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

Final (71/1/2); Closed by X! on 00:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Eustress (talk · contribs) – Here we have another one of those editors that make you wonder why they aren't already an admin. Since November 2007 Eustress has been here, quietly working in the background, steadily improving Wikipedia in a diverse range of areas. He has racked up a whopping 11,354 edits, and a slew of barnstars and awards; including contributions to WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. He has been a rollbacker since April 2008, has had autoreviewer rights since September 2009, and a clean block log, which shows he can obviously be trusted. A quick glance at his userpage shows his passion for editing Wikipedia and the joy he derives from it. Eustress is a solid, sensible content editor with plenty of clue, which makes him quite an asset. If promoted to adminship I'm sure he will take on his new role with as much zeal and earnest as his content work and Wikipedia will greatly benefit from it. That is why I feel he would make a great addition to the administrator corps. œ^™ 10:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you, œ, for your confidence. —Eustress ^talk 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I feel that a good sysop is one who strives to improve Wikipedia anywhere and everywhere—someone who makes an effort to gain experience in all admin functions over a reasonable period of time, but who also makes significant and consistent contributions to a few particular areas of interest and competence. In pursuit of the latter, since I frequently engage in WP:MTC, as a sysop I would tackle CAT:NCT and CAT:NC, which are subcats of CAT:AB and together represent over 14,000 admin tasks needing to be addressed. Other particular interests would include serving in a admin capacity at WP:DYK and WP:FL.

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

A: It’s hard to choose what my “best” contributions are, as every beginning, every improvement means something to me whether or not it results in being designated as featured content. I’m particularly proud of university alumni (FL) because I think it’s one of the most comprehensive alumni lists on Wikipedia; I’m likewise proud of Order of the Arrow (GA) because its improvement was a feat of collaboration with several others.

While I have reveled in creating and improving dozens of articles, templates, and images, I feel that my most satisfying and most important contributions have been those that have assisted others and improved the encyclopedia on the whole. I’ve helped mentor several new editors via WP:ADOPT, and I’ve helped rescue articles on behalf of new editors with COIs (see, for example, Rideau, ALD, and MRB Constant). I’ve conducted 29 GANs and participated in several PRs, ERs, DYK noms, and FACs. My best contributions in any one stream would probably be with WP:UNI, where I have helped improve the articles for scores of universities.

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 appreciate WP:BITE because I am one of its beneficiaries. When I started editing over two years ago, then contributing mostly to the conflict-prone article space of religion, I sometimes failed to assume good faith and was rude to others. But those editors were patient with me and taught me how to be a better editor and, consequently, a better person in “real life.”

Over the past couple years, I have fully embraced WikiLove, helping to organize WikiProject Awards and striving to pay it forward through several inter-editor efforts, as delineated in the previous question.

Questions from  fetchcomms☛

4. You plan to do work with images. What is your view of non-free files being used on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and why do you hold that view?

A: Images represent a significant component of Wikipedia, so yes, I will engage image-related admin jobs, but I don’t anticipate them constituting a major focus area for me, as alluded to in Q1.

Clearly, our maxim is to create a free content encyclopedia, but as this is a work in progress, Wikipedia policy embodies fair-use provisions, which I would be entrusted to carefully enforce as an admin. It has been my experience that copyright holders are very welcoming to the idea of providing free use of their work (via WP:OTRS) on one of the most visited websites on the Internet; so, assuming the copyright holder is alive and accessible, I will continue to try to assuage the matter by reaching out to our friends on- and off-Wikipedia. —Eustress ^talk 02:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Why do we have DYK, (what is its purpose), and how could something like this be improved upon, if possible?

A: I believe the objective of DYK is to encourage responsible content creation. Since such “articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose” and “the nomination's hook must contain a fact cited in the article” (WP:DYK), editors are encouraged to apply WP:SAA, flushing out the topic via reliable sources and ensuring the content belongs on Wikipedia (à la WP:NOT). Plus, researching and coming up with hooks (or “extraordinary claims”) can be quite invigorating. —Eustress ^talk 02:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these questions really necessary, or are they simply questions for the sake of having questions? NW (Talk) 01:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, NW. We ain't even up to 20 yet. ;) Dlohcierekim 13:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They help reinforce the candidate's qualifications when correctly answered, and surely anyone willing to undergo a request for s/abuse/adminship would be willing to answer a few questions.  fetchcomms☛ 17:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one little question from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

6. What is your opinion of the current Criteria for Speedy Deletion and how, if at all, would you improve them if the decision was left entirely to you?

A: WP:CSD is crucial to the functioning and credibility of the encyclopedia. The only improvement suggestion I currently have regards procedure more than policy. Specifically, when it is evident that the author of a speedy-deleted article put some effort into its composition, I would hope the deleting admin would go the extra mile and encourage the author to revisit the text in user space, reconciling it with WP:PG and asking others for input before creating the article again.

Administrators are often the first Wikipedians new contributors come in contact with, so an increase in respect and outreach concerning this and other aspects of speedy deletion could mean the difference in our efforts to enlist more active contributors. —Eustress ^talk 00:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\

7. You say that you will be dealing with images a lot. You are bound to hit a image vandal at somepoint. If there was an editor that kept posting images on the commons to Wikipedia, what actions would you take?

A: This would really be an issue for WikiMedia Commons and not for the English Wikipedia (a separate RfA is need to be an administrator on the Commons), but I’m not one to turn down an opportunity for extra credit ;). If after approaching the editor on his or her Commons talk page the issue persisted, then I would consult the appropriate resource on COM:ANB. (And by the way, I never said image issues would be my forte. Please review my response to Q4.) —Eustress ^talk 02:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you understand here, I mean a free image, on commons, downloaded to someones computer, they reuppload to enwp, and it is deletable under F8. Also, they keep doing it. What actions would you take? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. If you met someone continuinly posting Non-free images, what would you do?

A: It depends. For example, as discussed in Q4, not all non-free images are in violation of current policy. However, assuming there is a bona fide policy violation (and assuming we’re talking about the English Wikipedia), I would proceed with the pertinent levels of WP:UTN and then consult WP:BP if the situation escalated.

9. You seem to have a low edit count per month on this project. Is it possible that you could become inactive on the project?

Can you please clarify which project you are referring to? —Eustress ^talk 02:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am refering to enwp. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: Three parts to this response: (1) I don't agree that my per-month edit count is low. In fact, you and I both have the same edit count so far this month! (2) I do not foresee ever becoming inactive. I love Wikipedia! (3) Even if I did become inactive, it wouldn't matter, per WP:NONEED. —Eustress ^talk 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Eustress before commenting.

1. Support as nom. -- œ^™ 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support: My random sample of a dozen edits shows careful preparation and willingness to check text vs cites for accuracy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Sifted through contribs and deleted contribs. Appears to be polite, clueful, and knows policy. Been around awhile and has done some good work. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Like the above editors, the contributions I've seen look good and knows policy. Communications with others have also been good. No reason not to support. Good luck! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Same here, random sample, everything looks great. I collaborated with you on Yao Ming. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per 3. I am a huge fan of WP:BITE. We need more admins who appreciate it, and I don't think enough users do. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support No reason to oppose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I've worked with this editor before, and have no problems with adminship. Good user, dedicated to improvement of the encyclopedia, and no qualms. — The Earwig ^(talk) 00:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Haven't worked with this editor before, but seems well-qualified from what I can see.  fetchcomms☛ 00:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support This editor seems to know what they're doing. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Eustress is a calm, productive editor whom I trust. Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Highly qualified editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs)
13. Support I've seen him at GAN before; he's clearly here to contribute good content to the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support No issues here. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 04:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support All my boxes ticked. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Why isn't he already an admin? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Indeed. Minimac (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support What a nice way to start the day - with two new RfAs, both of which I have no hesitation in supporting -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Sure, why not. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Dedicated to the project and will make a good admin, I'm sure. BigDom 12:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Trustworthy and will not abuse the tools. Rje (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Reading through user talk page and reviewing a sample of edits, I see nothing to indicate that they would abuse the tools. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Aiken ♫ 13:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support per Doc Quintana. per readily meets my standards. See no reason to believe will be anything but a positive. Dlohcierekim 13:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Seems to be a good contributor to our collective Hive001 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support per nom.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 15:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - no qualms here. Seems like a qualified, trustworthy candidate. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support No worries. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support I haven't encountered this candidate often, but what I have seen -- and see here-- is favorable. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strongly: I remember Eustress coming to my talk page over two years ago for rollback. Everything I've seen from Eustress since then has been positive, and I'm pleased to see this RfA. Acalamari 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Very good. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Why not? AniMate 20:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Who was it who said no strong candidates were seeking adminship? Wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support liked previous work ive seen. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Ray^Talk 23:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support I have full confidence in Eustress. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support good chance at being a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support, complete lack of anything worth complaining about! Eustress is overdue some administrator tools. ~ mazca ^talk 12:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Seems trustworthy enough for me. Good luck! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Has my support. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Remember seeing you around a few times. Obviously, you're a good person, and I think your nice userpage reflects that. ceranthor 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - why not? Airplaneman ✈ 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Looks qualified to me. -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Will make a great admin MaenK.A._Talk 08:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. We always need more image understanding admins, and I see no reason to think they'll wreck up the place. GedUK  09:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support as I see no reason for concern. Candidate willing to work on backlogs is a plus. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support I see no causes for concern. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - I love all of your work improving the content of articles, as well as AfD work, counter-vandalism, etc. Great work, keep it up, and hopefully these extra tools will help you :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work (over 4.3 edits per page edited) and sufficient WP edits, interesting Userboxen/user page, Rollback rights, autoreviewer, and Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - Solid record: 2 1/2 years experience, >11,000 edits, of which half are to articles; many quality additions to worldwide college and university pages; seems to have a great deal of expertise with some of the more technical aspects of editing; and has shown a willingness to take on less glamorous jobs--Hokeman (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Good answers. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. I appreciate the well-thought-out answer to my question and the polite poke on my talk page to get me to return :). I can't think of any valid reason to oppose, so the best of luck to you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Eustress. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support: I like the answers here, see no cause for concern in a sampling of edits, and think we could use more admins wanting to work with images. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - No concerns, will make a fine admin. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 23:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - I have interacted with Eustress on WP for two years. Solid, level-headed editor. Will make a great admin. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Eustress seems like a fine candidate to me, particularly given his extensive work with content creation/improvement and reviewing; I enjoyed reading some of his GAs, including Order of the Arrow. I'm glad to see a prospective admin who's willing to tackle the monstrous backlog at CAT:NC and CAT:NCT, and he seems to have a strong grasp of our policies, including those regarding images. This candidate is a quality contributor all around, and I don't doubt his ability to become a quality administrator. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - This editor's achievements are impressive, the answers to questions were informed, and OlEnglish's endorsement carries weight with me. I see no complaints of any substance that would lead me to oppose. -- Atama頭 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. An intelligent, calm, and highly-qualified candidate with plenty of clue. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. I'm previously unfamiliar with the candidate. Looking through their interactions with others, the vast majority of the time I see them being calm, courteous, and clueful. Marco's allegations below are serious, but I was unable to find any evidence to substantiate it. Everything I saw was in line with WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RS. Thank you for submitting yourself for adminship Eustress, and I hope you make good use of the tools. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - Excellent candidate. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - Agree Good candidate. Good Luck. Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Good for the job, can be trusted with mop. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. She will bring a touch of kindness to the encyclopedia; everywhere I see her, she is always being kind, to newbies and anons alike. I never vote here, but I want to support Eustress. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Strong Support: An ideal candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support, no evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
71. Support, Eustress has the all-important Clue. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Some edits have a pro—LDS bias.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Diffs, please? --StaniStani  19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:NPOV violations can be serious, especially in an RfA when we're trying to determine an editor's judgment capabilities. Being able to provide examples will be helpful. On the other hand, lacking such examples your oppose may be given little to no weight. -- Atama頭 20:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Has a strong commitment to content building and review, but with almost no AfD participation it's hard to tell if they have a practical grasp on many of our policies and guidelines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   If it helps, here is a link to 24 instances where I have either nominated or participated in an AfD or TfD. Regards —Eustress ^talk 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Given that this candidate does not mention an intention to close AfD's, I don't think this consideration comes into play. A good grasp of overall policies can be seen from interaction with other editors elsewhere. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral Until questions are answered. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Questions 7, 8, and 9 answered...thank you! —Eustress ^talk 01:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.