Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix

Eostrix

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (65/1/1); Scheduled to end 06:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

Eostrix (talk · contribs) – Ladies, gentlemen, and ... owls. Eostrix (named for an extinct genus of owl) has been a registered Wikipedian for two years, almost to the day. In that time, they have accumulated 22,000 edits and an impressive track record of both content contribution and back-of-house work. When Eostrix first approached me for a nomination early in the year, I suggested they gain more experience, especially in the mainspace. To their great credit, Eostrix took my advice to heart and came back with more experience under their belt, a GA (2020 Hpakant jade mine disaster), and a handful of other article contributions, mostly on events in parts of the world that don't often attract the attention of English speakers. Back of house, Eostrix does a lot of new-page patrolling, which involves application of our notability standards and the criteria for speedy deletion. The number of red links in their CSD log would suggests that their interpretation is in line with the current application of policy. Most impressively, their contributions to AfD show that they have the willingness and ability to do the research and aren't afraid to argue against the prevailing opinion and back up their arguments with sources, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Maloney (doctor) (2nd nomination). In my experience, their AIV and UAA reports (and indeed oversight requests) are flawless, and they have a calm, careful demeanour. All this considered, I think Eostrix would make an excellent admin. I very much hope the community agrees. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Eostrix's username is one that I've become familiar with while working in areas such as UAA and SPI. I have come to associate them with reports that are well evidenced, properly presented and immediately actionable: I trust their judgment in these areas. On closer inspection, I see them writing articles that have meet the GA standards, reviewing new articles judiciously and courteously, nominating articles for deletion when necessary through the appropriate channels, and contributing in many areas with a commendable level of competence and enthusiasm. This project needs new blood in its administrative corps: I strongly believe that fresh perspectives and new ideas are a positive thing for any community. I am therefore pleased to present Eostrix to you as a relatively new editor who has achieved a lot in a short space of time, who is willing to take feedback on board and make adjustments as necessary, and who has shown that they can learn quickly. They are willing to give generously of their time to further the project's goals: I urge the community to allow them access to the tools that would allow them to do more. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you HJ Mitchell and Girth Summit for your kind words and guidance. I accept the nomination. I have not registered any additional accounts on Wikipedia. I volunteer on Wikipedia, I have never edited for pay and nor do I intend to do so in the future.--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 05:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: In the beginning, I intend to handle UAA requests and many of the speedy deletion queues (all the Gs, As and Us. Some others, but probably not most of the F series with which I am less familiar). I also expect to close some AfD discussions, patrol RfPP and possibly AIV. Seeing deleted contributions will also help me in detecting abuse patterns between accounts.

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

A: While I am proud that I created some articles that shine a spotlight on less seen areas of the world, my most prolific and impactful contributions have come from patrolling new content. While patrolling I've thwarted multiple misuses of Wikipedia as an advertising platform, both by very new users and by returning users such as this operator. I've also dealt with attack pages, minors divulging information they shouldn't, and garden variety vandalism.

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've been involved in numerous conflicts with disruptive editors. For the most part these are not too stressful and I remain calm, composed, and courteous. Some mischief by LTAs can be somewhat annoying, however for the most part it is just noise that is to be sadly expected and should be ignored after the disruption has been dealt with. Earlier in my patrolling/AfD career I was perhaps overly zealous to press the case home in cases I felt I was right, and this may have caused some friction in a few discussions. I found User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist#Behavior at AfD to be excellent advice, and have since for the most part stuck to my nominating statement and a handful of rebuttals at most. The time and energy spent on a single discussion is usually better spent going wide on multiple discussions.

---

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 TrangaBellam

4. Have you been in any kind of content-dispute? How did you tackle it? Please provide wiki links to the discussion(s).

A: User:TrangaBellam, in the topics I have edited most often, namely owl species and less noticed places, heated content disputes on Wikipedia are uncommon. Some of these topics are controversial, for instance Apaa is a heated topic in NW Uganda but it did not even exist on Wikipedia and has little attention here. In the similar Talk:2020 Lekki shooting, which elicited some participation by new editors, there was some discussion about the title (also move review), but it did not involve any long standing editors and has quieted down since the event. In some AfDs I participated in there was back and forth, for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu had significant opinions both ways and I attempted to present policy based reasons for the position I advanced. I have intervened (off of AN/ANI or independent discovery) in a number of articles, for example Talk:Turkish War of Independence, in which there was disruption generated by outside sources. In that talk page I responded to a number of ECP edit requests ([1][2][3]) and disruptive edits (e.g. [4]). I also intervened in the related Greek War of Independence where there was tit-for-tat language being inserted ([5]) without it being supported by sources ([6]). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stepanakert pogrom (Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict), I followed up in Talk:1988 violence in Shusha and Stepanakert#Appropriate title? with suggestions for a more neutral title and the article was moved to a more neutral compromise that tied related events together. Also, I acted as a mediator upon request at this user talk page.--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 15:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Bungle

5. You note you intend to close some(?) AfD discussions. While your AfD !voting activity has been praised, how much experience do you have in AfD closures (obviously non-delete ones) and have your decisions ever been disputed or reviewed by the community?

A: I do not have experience in closing AfDs beyond very obvious snow or speedy keep situations such as this one. Per WP:NACD, non-admins are limited to closing only AFDs that are not close and in addition non-admins are biased towards non-deletion (keeps, relist, no-consensus) as they lack the tools to actually implement deletion, so there is an inherent selection bias problem in non-admin AfD closure. Thus, my AfD activity until now has been focused on discussion participation. I mentioned AfD closure as a distant third after UAA and speedy deletion, and I would begin by cautiously closing a limited number of AfD discussions.--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 18:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Optional questions from MJL

6. If Matpatgt made this edit in 2021, what would you do and why?

A: The post itself is in WP:NOTAFORUM territory, and is questionable. The username falls under WP:IMPERSONATE as MatPat is a living person, GT is their show, and this is being posted on the talk page of the article. I would advise the user on BLP policy, and soft block as a username violation until they change their username or prove their identity to info-en@wikimedia.org.--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 18:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

7. Under what circumstances would a username like KillAllOwls fall under WP:DISRUPTNAME?

A: Well, I am biased a bit about owls. I would say that usernames of the style "KillAll <class of people>" would generally fall under DISRUPTNAME as they make harmonious editing with said <class of people> on Wikipedia very difficult. In regards to "KillAll <non-person>", this may be an indication of NOTHERE but not necessarily block worthy by itself. If this is a newly created account, and it is editing in a confrontational manner towards an editor with Owl in their username then the KillAllOwls username could be seen as trolling/personal attack and that would fall under DISRUPTNAME.--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 18:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from John Cline

8. Please tell me the difference between general notability and subject-specific notability and how you feel about deleting subject-specific topics that meet wp:sng, but fail to meet wp:gng? Thank you.

A: It depends on the particular SNG.

Most of the current SNGs are subservient to GNG and serve as a yardstick to which topics, in the subject area, are likely to be notable. The SNGs that are subservient state so in the guideline, for instance Wikipedia:Notability (sports):

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia

In the case of a subservient SNG (such as NSPORTS) it is possible to delete an article that meets the SNG but not GNG. This will typically occur for topics that are borderline (for instance a cricket person who has appeared in a single match) and if it happens frequently enough it may serve as an impetus to change the SNG itself. In a deletion discussion for a topic that meets such an SNG, the presumption will be that there are sources for GNG however if participants in the discussion demonstrate that such sources do not exist then the topic will merit deletion (or an alternative outcome). The presumption of meeting GNG, due to meeting an SNG, requires refutation by argument in the deletion discussion (e.g. delete voters arguing that it is a borderline pass of the SNG, that all provided sources are of low quality and barely mention the topic, that they searched for more sources and weren't able to find any, and that in total the GNG is not close to being met despite the borderline pass of the SNG).

In contrast to most SNGs that are subservient, a minority of SNGs provide alternate routes for notability. For example Wikipedia:Notability (academics) states:

This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline.

In the case of WP:NACADEMIC, it is sufficient to show that one of the listed conditions in the guideline is met. For instance, if an academic authored over 100 articles that were each cited over 1,000 times then criterion one of NACADEMIC would be met irrespective of the GNG. Such an academic might not be covered in reliable sources as an individual, but they would have (in the example provided) over 100,000 mentions (or more than a mention) of their work in reliable sources.--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 03:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support - Sure, why not. Seems careful and a hard worker, and has trustworthy nominators. Hasn't been around as long as some candidates, but two years is still a reasonable time. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support - I've seen Eostrix around, and I respect the recommendation of both nominators. Deb (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support I’ve also seen Eostrix around UAA and SPI and am confident they will make good use of the tools. Pahunkat (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support - Civil editor with clue who does good work. It would be a net positive if they had the tools. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support, does good work at UAA and CSD tagging, will be a great asset to the admin ranks. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support: good temperament, very competent, a clear use for the tools, and tons of experience in the areas they want to work. — Bilorv (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
7. Support on the strength of the nominators, meeting my mins, and no big deal. Ifnord (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
8. Support I respect the people who nominated them, and the work Eostrix has done. Easy support from me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
9. Support - I'd know that signature anywhere! Eostrix has a sufficient dose of clue, they're certainly no jerk, and them joining the admin corp would absolutely be a net positive for us all. Ask, why not?? ~TNT (she/her • talk) 13:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
10. Support - Excellent candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
11. Support. I've come across them at AfD and NPP a bunch of times and have nothing but great things to say. Fair, clear, excellent understanding of policy—all qualities I like to see avec mop. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
12.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
13. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
14. Support: Competent, good judgement. MarioGom (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
15. Support Knows his stuffs. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 14:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
16. As nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
17. Support per noms, even if the owls are not what they seem (classical reference). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
18. Support. I've seen them around SPI a bunch and they seem to have both good technical knowledge and the right temperament for this kind of work. I'm particularly impressed by Special:Diff/1048283823, where they're looking for the lowest-impact solution to prevent further abuse. And, sheesh, now that I look at it, I realize that was in response to a somewhat embarrassing suggestion I made for a much higher-impact solution, so extra points for suggesting a better plan without implying that I was an idiot, even if I was :-) Maybe when we're done giving them a mop, we can see if they'd also like a fez. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
19. I'm unfamiliar with Eostrix, but trust the co-nominators. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 14:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
20. Support - clear need for admin privileges, good track record showing readiness to handle the responsibility. Bibeyjj (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
21. Support -- lomrjyo ^{(✉ • 📝)} 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
22. Support - I can confirm everything the nominators are saying. Especially the willingness to do the necessary research on difficult and complex questions related to article content is a rare yet essential asset for any editor to have. It's something which I often miss in admins (who, in my view, are often too focused on perceived conduct issues, rather than on whether editors are respecting content policy). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
23. Support - great work at UAA, happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
24. Support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESTALMAT, we need more admins commenting on the content, not the creators. And "Actually, this particular socking situation can be addressed with partial blocks and/or protection." - yes, do the minimum necessary to prevent disruption - totally agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
25. Support Everything I can see without the magic goggles looks good. I have ... not concerns, but "questions" ... about whether G5 should always be used when possible, and when userspace pages should be G11/U5 deleted (as opposed to simply ignored). I can't imagine the answers impacting my support, however. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
26. Support - I recognize Eostrix from AfD not only because of the owls, but also as a participant who is consistently thoughtful, thorough, and civil in discussions about article content and applicable policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
27. Support Everything I've seen from this user shows that they can be trusted with the tools. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
28. Support Seems like a good egg! DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
29. Support Hard working wikipedian. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
30. Support as conom. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
31. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
32. Support. I have never come across the nominee, but given the nominators I am sure that they will be well up to the role. As a content creator myself it is nice bonus to see that they have a GAN to their name, not an easy thing to do. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
33. Support no issues, has a valid reason for wanting the tools. --- Possibly ☎ 17:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
34. Meets my criteria and has two excellent noms; happy to support. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
35. Support, I do not have any issues with the candidate--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
36. Support. Consistently high-quality and policy-driven arguments in our interactions at AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
37. Support HJ Mitchell's wisdom in this as I don't know this candidate well. Sounds like a good choice and we need more good admins! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
38. Support Trusted noms, no concerns of my own. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
39. Support No concerns. --Enos733 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
40. Support we don’t just need battle-hardened individuals as admins. People can grow into the role and I’m glad someone with a relatively short history wants to take this on. Mccapra (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
41. Support hoo-hooo Polyamorph (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
42. I shall now give my vote of approval for this guy becoming an admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
43. Support per HJ Mitchell and has been around since October 2019 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
44. Support. Good answers to my questions. I would have accepted "User vandalized articles about owls." as an answer, too. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
45. Support. Not a jerk, has a clue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
46. I see nothing that would make me believe Esotrix would abuse the tools if granted. SQL^{Query Me!} 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
47. Support can’t see any reason not to, and Harry and GS co-noms give me a good level of confidence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
48. Not seeing anything that would incline me to withhold my support. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
49. Support If only to counter-act the silly oppose. Eostrix clearly has the ability to write meaningful content (and thus to be able to judge whether changes are constructive, disruptive, non-constructive, or indeed pure vandalism). This doesn't require some meaningless milestone number of articles. As for the rest, see no reason why not, since user clearly is not a jerk and per WP:NOBIGDEAL. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
50. Support. I've mostly encountered this editor in academic AfDs, where their contributions are consistently thoughtful and policy-based. I think they have enough experience and I don't see any reason for concern. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
51. Support. Sensible and not given to hysteria. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC).
52. Support. I see nothing to give me pause about this candidate having the mop. BD2412 T 00:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
53. Support - We need more Admins. Eostrix is clearly on a steep learning curve, but I am satisfied after reviewing some of their contributions and in particular the page creation and substantial edits involved with the article 2020 Lekki shooting. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
54. Support — a talon-ted user indeed. In all seriousness, Eostrix has shown themself to be capable of mature judgement and has a skillset deserving of the mop. Best of luck to you, Eostrix! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    Crats, please disregard the above comment because that was a terrible pun. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    As if the crats really give a hoot about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

55. While I haven't encountered Eostrix myself (though I recognise the name), I trust the nominators, and a look over Eostrix's contributions assures me that Eostrix has competence and would be a valuable admin. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
56. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
57. Who let the owls out? Whoo! Whoo! Jonathunder (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
58. Support. Tenure and edit history shows CLUE and NOTAJERK. Excellent noms, and good answers to questions. I took a look at their AfD record and come away further impressed, a nice mix of "keep" and "delete" arguments, based upon their own research, and demonstrating compelling policy applicability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
59. Support for a good all-around editor who seems most unlikely to misuse the tools. Good content work, trustworthy noms, and willing to work in less-popular areas. Best of luck! Miniapolis 02:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
60. Support Good overall Dracophyllum 03:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
61. Support. Ran into user; never had any issue. JBchrch talk 03:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
62. Support apart from their distinguished contributions which others have already remarked on, their answer to Q8 demonstrates the strong understanding of notability guidelines essential for an administrator working in deletion. – Teratix ₵ 04:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
63. Support. Reviewed some contribs. Looks like giving them the tools will be a huge help at UAA. No red flags, and we need more admins. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
64. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
65. Support: I've encountered Eostrix many times in places such as RM discussions, AfDs, and UAA. Appears to be a level-headed user who will most certainly make good use of the admin toolbox.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Eostrix created nine, relatively specialized articles? No wonder there is some equivocation about "best contributions." Those administering should demonstrate greater dedication to and experience with content creation. IMHO.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: while I disagree with you on sufficient number, that's obviously something we can disagree on. But the "relatively specialized" seems harsh - articles are no more or less valuable and demonstrative of ability and dedication if they're mainstream, viewed by thousands, or specialised. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, the damage caused to the encyclopedia by the deletion of a single random article does not purely depend on the article's writing quality. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Nothing that has been presented as a reply to my question qualify as content-dispute — this is routine bland editing. I am not comfortable that an editor, who has never been in any minimal content-dispute, will have the ability to take decisions on issues arising out of content disputes. I am not opposing outright in light of the AfD !votes (which speaks of due knowledge about sourcing reqs.) and the GA, which is quite well-written. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Bland editors are what are wanted for administrators. Drama persons are not. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC).