Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix

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

Eostrix

Final (123/1/2); ended 01:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC) - This was unsuccessful due to the candidate being ArbCom blocked during the nomination process. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 20 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)

Optional question from Tigraan

9. My question is about AfD, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Cartee will serve as a nice hypothetical. Assume that you are patrolling AfDs to close some and you meet this AfD in the pre-close state. Assume further that the comments you actually made there were made by someone else and it is the first time you come across this AfD and article. What action(s) do you take?

A: That's an interesting question as it raises a number of issues. For the sake of discussion we'll ignore that the deletion nominator and three keep !voters (Zackdasnicker, INeedToFlyForever, Jaysonsands) were socks (only came out last week, all are the same editor, not known in August). If I were truly optimal I would recognize the socks and file an SPI against the correct editors, however I did not recognize them in July and nor would I always recognize specific socks when I cross paths with them.

Analyzing the discussion we see a not too articulate deletion nomination but with a somewhat valid policy reason (the "lacks news" is a not so good argument, as GNG could be met by non-news) by a fairly new editor (160 edits). The first delete !voter is an established editor that presents a plausible reason for deletion. This is countered by a MUSICBIO SNG argument (and some back and forth) with a somewhat established editor (around 800 edits). We then see three pile on !votes by two editors of varying experience (1,1000 edits and 190 edits) and an additional WP:SPA with 23 edits whose entire editing career is dedicated to Cartee. In terms of raw head count, ignoring the SPA, this is a 3 Keep vs. 2 Delete discussion. Strength of argument (without diving deep into the argument) lies on the delete side, but only by a little bit. A neutral uninvolved closer, if they were assessing this for a close only, would in my mind either re-list (specifying further discussion on the MUSICBIO aspect) or close as no-consensus.

This analysis aside, the correct answer to your question in my opinion is to !vote myself as the Keep !voters are misapplying the guideline. WP:MUSICBIO itself is conditional on reliable independent sources (not PR) and MUSICBIO#10 (cited by the DeleteKeep side) specifically says that if it is the only claim to significance then redirection is probably more appropriate. Advancing such an argument (as opposed to assessing existing arguments) lies in the realm of !voting, not closing. I think I made a better argument (as a !voter) in the just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Cartee (2nd nomination) than in the first discussion.--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 10:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle

10. Seeing that you are involved in new pages patrolling. I am at times active at Articles for Creation and while I have not seen any article of a phrase or two pass the AfC process (I've not checked every article at AfC, I just comment on what I observe) such articles just keep popping up. What is your opinion on articles that are just created with a few phrases?

A: I won't comment on much AfC, as I have little experience in that process though I do respect the quality of results: accepted articles are almost always notable and well written, rejected articles that get pushed by the creator to main space are very often deletion worthy. As for your question, I would first differentiate between a dictionary entry and a stub. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and should not have dictionary entries, but stubs can be a valid beginning to an article. In my patrolling I do encounter many short articles. My treatment of these short article varies. Assuming there articles pass CSD A1 (no context) and A3 (no content) and do not otherwise qualify for speedy deletion, I usually evaluate the article for notability myself. If I deem the topic to be clearly non-notable, I will typically initiate deletion. If I see a chance of notability, but the article has many issues (e.g. a barely coherent article with no sources) I may move it to draft. In cases where this is a valid beginning of a stub (or I can turn it into one), I may improve it or indicate notability to other editors, for instance by adding sources or by linking to foreign name (wikidata too).--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 07:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Theleekycauldron

11. Is there an interaction you've had on Wikipedia that you're less than proud of? How did you learn from it?

A:I am less proud of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Rail Services and the resulting Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#Eostrix which led to an editor losing his cool and getting blocked. To a large extent User:Eostrix#Words of wisdom in which I quote User:Rosguill from User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist#Behavior at AfD is a reflection of this incident. In this interaction I assumed COI since low edit accounts showed up and photos were uploaded from within the company’s stock yard. In fact, this was not COI but editors who were enthusiastic about British railway subjects. I might have “won” the argument at AfD and upheld company notability standards, but this came at a cost of aggravating other editors. While I still think this article should’ve been deleted, no great harm would have come if it would’ve been kept in that particular AfD. The article was not egregiously promotional and did not contain BLP violations, it was simply a company that did not meet the relevant notability company guideline while being of interest to railway enthusiasts as they own and lease old railway stock. I have no qualms at getting UPE editors blocked, but I felt bad that this interaction resulted in a block of a good faithed contributor. --Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 07:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Optional questions from Iflaq

12. While editing you come across a new user's talk page in which an administrator has posted a message like "Don't edit till you know all the policies of Wikipedia". Then, you check the users contributions and you find few negligible mistakes. How would you react to the situation?

A: I would generally assume good faith towards a fellow administrator and assume that I am missing some context. However, if I am confident that I have reviewed the editor’s entire contributions, I would discuss the issue with the administrator who posted the message to hear their reasoning and additional information I may have missed (e.g. logged out editing that I may have missed). If after discussion I am still convinced that the warning is not warranted and the corresponding admin has not retracted the warning, then this is a matter to be raised at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard which may, if the community is similarly concerned, pass the issue to ARBCOM who deal with admin conduct issues.--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 15:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

13. While checking WP:AIV, You come across a request to block an IP, Upon checking you see the Ip has been warned four times in a row within last 2 minutes and the last warning template posted is {{Uw-vandalism4im}}, How would you deal with the situation?

A: It depends on the severity of the IP’s edits, and whether they edited after the 4im warning. For most types of vandalism, this would be insufficient warning, and I would treat a series of such successive warnings as a single warning, or at most two warnings (depends on precise timing of warnings and ip-edits). In most cases a single (or double) warning is insufficient for a block. In some egregious situations, for instance highly defamatory content against living persons or hateful content, an immediate block would be warranted even in these circumstances (Uw-vandalism4im and the other 4im "only warning" templates exist precisely for such egregious cases). If this is garden variety vandalism (e.g. inserting gibberish) the described situation would not lead to a block, and I would possibly (depending on the precise situation and number of warning editors involved, if multiple RCP editors are responding such "warning conflicts" can occur in good faith) discuss warning protocol with the filer of the AIV report.--Eostrix (_{hoot, hoot!}) 15:46, 19 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)

    Not that I need to reaffirm my support, but the answer to Q9 is excellent, easy to read, persuasive and informative. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 18 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)

    Their answers to the follow-up questions are excellent, I must say. Well done. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:48, 19 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)

    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    Bird puns fly right over my head. --Ifnord (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    better than having them run afowl :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:23, 19 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)
66. Support: Not every admin needs to be able to do everything, and Eostrix seems to be self-aware enough to not use the tools for things they have no experience with. --rchard2scout (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
67. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
68. Support, without reservation. Thank you for such a well thought, thoroughly articulated, answer to Q8. And for your willingness to serve as an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
69. Please Folly Mox (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
70. Support clearly has a clue & not given to drama. I particularly liked their answer to question 9, showing a willingness & capacity to review their actions. --Find bruce (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
71. Support We need more admins, and this candidate seems great for one. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
72. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
73. Support a review of their contributions and our few interactions make me think they will do good work. Cavalryman (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC).
74. Support - whilst I usually like nominations to have just a tad more experience contributing to the actual building of the encylopedia (rather than fighting vandalism, typo fixes etc.), they clearly know enough in this area to realise what the process is and how it effects users. Otherwise, there is nothing that this user doesn't have. Seems like a slam dunk. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
75. Support seems to be a qualified candidate. The one interaction I had with them was positive. I'm particularly impressed with their CSD and AfD records. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
76. Support Will surely be a net-positive. Lectonar (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
77. Support Seems like a benefit.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
78. Support not a jerk, has a clue, trusted nominators. firefly ( t · c ) 14:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
79. Thoughtful and qualified candidate. DanCherek (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
80. Support, Eostrix does useful work without the mop, and will undoubtedly make good use of the mop. Cabayi (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
81. Support their contribs indicate that they learn things faster. A good candidate with a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
82. Support not a jerk, has a clue, trusted nominators, insightful answers to questions. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 15:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
83. Support Qualified candidate for the mop. Roniius^{talk to me} 16:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
84. Support. At first glance, a productive, thoughtful, civil editor with interest and competence to do behind-the-scenes work, and enough content experience to not lose sight of what WP should be about. The vetting by the nominators and 85+ !voters in the past 4 days hasn't unearthed any reason that first glance might be misleading, that they would actually break the wiki if entrusted with the mop. Finally, their question answers (Q8 and 9) in particular are well-reasoned and well-communicated, and go beyond conventional thinking. Martinp (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
85. Support  – I've seen them in a couple of venues. They appear to be qualified. All the best!
    Princess of Ara 17:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
86. Support has clue. Vexations (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
87. Support The admin role needs to be informally bifurcated. For a few years this newer individual should stay in category that does not discipline other confirmed editors or handle heavy duty contentious situations. I think they will. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    Responded to on the talk page. JBchrch talk 19:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

88. Support. My only interaction with this user was at SPI, where they showed they were well-versed in the relevant policies/guidelines and demonstrated they had much more than a clue. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
89. Support I really like these words of wisdom. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
90. Support. Unknown to me before now, but appears to be an excellent candidate, based on noms and what I've seen briefly researching Eostrix's work. I am particularly impressed by the candidate's clear and logical style of writing; the answer to Q9, for example, covered all the bases in a neat, orderly fashion. When somebody can communicate this well, they deserve a responsible position where communication is essential. Give them the mop. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
91. Support EvergreenFir (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
92. Support - seems wise to support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
93. Support — Excellent editor, has a clue, works tirelessly. I don’t see any red flags, everything looks fine. Celestina007 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
94. Support - No concerns. Seems like the kind of admin we need. - Dyork (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
95. Support. I have often come across Eostrix tagging pages for speedy deletion through CAT:SD. They have demonstrated a solid understanding of policy. I suspect being granted the tools would benefit both the user and the community. ✗plicit 03:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
96. Support Seems to be a good fit for an admin position. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
97. Support I think he is good, new admins (registered 2019) and have some kind of experiences. Thingofme (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
98. Support The first thing I did was to click on their GA 2020 Hpakant jade mine disaster, and immediately noticed that it was already on my watchlist. I read a bit further and remembered reading it last year but did not remember exactly why, but was pleased that I did. It is an excellent article about a heartbreaking industrial accident last year in an area of the world that English Wikipedia needs to cover better, and I discovered that the nominee is responsible for a large percentage of the content. Kudos. Then, I read their answers to various questions, and they gave an excellent answer about the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs, and correctly identified WP:NACADEMIC as an exception to the usual rule, and explained why in a clear and logical way. My next point is less germane to administratorship but relevant to my assessment of them as an editor, and a candidate for administrator should first and foremost be a good editor: I have nothing but respect for subject matter experts in areas like owls who set out to improve this encyclopedia in their topic area, and then branch out to other topics. Please continue with that. I am very pleased to support this candidate. For those opposing on the basis of inadequate content contribution, please take a look at Cécile Mourer-Chauviré, where this editor is responsible for most of the content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
99. Support. No concerns. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
100. Happy to be the 100th supporter. I've seen them around many times, and have full confidence in them that they'll use the mop excellently. All the best! JavaHurricane 06:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
101. Support very specific answers. Go for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
102. Support. Ample evidence of competence, no concerns. Maproom (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
103. Support - Seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
104. —Kusma (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
105. Support Really good editor. scope_creep^Talk 11:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
106. Support Good editor with good history and good responses to questions. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
107. Support Faster CSD and UAA is always a good thing bop34 • talk • contribs 12:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
108. per noms. — Ched (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
109. Support - This editor has a clue, a good demeanor, and has made positive contributions in admin areas that need support. Would you please continue to make more substantial contributions to writing articles. - tucoxn\^talk 13:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
110. Support – no concerns. I am particularly impressed by their thoughtful answers to questions 8 and 9. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
111. Support - They learn from their mistakes, they have been praised for their work, there is no reason not to in my eyes. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
112. Support Answers to questions show good communication skills and in-depth policy knowledge. Femke (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
113. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
114. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
115. Support Have seen their contributions around AfD, AIV and UAA and the like, good choice to be an admin JW 1961 ^Talk 20:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
116. Stephen 20:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
117. Support Strong candidate, has clue, no concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
118. Support Also no concerns. Rcsprinter123 (face) 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
119. Support Thanks for volunteering. Go forth and keep doing good things for the project. Loopy30 (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
120. Support. No hesitations. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
121. Support I believe Eostrix will make an excellent admin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
122. Support Would absolutely be a great admin. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
123. Support Good noms; good candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 20 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)

   Aren't all articles specialised? The other way to look at this is to say that this user has created nine (well, eight) articles on some niche subjects. If the subjects aren't suitable for being recognised then I should hang up my mop. They clearly have the capability to create an article, and have shown the ability to contribute to a quality article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   In my opinion, creating large amount of content is not a necessary prerequisite for admins. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   @Smokefoot, it doesn't matter how "specialized" an article is. As long as it meets the notability guidelines, any article improves the encyclopedia. bop34 • talk • contribs 18:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   @ Bop34. As a regular contributor of super-specialized content, I agree that specialization is not bad. But my opinion remains that Wikipedia is primarily about content, and consequently aspiring admins should demonstrate similar dedication to our core mission. Obviously, my opinion is not widely held, but I thought it might be okay to voice it here. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   That opinion was more valid 15 years ago when there was a lot of content still left to create. But nowadays when just about every subject imaginable already has a Wikipedia article, creating new content about anything besides new pop-culture icons and political theater is more difficult. Creating new articles about niche but notable areas of science impresses me more. Attention should be given to a candidate's suitability for the role in terms of temperament, dispute resolution, willingness to clean up messes, responsibility demonstrated in the contribution history, and so on. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:20, 19 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).

2. Maybe I'm missing it, but in the nominations, I'm not really seeing the "impressive track record of...content contribution" or "articles [plural] that have meet the GA standards". The reviewer on the one GA I see is TRM, so I'm not at all questioning the quality of the review. And if we're arguing back-end contributions, no contest there. Given, some people concentrate heavily in certain specialized tasks, but...I'm a little confused why we seem to be overselling it a bit, instead of leading off with something more like "content creation isn't the best, but this other stuff is great." Cause...like...the bulk of their content seems to be making ~20 or so edits to a pre-existing article, nominating it for GA, and then responding to the feedback. GMG^talk 14:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   To be fair, they do have 124 edits to 2020 Hpakant jade mine disaster, which is anything but minimal, and wrote two thirds of the article. I understand the need for more than one example of content creation, but at least for this individual article, there is very little more that you could want from an editor. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   If I'm conceding all points, I'm still not really sure I see substantive content creation on probably two articles as a strength, rather than something to be explained away. Perfectly possible I'm wrong. I've seen people before that just kindof liked drafting things on desktop and created entire GA level articles in a single mainspace edit. GMG^talk 15:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   I am one of those people. I'll rewrite a whole article in a text editor, upload it in one edit, and then just make a few other edits to copy-edit it and add some minor stuff. But by the looks of it Eostrix isn't one of the editors who work like that. Their content creation is indeed minimal, though surely enough to show they have a good clue about it. I think what impresses people is rather their thoughtfulness and thoroughness when reviewing content, both at new page patrol and at articles for deletion. These may be back-end, but of all back-end spaces they're the closest to content-related questions. Of course the fact that they are very capable when it comes to perceiving what at NPP/AFD needs to be brought to SPI (and what not) is a big plus too. Generally just a very capable editor, raising no concerns at all. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   Shameless advert: anyone of the "one-edit GA (re)write" persuasion is cordially invited to add themselves to User:Bilorv/Challenges under "Minimalist", if they have an article that meets the condition. — Bilorv (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   Incidentally, @Bilorv: please try to avoid doing that outside article creation, because it makes it quite difficult for others to review given the design of the interface. GMG^talk 22:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

General comments

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.