritchie333

4. I have a question about your AfD stats, which report only a little more than half matching the final result. Specific AfDs you started that closed with a consensus to "keep" include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest libraries in the United States, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of children of vice presidents of the United States and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google and Wikipedia, with other AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Francis trending towards a "keep" result as I write this. How can I trust you with the delete button?

A: I believe you have made good points regarding my AFD stats. It is one of my weak areas of Wikipedia. I have made sure that I read the deletion policy. I would only delete these articles without consensus if they met the criteria for speedy deletion. All of those articles you mention do not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion which means they have to go through either WP:PROD or WP:AFD, but that doesn't automatically mean that the article should be deleted. The articles need to meet the notability criteria. If multiple independent, reliable, and sources cover the article's subject with wide coverage of the subject, then it is notable and should not be deleted, but if there are little to none of those sources that cover the subject, then it would be deleted. Things can change. An article that is deleted today could be recreated if multiple sources cover it if it is notable. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Optional question from 0xDeadbeef

5. In Q3 you said If I answered this question with I have never had conflicts in editing, I would be lying. Could you provide one or two specific examples of conflict that were significant to you in your editing history, and.. How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Here is a recent example of conflict that I experienced on the vital articles project. On Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/History_and_geography#Annapolis,_Maryland, other editors were frustrated that I can making changes to a vital article nomination. If you read my comments there, I have tried my best to explain to the editors there what my intentions were and what I was trying to do. I was withdrawing a nomination that I made, but other editors told me I wasn't able to withdraw my nomination and they were right. I have dealt with it by working with the editors there and coming to a consensus on what should have done instead and they reopened the discussion there. In the future, when I deal with conflicts like those, I will try my best to maintain a cool head and work with the editors there, which are mostly good faith editors, and try to come to a resolution whenever I can. Most of the time, it is easy, but sometimes if it gets out of control, I might involve an outside party or walk away from the situation and not beat a dead horse. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Optional question from 0xDeadbeef

6. According to XTools, your last edits to WP:UAA and WP:AIV date back to more than three years ago [1] [2], and in looking at your last few edits tagged Rollback they date back to 2020 as well. How do you think this lack of recent activity in the areas that you want to work in affects your suitability as an administrator, and how would you like to respond to this lack of activity?

A: The main reason for my lack of activity on those pages is because interests change over time. There was a time that I was all into these areas, but I decided to get into different areas on Wikipedia and also my life situation. Right now, I have a more flexible life and would be willing to work back in those areas again in the near future and I don't think the last of activity should have anything to do with my suitability as an administrator. I have done good work in those areas and would be willing to help out there regardless of what the outcome is on this RFA. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Optional question from Seddon

7. Article creation isn't the only metric that displays a grasp of policies and guidelines. Have you made any substantial contributions to any current affairs article? Or to any article which has either featured on the main page or gone through any sort of community review process?

A: I have made a lot of contributions to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is where I edited the most. When the pandemic was in its early phase, I have made plenty of edits there, but I think all I did here was just to update the date in the infobox. I think nowadays, a bot can do that now. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Optional question from Schminnte

8. Thank you for running today. A new user, John at Bob's Burgers, uses their first edit to create an unambiguously promotional userpage for the company's signature double cheeseburger. By referring to CSD and talk page warnings, how would you deal with the promotion and conflict of interest? Additionally, what other steps could be taken if their username was just the company's name?

A: If I saw that in real life, that would raise a red flag to me. The user page would likely quality for a speedy deletion using a G11 or U5 tag depending on what the page is. I would warn the user that Wikipedia is not about promoting your business. Facebook would probably serve a better purpose for them rather than this site. If the user continues to use Wikipedia in this way, then a username and promotion block would be appropriate in this case. However, if they decide to change your username and edit about other things not related to their company, that's completely fine. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Optional question from Bon courage

9. Have you edited with other accounts?

A: Thanks for asking. For this question, I will try to be as transparent as I possibly can when answering this question. In my early days of Wikipedia, I was an anonymous editor and then I created this account. I can't recall exactly, but I probably created an account when my block was still ongoing, but I never used it for any reason. I should not have created any accounts because that would have been block evasion and I evaded my block using IP addresses. I have learned from my mistakes and if in the event that I am blocked again, which I hope doesn't happen, I would have appealed my block the right way and not evade my block again. Right now, this is the only account I am using right now. However, if I do plan on creating another account in the future such as for use on public networks, I will disclose that on my user page. I don't have any uses for multiple accounts right now, so I am editing with this one. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion

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

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

Support

1. Moral support - I think the candidate has potential and I admire their readiness to try their luck with such a cruel and cutthroating business that is RfA. I encourage Interstellarity to not be disheartened and take every oppose not as an attack, but an opportunity to learn what they need to do or improve on in order to receive the mop. Hang in there! Brat Forelli🦊 15:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
2. Support Per Brat Forelli.... And besides, I always try to see good intentions in every candidate who steps up to this. Volten001 ^☎ 16:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
3. Weak Support per above, it’s bold to go through RfA with a self nom, and I’ve seen them around a few times. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
4. Moral Support. This isn't going to pass, so I feel safe adding a moral support. I like that they help out that IP editor friend of theirs. Consider this support on behalf of Matt the IP – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
5. Moral support ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose. I had a look at your en.wiki stats after finding nothing at all on your Userpage. Of your top-edited pages, COVID-19 pandemic, Human history, and United States, you haven't really contributed anything substantial. Nothing bad in of itself, we always need more gnomes, but I'm not convinced that you fully understand content policies or WP:PURPOSE. And I was concerned with this edit (edit: I had the wrong diff here), in which you say I think article creation is one of my weak points, but I do have experience with referencing. It seems like when I want to create an article like when a new school shooting happens, the article is already created on that. I can't quite put into words what exactly this makes me feel. Getting the first edit in on an article is not the point; collaboration is, and that is a rather odious topic area to be wanting to shout "First!" in. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 14:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose Sorry to land here and put this RfA off to a bad start, but I'm just not comfortable with the answer to Q4, which just looks like a paraphrase of policy, rather than understanding the nuances of how to close an AfD appropriately, which are somewhat more of an art than a science. The observations of Vami IV also give me pause. There's also a concern over exactly how many accounts the candidate has had; unfortunately these have been deleted so I can't share the details with non-admins, but I can see a few previous usernames that don't appear to have been disclosed. If there are valid reasons not to disclose these publicly, then Arbcom should have been informed, and a note like "I have previous accounts, all have been disclosed to Arbcom and agreed as non-problematic" should have been put on the RfA from the get-go per Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. The questions haven't really been answered properly. The answer to Q1 claims "years of experience" in dealing with vandals and bad usernames, but the candidate has only made 57 edits to AIV and 32 to UAA, and hasn't made a report to either in over three years, with their last 500 user talk edits also going back more than years. One of the examples of their best work in Q2 is an article they have 10 edits to, which are mostly gnoming and not content work, and the answers to Q3 and Q4 also aren't really answers but just describe conflict resolution and the deletion policy respectively. The lack of transparency about previous accounts is also a big concern. Giraffer ^{( talk· contribs)} 15:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
4. Weak oppose per lack of recent activity. ^Queen of _Hearts 15:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
5. Sorry Interstellarity; I've seen you around, and you don't do any harm. This is more because, although 'NNFTT' has been deprecated, there must still be the means of judging a candidate by earlier activity, particularly in the areas they wish to work in. Unfortunately, I just don't see enough evidence of you doing much. Little content creation (no, I don't demand GAs/FAs either). Little work on admin report pages, a couple of current AfDs that seem to misunderstand N (...is demonstrated by coverage in RS, not just being "the nth" at something), or a lack of BEFORE. But as I say, you haven't done anything especially wrong that I could see (I'm with RoySmith re. 10-year-old block, btw—my only query would be why you didn't appeal sooner! (But that's absolutely personal to you, no need to answer)). So another year working in areas you want to prove yourself in should build up demonstrable experience. NOTYET, perhaps, but not too far either...?
   Also btw, the self-nom is a big point in your favor. ——Serial 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

   Further edit to note that while I still agree with Roy that 10-year-old blocks are small beer, the candidate appears to have been socking for four years after their block; this resets the date of last offence to six years rather than ten. As a matter of trust, that's far more important than the original vandalism block. ——Serial 16:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

6. For Q5, I'm not seeing anything that resembles a heated discussion or conflict, and I have dealt with it by working with the editors there and coming to a consensus. Yet it was someone else who had to re-open the discussion and undo your invalid withdrawal close. Q6's answer isn't satisfactory either, especially with I don't think the last of activity should have anything to do with my suitability as an administrator. Most importantly, I spotted many linguistic elements that just seemed off. It gave me a lot of LLM vibes that potentially crosses my AGF threshold. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
7. Unfortunately, the stats don't convince me to support. Two of the areas that you said you'd work in are AIV and UAA, and while your reports appear to be reasonably accurate, you haven't made a single report to either page in over three years (in addition, your answer to Q8 isn't what I was hoping for; [name] at [company] usernames are allowed, per WP:ISU, so what I'd do in that case is tag the user page with U5/G11, and then leave them a paid-contribution disclosure warning if they haven't already disclosed). AfD stats show an under 60% match rate, which is well below what I'd expect, and while your CSD deletion rate is good you haven't made a non-U1/G6/G7 CSD request in three years. While your activity is fairly consistent, the majority of months you have fewer than 100 edits, and recently fewer than 10% of those have been to mainspace. None of these things are dealbreakers on their own, but added together I can't support. —  Ingenuity ( talk •  contribs) 16:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose for now: I think this is a not quite yet situation. The answer to my question was not necessarily wrong—G11/U5 and warning is an appropriate response—but missed the point of the definite COI and likely paid relationship, which requires disclosure. For someone who wants to work with usernames, they also missed that making a promotional page with just a company name would be a reason for an immediate UAA report ( WP:CORPNAME). On the flip side, "John at Bob's Burgers" is a perfectly acceptable username as it describes an individual, so would not be part of a potential blocking reason. Overall good work is being made, but I think some more experience in planned admin areas is needed before granting the tools. I encourage the candidate to run again when the experience is acquired and hope to see them here again. All the best, Schminnte ^{[ talk to me} 16:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose seen this user at WP:VA, where they've tended to make more work for others having to clean up their mess. They have a tendency to make bold actions before seeking consensus. While there is nothing wrong with WP:Bold, an admin needs to operate on the basis of unequivocal consensus. That's just my experience, but reading other opposes does not instill confidence that they are suitable for admin tools anytime soon. There are other non-admin areas such as WP:NPP or WP:AFC where they could work to help improve and their wiki skills. Polyamorph ( talk) 16:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose per 0xDeadbeef and Ingenuity I don't need to see a proof of a need for the tools, but I do like to see proof of a competency and I'm struggling to see that proven to a sufficient degree with the areas where admin tools might be used. Particularly in those where you are active. Seddon ^talk 16:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
11. OpposeNot good enough to be an administrator. Catfurball ( talk) 17:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose At this time I don't feel that there's enough experience with writing/expanding articles, AfD, and other maintenance work. In the future if these things were addressed then I would be comfortable supporting. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose I’ve had a look at content contributions and there is very little. Admins need some experience in this area as this understanding forms the basis of any deletion activity. Others have commented on lack of experience with admin tasks. Taken together, the user isn’t ready for the tools. Schwede 66 18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
14. 2x( edit conflict) The low activity prompts me to oppose for now. Toadette ^{( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 18:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose Thanks for running, and I like the self-nomination. IMO just not enough experience in any potential work area. BTW AFD stats should not be a criteria. It can be chilling at NPP. Nobody is going to want to review non-notable articles in areas that have fan clubs at AFD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose - not quite yet, since I'm not convinced the candidate would use the tools effectively. Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 19:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose - this needs closing down, and candidate is one for the future. Giant Snowman 19:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose, without any prejudice to the candidate, whom I had honestly never interacted with, or even heard of, when I got the notification about this. I don't like casting an oppose !vote without at least some independent personal knowledge, but I do this here anyway because, when a RfA has barely started and already runs three-to-one against giving a candidate the tools, and all the supports are qualifying themselves as "moral", it's pretty clear that there is insufficient community trust and the best thing would be to withdraw the nomination sooner rather than later. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. I admire the self nomination, which takes some guts, but I do share similar feelings to those who opposed (and I agree with Richie that some answers seem to be a rehash of policy wording, rather than a personalised response). I already sense this is probably not one that will pass so won't jump on the oppose bandwagon. I just don't get the feeling you understand policy fully yet, and would benefit from at least another 12 months demonstrating an understanding in administrator-working areas. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 16:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
2. I like the candidate and the self-nom, but agree with the !votes in the oppose section. I think it's definitely a WP:NQY sitaution at the moment, and that shows in the answers. Go find a niche, come back in a years time, and the answers will already be a lot better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

General comments

• I haven't read enough to form an opinion on the candidate one way or the other, but I do want to go on record as saying that a block from 10 years ago is absolutely meaningless as far as evaluating the candidate today, so let's please not get hung up on that. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'd also like to defend Interstellarity as although the entry in the block log says "vandalism only", I think it was more disruption through over-enthusiasm by replacing a bunch of infobox images. That can't be obviously provable as a bad-faith set of actions, even if a block was necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 2 January 2024 (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.