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

Eddie891[edit]

Final: (200/0/0) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 11:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Eddie891 (talk · contribs) – Recently, people have been slightly bemoaning the fact that most of our admins started editing Wikipedia years, if not decades, ago - so here's one from the class of (late) 2016. Having recently taken Fabian Ware to featured article status, Eddie's now got a bit of time to think about asking for the admin tools. As well as the aforementioned FA, he has a good selection of featured content, including further good articles and Did you know? nominations, which you can see on his user page. He has participated in a good number of Articles for deletion debates, and he puts across his points politely and respectfully, even when others disagree with him. He's also responded well to criticism and feedback over the last few years, and he's grown as an editor as a result. This shows to me he has the right levels of communication and skills to be an administrator, so I'm delighted to put him forward as one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

I'm delighted to nominate Eddie891 for adminship - aside from being a prolific content creator with four featured items, 15 GAs and almost 20 DYKs Eddie is a hard worker at AfD discussions. Throughout the last two years or so I have been impressed by their communication skills, policy knowledge and the ability to take on board information. I think they have the right stuff for adminship, with no concerns over their temperament or civility. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

If I may, I'll chip in, and recommend prospective !voters read this --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. I have never edited for pay and my (seldom used) alternate accounts are User:Eddie892, User:Eddie893, and User:Eddie891's creature. An SPI into my relation with Eddie891isthesmartestpersonever (later blocked for harassment) was opened. I have no connection to that account whatsoever. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I intend to be most active in closing Articles for deletion discussions, the administrative area where I have the most experience. I would also be willing to help out where needed, but wouldn't act as an administrator in an area without understanding the various nuances of the process first.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Of my content creation, I'm most proud of my four featured content, two featured articles: Fabian Ware and History of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Army, a featured list, and a featured picture. Each represents a rather extensive project and I learned a lot while undertaking them; for instance before restoring the FP, I had no experience with image restoration, and I'm slightly ashamed to say that I hadn't even heard of Fabian Ware before working on his article. I also owe a lot to the reviewers that have taken their time to patiently work through my mistakes and oversights. Outside of FC, I would consider some of my best content to be article creation. I've really enjoyed throwing together articles like George R. Proctor and Peregrine Pollen that don't get further than DYK but are fascinating topics all the same. Also, some of my contributions that worked towards countering systematic bias stand out to me, including Lady Bathurst and Mary Margaret Francis. Similarly, I am proud of several contributions to existing articles, for instance the de-stub of Black Guard (Brazil) and being able to expand Juneteenth pretty substantially (with other editors) right before it got millions of views.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in assorted disagreements, but I try to always assume good faith and feel that it is very important to maintain civility and keep a cool head. With that being said, as a new user I was involved in several situations where I wish I had handled myself better. For instance, shortly after an FAC for Presidency of George Washington was closed as unsuccessful in 2018, a user left a message on the article talk, suggesting various changes to the content and structure of the article. I essentially dismissed them, demonstrating ownership over the article that I shouldn't have. Were I in the same situation today, I would assume their suggestions had merit, and work with the user to improve the article. Another time, after a draft of mine was incorrectly speedily deleted for copyright infringement (despite being copied from an existing Wikipedia article), I left a rather curt message on the talk of the CSD nominator, which was quickly reverted. Were I in the same situation today, I would remain calm and politely ask the deleting admin to restore the content. As a new user I also got involved in AFC reviewing without having a great understanding of notability. After making two particularly bad declines (of Casting About and Complex random vector), I voluntarily left the AFC project to learn more about notability standards, a move that I think was the right one. Since then, I've gotten a far better understanding of what notability is and why we have it, and would not decline either of those drafts if I came across them today. I've learned that it's important to remember we are all here to improve the encyclopedia. Being polite and respectful facilitates cooperation, and cooperation is a beautiful thing.

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.

Additional question from Andrew D.
4. Please tell us about your account names. I suppose that Eddie is a personal name but are 891, 892 and 893 random numbers or what?
A: Sure, Eddie is my nickname (my real name is Edward) and several years ago I was signing up for an account on a site I've long left (though the name escapes me). Being spectacularly creative, I tried to make my username 'Eddie' which, no surprise, was taken. The site suggested 'Eddie891', and I went with it. When I was creating a Wikipedia account, I was looking for a username that was somewhere between my full name and a complete pseudonym, and that came to mind. So yes, 891 is random, though 8 is my favorite number and 9-1 = 8. As for 892 and 893, it was just adding +1 to the end, hopefully showing a connection to the original, for a alternate account(s). Eddie891 Talk Work 11:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Dps04
5. Thanks for your contributions to date. I noticed from Q1 that, as an admin, you intend to be involved in closing AfD disucssions. While you have had quite substantial experience in participating in AfD discussions, you do not seem to have closed a lot of AFD discussions. According to the AfD closes counter, you only closed discussions 7 times in 2020, all of which are either procedural closes or withdrawing your own nomination. What is the reason you did not actively perform non-admin closures, and what experience would you point to which demonstrates your ability to evaluate community consensus?
A: So to answer the first part of your question: per WP:BADNAC point 2, a non-admin closure is not appropriate when "The outcome is a close call [...] or likely to be controversial". So I would have been racing to be the first to close afds that are unambiguously 'keep', 'merge', or 'redirect', which really wouldn't demonstrate that I can assess consensus. Even relisting a discussion could be a poor choice, see WP:RELISTBIAS.
In response to the second part: that's a bit more complicated. As is outlined on pages such as WP:NHC and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and templates like ((Not a ballot)), consensus is based upon the strength and merit of arguments rather than the number. So, the best tool to have when closing AFDs is to know what a strong and meritorious argument looks like. While I won't say that my votes are all strong and meritorious, I like to think most of them come pretty close. Further, I've participated in a number of AFDs, and usually watchlist them after voting to see how it plays out. I've seen great arguments advanced, even when I don't agree with them (and I've also seen some pretty poor ones). I see how just about every AFD I vote in, and quite a few that I don't, gets closed. As such, I've learned which arguments to give weight and which to not, what makes a good argument and what makes a poor one. I think that's exactly what matters when it comes to evaluating consensus. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Nosebagbear
6. There are a number of AfD common outcomes, some of which aren't strictly bedded into notability written guidelines, but instead summarise the general viewpoints of most AfDs and their participants. One more common instance is that of national/sub-national politicians, who usually have to be elected to show notability, even if there is significant campaign coverage. What's your viewpoint on amending NPOL (either to explicitly allow/disallow) and if it doesn't change, how would you implement closes in this style (that is, lots of coverage, NPOL potentially not met)? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: NPOL is certainly a controversial guideline and an interesting case of the relationship between SNG and GNG. Discussions about candidates come around just about every election cycle. The arguments for deletion/redirect usually advanced generally make two points: 1) The candidate is only receiving coverage about being in an election, it's not them being notable but the election itself, 2) If they lose, they don't pass the ten year test and will only be notable for one event (running). Those keeping generally say that GNG is clearly met, so NPOL doesn't have to be. There are nuances, but that's the gist of it. There are, understandably, strong opinions on both sides of the discussion. You can find a discussion here, here, and the largest recent one here (no consensus).
I actually think that the current set-up works decently. While I weakly feel that 'candidates need a lot of coverage to be considered notable', I understand both opinions and valid points can be made on either side. Not having a notability guideline explicitly favor one over the other while having AFDCO provide some guidance is a fine way for things to work out. As manifests at every turn, some users feel very strongly about candidates and their views are not likely to change—nor should they. As a new administrator, I would refrain from closing particularly controversial candidate discussions given that I have my own opinion, and would likely vote in them instead. "No consensus" is valid close, particularly for active political candidates, to a lot of these type discussions, because it's a scenario where there really is not consensus. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Andrew D.
7. Your interest in AfD seems quite recent. For example, it seems that you only attended 4 AfDs in 2019. Looking through the list, it's not clear to me what your focus is. There's a few military topics but, otherwise, it seems fairly random. As you intend to concentrate on AfD as an admin, please explain how you patrol this patch and select topics for attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Sure thing! While I don't have a particular 'formula' for finding articles, what I've generally done is scroll through today's listing of AFD articles to find nominations that I feel I can constructively contribute in. You are correct that I pay especially close attention to military topics, because that's the area I'm most familiar with. I also have some more experience with history (pretty broadly), politics (mostly Anglo), and journalism. Otherwise, I'm pretty familiar with most topics to the point where I feel comfortable casting a !vote, though I generally avoid math (because it doesn't make much sense to me) as well as foreign topics that I cannot be certain about (because I don't speak a foreign language well). It's also a matter of where my sourcing is. For instance, I can be pretty certain about many topics by looking at databases and search engines (like Newspapers.com, ProQuest, google books, project MUSE, JSTOR, google) for the coverage we would expect to substantiate notability, even when I don't have an intimate knowledge of the field. Recently, I've been patrolling random pages, looking for older ones that aren't notable, such as this article from 2008, and that's really just a matter of where the random page button takes me. Hopefully this is what you're looking for, if not I'd be happy to go into more detail about my interests, focus, and expertise. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Dolotta
8. What nontechnical areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
A: Well (assuming that by nontechnical you mean 'not coding and scripts and bots', because that would be my weakest area) CCI is an area that I've never contributed in, and have no experience in. I also don't have very much experience in requests for page protection. Though I understand the basic concept of both areas, I certainly couldn't jump into the processes without slowly getting more experience. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from tbiw
9: Most of your edits are semi-automated edits which by an humourous essay called editcountitis has proved that back in history or present people don't support rfa when semi-automated is over non-automated. Is this supposed to be taken as a serious or minor case? view,Tbiw (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Hi Tbiw, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but I'll try and answer your question as best as I can. 1) I'm not convinced that most of my edits are semi-automated. The only tool I see to count such things is this (only in the articlespace) which suggests that 3,741 or 37.2% of my (mainspace) edits are semi-automated. 2) I wouldn't say that I have editcountitis and urge you to look at what work I've done. Refer to my answer to question 2 to see some highlights of the content that I have written. I'm prouder of the 269 edits I put into writing Fabian Ware than the hundreds of typos I may have fixed (not to say that gnoming is unimportant, just that edit count can be misleading). Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from ktin
10: Firstly, thanks for your candidature. Looking forward to the process here. I have an explicit question on the actions that you would take to make some of the Wikiprocess (e.g. AfD) less caustic, and more friendly to new comers (i.e. fresh Editors). As an extension of this question - how would you make Wikipedia at an aggreate, a friendly place and be more encouraging for new editors. I am a returning editor, and the one thing that strikes me about some of the processes is that these tend to be extremely caustic for new comers. Many a time, rule books, and acronyms are thrown at new comers without much contextualization, coming across as lacking empathy. All of these actions make these forums quite unwelcome to newcomers. And many a time I see Administrators (pardon my broadstroke here) being guilty of these actions. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A:That's a good question, and certainly Wikipedia needs to get better at attracting and retaining new users. I think some of the points that you bring up in your question are good ones. Not to respond to a question about too many complex acronyms with more acronyms, but two essays that I often think about in this context are WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI and WP:EIEIO, both rather short and somewhat humorous but very important commentaries about how important it is to avoid unnecessary jargon, and try to make things more accessible. One of the most important things we can do is not assuming that all users inherently understand the processes and guidelines (because new users likely don't — this paper suggests that we have an astounding "37 policy pages with 377 sections, 44 guideline pages with 398 sections, and 71 essay pages with 201 sections, all linked by a total of 2,111 shorthand aliases"), and be very patient when they don't understand something even after the first time hearing it (WP:BITE applies here). It seems like very recently that I was a new user myself, and I really benefited from healthy doses of both good faith and patience on the part of users around me. I'd also very much recommend tools such as the visual editor and places like the teahouse, which has many talented users happy to answer questions. I'd like to get involved at the teahouse in the future, but I already try to practice what I lay out above- explain things carefully, have lots of patience and good faith. I've got no magic solution, no earthshattering ideas, but these steps can and do help quite a bit. Best Eddie891 Talk Work 19:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eddie891:. Thanks for the response, and you seem to have hit it right with the acknowledgements. Firstly, I am not sure if responses from folks like me to your answer in this section are allowed. Admins - if this is not allowed, please move this note elsewhere. Thanks in advance.
Eddie891 Good luck with this process. If you are voted as an Administrator, my request to you based on your response to my question is to have Empathy and Good Faith in all of your interactions as an Administrator. This is vital for new blood and to keep the community thriving. Keep that as a guide, a talisman perhaps. Good luck again. Ktin (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Coffeeandcrumbs
11.: Thank you for facing the gauntlet. In this AfD nomination, you begin with "I actually think this topic may be notable". Your withdrawal statement seems to indicate that you disagree with WP:NOTCLEANUP, that the AfD should end with delete unless the article is cleaned up. Do you think it is appropriate to nominate articles you think are notable at AfD? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Generally, no. However, there are cases in which an AFD discussion is merited. You will note that even NOTCLEANUP says "However, some articles do reach the so-called TNT tipping point: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and give editors a clean slate." In that case, deletion or redirection may need to be considered.
I think any such discussion needs to be viewed on a case-by-case basis, so allow me to explain this specific case. The article when I nominated it was in a very poor state, with two sources, both to 1984 itself (no secondary sources). This basically violates WP:NOTPLOT as a summary-only description, with no sourced analysis. Anything that might have ventured into analysis was original research which is specifically disallowed by policy. I would have boldly redirected the article to Nineteen Eighty-Four#Political geography, where a reasonable amount of in-universe detail was presented. However, one user had already redirected the article and been reverted, suggesting that this was a controversial redirection (the user who reverted the redirection even suggested taking the article to AFD) and per WP:BEFORE C4: "If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.". I would have proposed a merger, but IMO there was nothing really worth keeping, and merging would be adding too much plot to the already decently long Nineteen Eighty-Four,. After my nomination, SN completely rewrote the article (they have 92% authorship) and I was happy to withdraw as my issues were addressed. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12.: Can you explain your understanding of WP:BEFORE #D3 and how it may or may not apply to the above mentioned AfD? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A:Sure, D3 is one of the main tenets of the BEFORE guideline, it says that the fact adequate sourcing is not present in an article "is not a proper basis for a nomination". So this would apply if I took the article to AFD and said 'this topic is clearly non-notable because it has been under-referenced since creation in 2003, and should be deleted immediately'. Of course per guidelines like WP:NEXIST that would be a very poor rationale for deletion. However, BEFORE #D specifically says "if the main concern is notability". This AFD was brought to propose redirection and the argument being made was that basically none of the content was worth keeping and a redirect was merited. In the question above, I outline why I didn't feel the content was worth keeping as it stood. Hopefully this clarifies somewhat-- Eddie891 Talk Work 21:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Sir Joseph
13. Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?
A: In theory, yes I would be willing to. Because admins generally have a level of community trust not really given to other users (an RFA being the main vetting process), I would certainly be more cautious in this theoretical situation, as I would if blocking a long-term, respected user. I would follow a similar process to blocking another user: approach them, on their talk or at a relevant forum, with my issues first. Because I don't intend to be making many blocks, blocking an admin would probably be something I sought other opinion(s) for. Only in the case of egregious things such as an obviously compromised account would I quickly block the admin, before posting on WP:AN for review. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from JavaHurricane
14. Besides AfD, what are the areas of adminship that you would be willing to work in?
A: In addition to AfD, I would be willing to work in areas related to the main page (like WP:ERRORS and WP:DYK), given that most of my experience is related to content. I also might be active at the teahouse, where I could help answer questions along the lines of 'why did my page get deleted?'. Additionally, in the future I could see myself handling PRODs and potentially CSDs. Again, I want to emphasize that these are not areas I would be jumping into as a new admin, but areas that I would be willing to work in as an administrator—I would get more experience, and likely feedback from well-versed admins, in the area before doing these things on my own. I have little interest in being very involved at areas like sock-puppetry investigations or at noticeboards like WP:AN/I. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from AppleBsTime
15. After looking at the extensiveness of your first article created on Wikipedia, how did you accomplish that, and what would you propose to ease my jealousy?
A: Well, I cannot exactly remember how I happened upon it, but I think it came from reading an article in The Post Standard, which happened to coincide with my wanting to get involved on Wikipedia. I took it very slowly, looked at existing wikipedia articles and fully read the policies, all of which helped. I would urge you not to be 'jealous', after all, Wikipedia is not a competition. If you are looking for an article to write, just keep your eyes open-- they present themselves (either as stubs or non-existing articles) more often than one might think. I'm happy to discuss this further if you want, just reach out on my talk page. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Leijurv
16. How would you approach closing an AfD if you felt Wikipedia policy heavily supported one side, but the !vote appears to clearly favor the opposite?
A: Well, in this situation, I would opt to !vote and speak my mind, rather than closing the discussion. If I had to close the discussion for some reason, I would hope that I had more specific information, but here's basically how I would go about it. I would ask the following questions (not in any particular order):
  • Who has !voted, and what did they say? If the !vote you speak of is made up of single purpose accounts or sockpuppets, using textbook arguments to avoid, their votes should be disregarded. See WP:RBIAS for an example of a debate where three !votes for 'keep' (and two for 'delete') are advanced, but the correct close would be 'delete', because there is a clear COI and no policy-based arguments for keeping are presented. However, if it is made up of users in good standing who make well-thought out, strong and meritorious arguments, I would afford them due weight when closing— even if I didn't agree with the argument. Similarly, a vote of 4-1 is much different than 15-1 (though numerically, one side is still favored). In the latter case, (15-1), a WP:SNOW close would probably be apt, whether or not I personally agreed with the arguments being advanced.
  • How do I feel about the policy? You say that I feel policy supports one side, but that could mean many different things. If I felt, for instance, that a speedy-deletion criteria applied, I would tag the article myself. However, if it was a minor difference of opinion, I would be inclined to disregard what I thought in favor of what consensus is shaping up to be
  • What does the timing look like? If a user who is in the minority has !voted and made a strong argument very close to this 'closing' time in a discussion, a relist could be apt to provide time for other users to analyse the new argument.
Again, I would vastly prefer to !vote in this scenario, but this would be how I generally approached closing if, I had to close such a discussion. Unfortunately, I cannot be much more specific without more specifics to work from. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Followup: Consider this close as an example. I'm not sure if that is the one Leijurv had in mind, but it is a recent AfD close that seems to petty well fit the question. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Leijurv DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a specific example of a discussion that I would have !voted in rather than closing. I could (and happily will if wanted) discuss theoretical outcomes, process, and options until the cows come home, but I feel I have sufficiently explained how I would approach a similar closing if I had to in my above answer. Here, I would have !voted if I felt there was a policy-supported side that wasn't being considered. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
17. What is your view of Process is important?
A: I feel that process is very important in allowing a project as large as Wikipedia to continue to function. I appreciate works like WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBURO, but generally process should be followed, particularly to allow community consensus to develop. Our policies have been carefully thought up to allow Wikipedia to function smoothly. Again, it is important to be cautious not to become wrapped up in minor intricacies of policy, particularly when dealing with new users, but generally we should take care to respect process. For instance, it is important to keep AFD discussions open for seven days not to bother as many people as possible, but to give a chance for many different views to be expressed and give users time to weigh in. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
18. As you indicate an intention of dealing with pages tagged for CSD, what sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?
A: A minor clarification: I didn't say that I definitely intend to deal with them, but that in the future I could see myself handling them. Regardless, I am happy to answer the question. I feel that CSD criteria should be interpreted strictly. As such, I tend to err on the side of "when in doubt, AFD". Because speedy deletion usually only involves two editors, I would prefer to see a non-notable article taken to AFD for more input than to have a notable topic speedily deleted. To directly answer your question, a credible claim of significance (CCS) indicates any amount of potential significance, broadly construed. This is intentionally a lower bar than notability.
  • Eddie891 is a member of the United States House of Representatives, A7 would not apply, because this is a credible claim of significance (and proves notability if true). In the example given, I would instead nominate this article for G3, because it's blatantly and demonstrably false (Eddie891 is absolutely not a member of the US House, and that's easy to verify).
  • Eddie891 is one of the 39,695,595 registered users on Wikipedia A7 would almost definitely apply because this is not a CCS, though it is demonstrably true. However, in this case A7 wouldn't apply if profiles of Eddie891 as a Wikipedia editor that were published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and National Geographic existed. This sourcing (if it existed) would indicate a CCS (not all editors get profiles like that). If it wasn't cited in the article, I would add the sources.
  • Eddie891 was a runner in high school Not a CCS, because (while he was a runner in high school), that doesn't separate him from any other high school runner. I would do a search to confirm that he wasn't a spectacularly successful high school runner runner (like Katelyn Tuohy) and if he was would source that in the article. Otherwise, A7 applies here. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from tbiw
19. Per your edits and experience may have qualified you to be admin but i have one last question for you. Did you think wikipedia has some editor who bully others and those who are bullied may have been away from editing if you believe in it how can you manage that problem and what are the solutions? view,Tbiw (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Bullying, be it general intimidation, threats, incivility, biting newcomers, personal attacks, harassment or intense ownership, should not be tolerated. We have basic WikiEtiquette that allow the project to remain open and collaborative. Some people are just not compatible with a collaborative project or not here, and unrelenting bullies fall in that category. In most cases, I would tell a bully to shape up or [be] ship[ped] out. Serious cases could result in an immediate block. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from LordPeterII
20. Greetings, I'm afraid I'll add to all the AfD-related questions with another one: What is your view on AfD (or its "opposite", AfC) in regards to notability vs stubs. I've found several conflicting essays on this, including this one. Having recently come across this article draft (which I was completely uninvolved in) which was repeatedly denied despite covering the [23 most visited website (link to Alexa ranking)] and being redlinked in the corresponding list, I am wondering where the line is drawn between non-notability and limited available information that only suffices for a stub. What is your stance on this? Caveat: I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I am not 100% sure this qualifies as a valid RfA question. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Hello. Stub status has no bearing upon notability. A stub is an article that needs work to "provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject", that's all. Many of our articles (3,400,898 based on this table) are assessed as 'stub', and even more were stubs at one point. To pull out two examples I recently came across, Anastasia Msosa (the former Chief Justice of Malawi) and the Nebraska House of Representatives are both rated as 'stub' class articles, but are notable. Sourcing that clearly establishes the notability of the website you mention is expected— I'd recommend giving the relevant policy a read-through if you haven't yet, particularly the sub-section that says "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. To me, this means that just because a website is popular doesn't mean it is necessarily notable. High-traffic websites are admittedly more likely to have coverage meeting WP:WEBCRIT, but those criteria still require the site to be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" that are independent. From a google search, I garner that Okezone is a gateway website to Media Nusantara Citra, so the best option may be to redirect there and add several sentences or a paragraph (of course following the core content policies) to that article. I'm not seeing the coverage that establishes independent notability, with the caveat that I cannot understand any language outside of English (and rudimentary Latin and about 15 words of Spanish). It's very possible that there is sufficient coverage in another language.
To answer your more general question, there isn't much wiggle room in notability. Articles have to meet the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline to be notable, and that means presenting WP:SIGCOV in virtually all cases, though we have SNGs that are "alternative to the general notability guideline". So in a way SNGs are supposed to help out in areas where there is limited easily accessible information by providing guidance about what is likely to be notable. See policies like WP:GEOLAND which says that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Also take for example Msosa's article above. There isn't a vast amount of content, but being the chief justice of a country, she is presumed to be notable per WP:NPOL. Where an SNG doesn't apply, we cannot assume that coverage exists without it being presented. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that was good advice. I hadn't thought about the possibility of making it a subsection in the other article; I shall contact the original draft author and try to make it so. I think I have gained a better understanding of the Wikipedia policies on notability vs stubs, and you clearly know them well yourself. Good luck with your admin application. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Nsk92
21. Could you comment on the fairly steep increase in your activity level since March 2020? (This point was brought up by one of the RfA !voters.)
A: Well, right around half-way through March, New York State started closing up and I was largely stuck at home as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This gave me a lot more time to be around on Wikipedia, and as a result I was much more active. I intend to remain pretty active— after thinking about my activities and priorities, I remembered that Wikipedia is one of the things I enjoy being part of the most. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for a quick response! That's pretty much what I figured but I thought I'd clarify anyway. Stay safe. Nsk92 (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. As co-nom --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. As nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support - do not currently see any issues. Not a nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support I trust the candidate. Honest, listens to feedback, writes good content. Vexations (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support Has a clue. All the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. I'm inclined to support, absent some terrible smoking gun. Clueful, very active, a serious content contributor, and responsibly using "pre-admin" bits like PageMover and Rollbacker. I normally don't weigh in this early, and wait for extensive Q&A to develop, but so far I see nothing that gives me concerns. The editor is clearly a net positive and would continue to be one as an admin. PS: I'm not concerned about lack of a long AfD-closure track record; WP:NAC limits the kinds of closures non-admins can perform).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oh hai. I've done two GAs with Eddie and he's always been a joy to work with. In fact, he's been poking me about finishing out that good topic for like a year now, and it is entirely my fault that we haven't gotten it done yet. GMGtalk 13:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support: Looks good. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support - I see no issues - civil and friendly, yet serious and extremely constructive in editing. Would be great admin, especially in the areas this candidate has said they intend to work in. Ed talk! 13:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Strong support - I've worked with this editor on multiple things related to military history over the last several months. Definitely has the temperament and compotenxe to make a good admin. Hog Farm Bacon 13:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Reminds me of Double D; no issues. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support: Excellent candidate. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support Smart, has done good work on the project and gave excellent answers to the questions given. Will welcome him in as a net positive to the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support per nom and answers at User talk:Eddie891/Archive 14#Hello. Look forward to welcoming you on board. Glen (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Strong support. I don't see why not. I've only had positive interactions with him; he is both a good content creator and a great GAN/FAC reviewer. He seems to have a good need for the tools, too. epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Not a jerk. Has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Looks good to me. No problem areas I can identify and the questions are point. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support. A fine, fine Wikipedian, a solid content creator and an editor whom it is a pleasure to work with. I cannot imagine them not making an equally fine admin. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support I haven't interacted with Eddie891, yet, but, I'm pleased with what I see presented here and it would be great to have some new blood (hey, I'm one of those old admins ), too. I also thought "Fabian Ware" was a type of pottery (i.e. samian ware) until I clicked on it..hehehe.... Missvain (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support - no concerns. The discussion Dweller linked is worth reading. I was particularly impressed by "After the last one, I voluntarily relinquished my AfC right in September 2017, and began participating in AfD discussions until I felt I understood notability better and returned in September 2018." Thanks for standing for RFA. Lev!vich 16:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Excellent content creator who is a joy to collaborate with. I have no concerns about trusting him with the tools - Dumelow (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Steller content record and some evidence of early admin work. Good enough for me. scope_creepTalk 17:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support - Astrophobe (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support - A lot of participation at AfD and no issues with the !votes there. Good content creation too Pi (Talk to me!) 18:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support no brainer. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support I have no reason to say otherwise, good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support Lots of good contributions, thoughtful and polite participation in deletion discussions and no red flags. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Per my question in the questions section, and the candidate's response. Empathy and Good Faith should be the cornerstone of all Admin actions. I request the candidate to showcase that trait in all of their interactions as an Admin, if voted so. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - Seems sensible and WP:HERE, and haven't seen a reason not to support. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support - I am impressed with the nominators and the answers to questions. In general I've always had a positive impression of this editor. Since AfD work is an area of interest, I went through a number of contributions there. I am further impressed. This editor is articulate and logical, values GNG but knows how to look beyond it as well. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support- Three co-nominations and his name is Eddie. What more could one want? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support - I'm satisfied that the editor is both not a jerk and has a clue, including in their specific area. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support - if User:Ritchie333 believes he is a good candidate, that's enough for me.Smeat75 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support – Good content creator and someone I would trust to fairly evaluate consensus at AfD. I disagree with their viewpoint but that is immaterial. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support More than meets my standards. Article building and experience in admin related areas. Civil and well spoken. Per nominator statements. Per various reasons above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Admins should be content creators, and Eddie has done an amazing job at content! I've seen Eddie around and generally been impressed. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support - Ritchie333, you're batting 100 my WikiFriend - keep bringing us these excellent admin candidates!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support - per me. and the qualifications. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support - Surprisingly good answers to the questions. 0qd (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. No red flags, clear net positive — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support Good temperament (most important for an admin; the rest can be learned) and good answers to questions. Miniapolis 02:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support - Experience demonstrated at the featured article is enough, and I see no red flags. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support Why not? -FASTILY 02:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support A solid record suggesting both clue and good temperament with no obvious red or yellow flags. Looks like a winner to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Seems like a chap who has his head on straight. I look forward to seeing him around AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support has demonstrated competency in a number of useful areas. – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support No concerns. No flags. --Enos733 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Happy to support. BD2412 T 04:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support Good editor with good articles and good participation in AfD. Seems to be a deletionist (why not merge?)(actually, I agree with your position on most delete votes) when it comes to WP:NPOL, but based on their answer to questions I'll trust they will not use adminship to enforce their opinions. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support An extremely qualified wikipedian who would be a great admin! FlalfTalk 04:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support Would be more helpful as an admin ~ Amkgp 💬 04:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support - Pamzeis (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Best of luck Eddie! JavaHurricane 05:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support - Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support - No issues here. GedUK  08:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support – having reviewed the candidate's responses here and clicked through to some of the links, I'm persuaded that they have the proper temperament and other qualities necessary for adminship. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 08:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support Great content creation, good temperament, why not? Without wanting to disparage the author of Q9, there is nothing in this user's history to indicate that they have attempted to inflate their edit count, their use of semi-automated tools is not concerning - we're mostly talking gnoming with HotCat and ShortDescriptionHelper here, this is not a Huggleoholic. Thanks for all your good work. GirthSummit (blether) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support - Is not as far as I can tell totally perfect per Lady Bathurst picture not seemingly having cats plus also annoying for me spending 20 minutes looking into the subject background and failing to leverage the image. As that's the nearest to a fault I've found; and per the scrutiny of others I respect; I am left with no option but to fully support at this time. Best wishes! Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support Has been around since Dec 2016 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support Good contibutions and don't see any particular reason to think otherwise. - The9Man (Talk) 10:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  69. Support No reason not to. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support No concerns, netpos. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support - My only slight concern is the lack of AFD participation however AFD isn't the be-all and end-all of WP, No red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support because I can't see anything to worry about. Deb (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support. Hard-working and level-headed. Haukur (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support — Well, because 0 red flags can be observed & generally, they are mentally mature. Celestina007 14:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support – all the best. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support This is a great candidate who has contributed much to the encyclopedia. Wm335td (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Trust in his ability, no concern. Kaizenify (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. —Kusma (t·c) 15:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support, Good candidate, well rounded experience, level headed. Impressive answeres to the RfA questions, including to some off-the-wall ones. Nsk92 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support. Seen enough answers provided by the candidate for me to make up my mind. Sufficient knowledge in administrative areas (esp. AfD), solid content creation, good communication skills and satisfactory answers to my question. Overall a net positive to the project and I am happy to support. My only suggestion to the candidate is to take it slowly as they start to be involved in closing AfDs; after all, the skills involved in contributing to AfDs as a participant is different from those involved in evaluating consensus when closing AfDs. Good luck! --Dps04 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support Looks like a great admin! GrammarDamner how are things? 16:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support. Seems qualified. See no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support Definitely qualified. No problems here. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Get the mop. --Pudeo (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support. I cannot find anything of concern, and see plenty to like. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support. They have good content creation and their work in their expressed area of interest, AfD, seems fine. I couldn't see a CSD log for them, so wasn't able to evaluate their knowledge of speedy deletion, but I trust per their answer to Q14 that they'll take their time before moving into that area.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support. I like your answers to the questions; you come across as an insightful person who will be a useful and sensible member of the admin corps rather than someone trying to answer some tricky questions in a "correct" way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support. It's my first vote in an administrator election, but based on the editor's early-on talent for writing superb Wikipedia articles, my gut tells me Eddie891 will be a good admin. - AppleBsTime (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support --- FitIndia Talk Admin on Commons 19:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support, excellent candidate. Thinks things through, is knowledgeable about process, but also willing to challenge and work to improve it. Net asset. Harrias talk 21:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support - belated support as co-nom Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 21:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Yep. — 🦊 22:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support Has my trust. SpencerT•C 23:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. 💯 Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support Decent answers to questions, demonstrating a healthy attitude towards the avoidance of relist bias and bad non-admin closures. Airbornemihir (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support - I see no issues for a reason to not to support.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support - Gave a very good response to my question :) Leijurv (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support - good candidate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support - I mainly recognize this candidate from AFD. Giving them the power to close AFD discussions as "delete" will be a net positive in my opinion.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. - hako9 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support — certainly, why not?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support - although I am not familiar with this editor, reading his responses to the questions gives me a good impression that he'll do a great job. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support, have seen Eddie891 around, I personally reviewed the excellent History of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Army at Milhist ACR and FAC, teachable, temperament seems great, answer to Q11a is excellent (TNT is there for a reason), great content creation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support, just a great candidate, and it'll be nice to give the mop to someone who didn't arrive on Wikipedia back when dinosaurs still roamed the land. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support. We need more admins like this. Maproom (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support - definitely make a good admin. Tolly4bolly 10:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Stephen 10:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support Competent answers to the questions so far. He should do well. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support after review. No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support Competent, insightful, and helpful. A great candidate, and very likely to be a great admin. --Alan Islas (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support Clueful. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support. Great answers (especially Q16). Shows competency at AFD by questions and !votes, knows when they are incompetent and should not be doing something. Civil and a great content contributor. There is nothing to dislike. --Danre98(talk^contribs) 17:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. I was going to make a diary entry to come and close this after the seven days, but given I had just been lamenting that we didn't yet have an admin from those who started editing in 2016 I thought I would review the candidate instead. Having done so I am happy to support. ϢereSpielChequers 18:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support- Another terrific choice to wield the mop. I've no doubt that the candidate will not break the project.   Aloha27  talk  18:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support Mostly as per the responses to the questions. I have not interacted with Eddie891 before (that I recall), but I see much good work and no reason to oppose. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support - I have no concerns at all; candidate seems like a trustworthy editor. That they are a content builder who wants to work in the area of AfD is great. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support Good answers. I am very happy to add my support. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support I don't believe we've interacted directly, but I'm impressed with content creation and promotion to GA/FA, and get a strong positive vibe from what I've read here. = paul2520 💬 20:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support Very level-headed answers, which suggest to me considerable competence. — PJTraill (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support: no temperament concerns, plenty of experience and lots of reasons to trust Eddie891 to be responsible with the tools. — Bilorv (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support No concerns really but I'd like to see some counter vandalism experience. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Weak Support - I'm a bit suspicious in regards to the enormous increase in activity a few shy months before nomination, but otherwise a good candidate. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, since about mid-March a great many people have been stuck at home, pretty much chained to their computers, due to a certain global crisis happening. Perhaps you have heard something about it. But if you are really concerned about the change in activity levels, the proper thing to do is to is ask the candidate a question about this directly, before !voting, instead of casting vague aspersions here. Perhaps he can offer a reasonable explanation. In any case, that's exactly what the RfA questions are for. Nsk92 (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See the candidate's answer to Q21. Nsk92 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alright, that makes sense, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to everybody. My activity hasn’t increased over lockdown. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support This candidate is well qualified and has done a very good job of answering the questions. I have a problem with question 5. I object to the notion that AfD participants ought to do NAC closes, and that the lack of NAC closes is somehow suspicious. I was active at AfD for years before agreeing to an RfA, and never once carried out an NAC or was even tempted to do one. Yet still the community granted me the mop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support - No concerns here. -- Dane talk 02:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Good edits, awesome contributor. Naleksuh (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support per co-nominator. iMahesh (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support, I am not familiar with the candidate's work but their replies suggest competence and good attitude. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Yep, easy Support per everyone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support per nom – Ammarpad (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support per comments above. No questions. ThesenatorO5-2argue with me 11:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. No problems here. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support. Apart from solid contributions, I am especially convinced because they admitted and linked to past mistakes, which shows personal growth. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support – No reason not to. Kurtis (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support No concerns. - Flori4nK t • c 18:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support. No concerns, has a clue. – Majavah talk · edits 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support. Who can argue with this level of unanimity? Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Argumentum ad populum. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Mr rnddude: I did have my tongue slightly in cheek ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alas, undetectable in text. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do sometimes wonder about WP:Follow the leader. My personal philosophy is that if the only reason I have to support something is that many others have supported it, it's better to not !vote, but I don't think that's the prevailing view. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, it’s not a good idea to be a sheep. Honestly, when I originally !voted, I was thinking about !voting Neutral, under a concern over the large increase in activity a few months before nomination. The only reason I voted Support was because the user had at least a good chunk of activity beforehand. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unless I'm already familiar with the candidate, I usually wait a few days to see if any serious issues are raised. If not, I generally arrive at the conclusion that there are no red flags. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That’s... actually quite a good approach. Don’t know why I never thought of doing it that way. When I notice an RfA open, I often try to !vote immediately. Of course, I do plenty of research first. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support there don't seem to be any concerns. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support good editor --Ita140188 (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support No concerns --UserNameEatcha 05:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support Yes. I like his answers. OrewaTel (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support For a start, I trust both nominators. I also didn't notice this until today and I'm overwhelmed by the solid support this candidate has received. There's clearly no question about him being suitable. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support Let's carry this over the finishing line. wikitigresito (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support - looks good. Lots of low-drama varied contributions and sensible question answers. ~ mazca talk 12:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support Looks good. I particularly liked the responses to Q's 11, 12, and 16 which point to a thoughtful person. Wasn't planning on !voting but I figured this nom needs all the help it can get :)--RegentsPark (comment) 13:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support. Jianhui67 T★C 14:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support. Creates good content, meets my criteria —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support Ritchie's eyes are never untrustable in my opinion. All the best my man! Don't worry, just ignore the Karen being a little of a nuisance. I guess I shouldn't burn trash but this is here for the humour. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support per nomination statement, as well as based upon my general belief that any editor in good standing, with a history of not being a jackass, should be granted the tools as a matter of course. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support - likely net positive. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support - looks good to me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  164. Support - nominee appears to have solid experience and a mature approach to things, and his response to Q3 shows that he has taken the time to learn and grow from past errors/mistakes. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support - Really liked the answers, seems really friendly and a good editor. GoodCrossing (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support – no concerns. – bradv🍁 00:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support - More admins are always welcome; particularly really good ones. I like the nominations and trust that those who edit alongside of you have good sense and if they trust you with a mop, why wouldn't I support it. :3 ♥ Melody ♥ 00:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support, Thank you for stepping forward! Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support. Has a clue, solid contributor, unlikely to break the site through ineptitude or malice. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support, Impressive history of editing with a good attitude. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Looks qualified to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Struck multiple vote. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support No concerns. Nihlus 14:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support - looks to be a good choice. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support — Solid content creation.--Catlemur (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support - Quality candidate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support. Exemplary candidate, as far as I can tell. No red flags, nice person, make it so. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support- Good answers, no concernsParadise Chronicle (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Yes. I like what I see. SilkTork (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support Great contributor, well-versed in the admin areas they want to work in, I see no issues. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support. Glad to trust a quality content creator. Seems to possess clue. Won't delete the mainpage. BusterD (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support. I'm not as familiar with this person, but there are people supporting whose opinions I really trust. The answers seem to be good as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support. I don't see any problems, good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. Support. Seems like they merit having the tools for the areas they want to work in. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 09:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support. He has the experience needed and intelligence of handling that right. Go ahead eddie891.view,Tbiw (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. Support. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Support Babymissfortune 13:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  186. Pile on Support per my trust in Dweller and Ritchie (no disrespect to the other noms, just don't know you!) and a peruse through the questions and answers above. Pedro :  Chat  14:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  187. Support - not seeing a reason not to (except maybe the comment that math "doesn't make much sense to me", but I can forgive that). Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  188. Support the current !vote tally speaks for itself. This candidate has been shown to be trusted by the community by having no (serious and unstruck) oppose votes and no neutrals, with ~190 supports. To me, one of the most important things that an administrator should be is civil, and their answer to question 3 shows they have learnt from past issues and now know to remain civil and calm in discussions. The large amount of DYKs, GAs and 4 featured content show that they want to improve the encyclopaedia which, after all, is the reason this site exists. The large amount mainspace work that this user has done shows that they understand how mainspace and AfD works. This is vital to close discussions at AfD (which is where they desire to work administratively) as they can understand the reasoning behind the !votes, and have the knowledge of policy and guidelines to find the consensus in discussions. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  189. Support - There is no point disagreeing.Camy (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  190. Support - Impressive candidate. Chandan Guha (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  191. Support - Glad I noticed this RfA in time to jump on the bandwagon. Given the !votes and reasons already given now near the close, I see no reason to repeat them. I hope this will help push the total supports to more than 200 by the close. Donner60 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  192. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  193. Support Good luck. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  194. Support Just hopping on the bandwagon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  195. Support for easily surpassing my criteria, the strength of the nominators, and the lack of anything brought up to oppose. Except for that weird thing - and that had nothing to do with the candidate. Ifnord (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  196. Good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  197. Support per nom(s) ;) Eumat114 (Message) 09:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  198. Support - Great content work, sensible answers to questions and overall a good editor who will make proper use of the admin tools. A net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  199. Support per Hawkeye7 — O Still Small Voice of Clam 11:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  200. Support - I'm happy - A newer-experience admin would be a bit of balance and I feel that's a thing we need. Full support. ~ AC5230 talk 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]

Lengthy disquisition and diversion can be found in history, at time of this edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diff for ease of viewing. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
General comments[edit]
I find this interesting. I do think it is beneficial for AfD-focused candidates to have more NAC experience. However, given the hostility many of them get, I try not to view its (comparative) absence as a negative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I 100% agree with Barkeep49. NAC should be used sparingly and for self-evident and uncontroversial closes only. - hako9 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either you're competent enough to understand how to close based on consensus and our deletion policy or you're not. There are plenty of things an editor can do to demonstrate competency at closing and easy enough to demonstrate compentcy with deletion by participating at AfD. In most realms I try to ride the admin are just editors with more buttons train; it just so happens that in this case the more buttons matters. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I would agree a lack of NAC experience is not fatal (or indeed a huge negative) to an adminship candidate (even one who stated they intend to focus on AfD closes as administrator), I certainly think some experience in closing AfDs is beneficial. Precisely because it is all too easy for non-admins to lean towards certain options in closing discussions (as Barkeep rightly pointed), the fact that a candidate has NOT done so or fall into common traps such as the relist bias demonstrates that they have the judgment necessary to evaluate community consensus as an admin. Speaking of the relist bias, while some (or even many) non-admins do have the penchant to relist everything in spite of a clear consensus (or in ignorance of the soft deletion option), there are circumstances where relists are entirely appropriate. If a non-admin is able to relist appropriately, this helps his case that he is competent in the AfD area. Also, I expected the candidate to point to some experience in closing other discussions, such as RM or other talk page discussions, which would be helpful in demonstrating the candidate's competence. Having said all this though, I am overall satisfied by the response I receive, and I do believe this candidate is a net positive to the project. I'll wait for more questions to emerge before casting my support vote. --Dps04 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...but at AFD, NACs can only close snow keeps and snow redirects. Anything else is either a bad nac or requires an admin's help. Lev!vich 16:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Levivich: That's what I certainly remember being the case. However, just quickly checking a recent log, I spotted both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Mafalda of Bulgaria and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. D. Slater (2nd nomination). While neither would leap out as being unusual for a standard admin close, equally neither was a clear WP:SNOW or an unanimous decision; both had good faith suggestions to delete. And I note the closer has, not too surprisingly, got short shrift from one such editor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ritchie333, I'll note that NACer has been dragged to ANI multiple times over their NAC closes and relistings; I don't believe they did anything wrong; but I remember how much heat they got just for NACing. In fact, it's why I never NACed (and probably never will NAC) an AFD. Nnadi is like the poster-child for NAC-chilling-effect. Hats off to them for persevering through it, but I don't think expecting AFD NACs from RFA candidates is reasonable, given how toxic AFD is generally and towards NACs in particular. Lev!vich 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Levivich, non-admins may close AFD discussions as “no consensus” as well, although this is limited to cases where there is clearly and unambiguously no consensus emerging from the discussion, and where the non-admin is truly experienced in the AfD process (I haven’t endeavoured to do one myself). My point is, I don’t think it’s right to say performing NACs do not involve any judgment at all. True, NACs should be limited to non-controversial cases, but what exactly amounts to a case non-controversial enough for a NAC? A string of poorly argued keep votes against a well-argued nomination is clearly not one of them, and non-admins are often lambasted when they close such discussions as keep, even though it appears there has been a consensus. Distinguishing an unambiguous consensus from a potentially controversial discussion, and determining whether a relist is appropriate in the circumstances could both demonstrate the non-admin’s judgment and experience in the AFD area.
The reason I asked Q5 is because the candidate explicitly mentioned AfD Closes as their main area of focus as an admin. While I would have preferred some NAC, and absent that some closes in other venues such as RM or talk page discussions, I agree NAC closes / relists is not a must, and I am not expecting NACs from RFA candidates. Instead, I am just interested why they haven’t done much NAC despite declaring interest in the area. I am generally satisfied by their policy-grounded explanation to my question, so count me in as inclining support at this stage (pending the candidates’ reply to other questions). --Dps04 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dps04: How can a non-controversial discussion end in no consensus? My understanding is that NACs can't weigh votes because if a close requires weighing votes, it's controversial, and thus a WP:BADNAC. That said, you're of course not the first or only editor to ask Q5 in an RFA; the last RFA had two or three versions of the question asked, and that led (in part) to the discussion over at WT:RFA about questions at RFAs. Lev!vich 17:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Levivich, well unambiguous consensus does not mean unanimous consensus. I have closed (and seen other non-admins close) AfDs which are not unanimous, but clearly unambiguous (usually because the lone keep / delete vote is clearly not grounded in policy). So naturally you would have to weigh votes when you close any discussion that is not unanimous. -- Dps04 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:SNOW doesn't mean unanimous, either. What you're describing, like a "9 keep, 1 delete" situation, might be a SNOW keep and thus an appropriate NAC. However, any AFD that is like 5 keeps and 5 deletes can't be NAC'd. If all the votes are accorded equal weight (no consensus), it's clearly controversial and thus a WP:BADNAC. If it's either a keep or a delete because some votes receive more weight than others, it's still controversial, and thus a bad nac. There are really only two kinds of discussions, right? SNOW and controversial. Is there anything in between? Lev!vich 17:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Levivich, well there are discussions which are clearly unambiguous (or SNOW as you described it), ones that are clearly controversial, and others that seem unambiguous but not clearly so. My understanding is that while non-admins should not close articles in the second category, they may perform a NAC for the third category. This is implicitly allowed per WP:NACPIT #1, which reads: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous." Anyway lets focus on the candidate and leave discussion on NAC for another time. This is probably not the appropriate venue to do so. Cheers -- Dps04 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest continuing the (rather fruitful, IMHO) discussion on WT:AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an issue with the vote counter? Showing 1 Neutral comment, however none have been posted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion moved to the talk page. Mz7 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.
Category