(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eostrix (talk | contribs) at 15:35, 17 October 2021 (→‎Questions for the candidate: add mediation example). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Eostrix

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (24/0/0); 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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. 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)[reply]

Discussion

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)[reply]
  2. Support - I've seen Eostrix around, and I respect the recommendation of both nominators. Deb (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. Support on the strength of the nominators, meeting my mins, and no big deal. Ifnord (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  10. Support - Excellent candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  12.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: Competent, good judgement. MarioGom (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Knows his stuffs. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 14:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. As nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  19. I'm unfamiliar with Eostrix, but trust the co-nominators. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 14:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - clear need for admin privileges, good track record showing readiness to handle the responsibility. Bibeyjj (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support -- lomrjyo (✉ • 📝) 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  23. Support - great work at UAA, happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESTALMAT, we need more admins commenting on the content, not the creators. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


General comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Eostrix&oldid=1050397027"