Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Ergo Sum[edit]

Final (178/56/10); Closed as successful by Maxim(talk) at 03:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]


Ergo Sum (talk · contribs) – Ergo Sum has been a valued and dedicated contributor to Wikipedia since he registered almost five years ago. In that time I have had the pleasure of working with him on numerous good article nominations, all of which to my knowledge have been promoted. Ergo Sum is absolutely and clearly dedicated to the improvement of Wikipedia, working on niche subjects but taking them to levels of excellence to serve our readers. I know that I have made many (probably pedantic) demands of Ergo Sum during various reviews, to which he has responded kindly, generously, sometimes with reservation but never with any kind of hostility. The end result has been a series of really good articles. To be clear: Ergo Sum has 21 GAs and 6 FAs to his name, his dedication to content and our readers cannot be questioned. Oh, and six Four Awards? Who can even imagine just one?

As far as becoming an admin is concerned, Ergo Sum has assured me that he would start quietly and work up experience, commencing in speedy deletion decisions and obvious vandalblocks and protection requests, before moving onto more complex issues such as history merges and the terror of ANI reports. I cannot remember a single instance where Ergo Sum's behavioural competencies could be called into question, indeed it has always been a complete pleasure to work with him in making content better. I wholeheartedly commend Ergo Sum to you all. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I humbly accept TRM's nomination and express my thanks for such kind words. I have never engaged in paid editing. Ergo Sum 22:46, 18 January 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 enjoy trying my hand in a lot of different tasks that Wikipedia has to offer, in order to find the ones that I enjoy. This has been my philosophy as an editor, and I would adopt it as my philosophy as an administrator. As a new administrator, I would get involved in speedy deletion requests, page protection requests, and (cautiously at first) vandalism blocks. Once I am more comfortable with the administrator toolset, I envision working my way into page history merges and attending to incidents on the administrator's noticeboard.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: At present, I am first and foremost a content contributor (though not to the exclusion of "administrative" tasks). Therefore, the contributions I am most proud of are the featured articles I have created and received Four Awards for. I anticipate bringing the bulk of my good articles up to featured status, as well as shepherding a substantial number of other articles that I have either written/created or will significantly improve to good status. Specifically, my goal is to turn presidents of Georgetown University, which is what I have most recently been working on, into a featured topic. Much of my long-term strategy can be found in my sandboxes, and my past recognized content can be found on my userpage.
I believe that Wikipedia should not simply be a collection of discrete articles, but a coherent ecosystem of interlocking knowledge. This is a much more ambitious and difficult objective. Though this may be something of an oversimplification, I believe the most important factor elevating Wikipedia above the traditional, paper encyclopedia is the wikilink. Therefore, rather than simply create an article (often a niche one, as TRM rightly says), I will often create ancillary articles that can link to or be linked from the main article, in order to provide the inquisitive reader with a comprehensive view of a given subject. This is what I have done with the Georgetown presidents series, and am quite proud of it.
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: The only interaction I've had that I would describe as a "conflict" would be my recent involvement in a dispute on the Federalist Society article. The transaction was variously spread across the article talk page, my talk page, and the article's reivision history (especially the edit summaries). I utilized the BOLD, revert, discuss method, initiated a discussion on the talk page with the user who disputed my edit, then opened a request for comment when I saw the discussion had reached an impasse.
In the future, I intend to continue adhering to the maxim that Wikipedia should be a collegial environment. This means that to the best of my ability, I will act not just with civility, but courtesy. I also intend to continue using the above BRD method, and employing third opinions and requests for comment.

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 questions from Willbb234
4. Hi there. What, in your opinion, is the most important policy or guideline and why?
A:It's hard not to say one of the core content policies. Many of the policies and guidelines are important, but I think you could probably run this place pretty well with just those three. We live in contentious times, where an ever-diminishing number of people seem to be holding back the floodgates of factual relativism. Therefore, if I were to pick one important policy, it must be NPOV. NPOV is the reason that so many mass media outlets (e.g. Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc.) cite to Wikipedia.
5. You intend to work on speedy deletion requests. However, you have only particupated in 5 AfDs ([1]). Do you think this lack of experience in this area may hinder your work?
A: If you don't mind, I would like to answer this question so as to also address some of the concerns of the voting editors below. My overriding principle on Wikipedia is to act judiciously; more often than not, this means to act cautiously and with an appreciation both of what I know and what I do not. To say the least, I am not one to rush to utilize an extraordinary tool when I am not confident in its appropriateness and in my ability to wield it.
I would point to the approval of my template editor permission request two years ago as as evidence of how I would be affected by the fact that I have worked primarily in content creation, rather than the back end of Wikipedia. The permission was granted to me temporarily, and later granted permanently. In that trial period, I used the template editor permission frequently, but cautiously. I sought out the advice of experienced template editors, practiced my skills on increasingly larger projects, and developed my ability. I believe that I know my wiki-strengths well enough to say that my time would not be best spent on at least some of the proto-admin tasks that many RfA candidates work on. That being said, I closely adhere to Wikipedia's policies and unwritten norms, and am a generally inquisitive person who likes learning on the job.
In short, I understand the hesitation of many of the "oppose" voters below, but am confident that if they were to ask the experienced editors I have worked with, especially in utilizing my advanced permissions like template editor, they would be told that I learn quickly and act cautiously. Above all, I intend to do no harm.
Additional questions from John M Wolfson
6. I see that User:Ergo Sum/CSD log doesn't currently exist. Where might I find a record of your speedy deletions, given that it is what you intend to work in?
A: I appreciate receiving the benefit of the doubt, but you are quite right: I haven't been involved in speedy deletions, except as an observer (whereby I actually have been a pretty frequent observer of speedy deletion requests). The short answer to this is that I have heretofore been more interested in creating fairly niche content than in deleting it. (This is not to say that I believe the deletion process is unimportant; on the contrary!). Rather than trawl the encyclopedia, I tend to silo, as far as subject matter is concerned. As an aside, I have participated in the proposed deletion process.
That being said, I view the role of an administrator as different from a nominator in speedy deletion. A nominator must search out articles that prima facie meet the CSD criteria. An administrator enjoys the benefit of having this work already done, and must instead compare the article against the CSD criteria. Rules and laws are something I work with as a career off-wiki and are something I pay particular attention to on-wiki. I would feel comfortable assessing a nominated article against the CSD criteria, which I am quite familiar with.
I apologize if I came across as a bit dickish. While I opposed and stand by it, I appreciate your efforts and your answer to this question and would be more than happy to support in a future RfA. Do note that for such a future RfA having a CSD log is a good idea given your intents, you can get one by installing Twinkle and enabling it in your settings. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
A: Operating just on the information provided, CSD G12 would certainly apply. A7 very clearly does not apply because educational institutions are explicitly excepted from the A7 credibility rule.
Additional question from Spy-cicle
8. Do you intend to work on AfDs (i.e. closing AfDs) if you become an admin once familiar with speedy deletion requests?
A: I think that's very possible, though most likely not immediately upon becoming an admin. I do like to try my hand in different areas, and AfD would certainly be one of those, but I would first focus on becoming comfortable in the areas I describe above.
Additional question from Puddleglum2.0
9. Hi. Do you operate any alternative accounts?
A: No.
Additional question from Barkeep49
10. I was ready to support you until I saw that you would eventually want to close AfDs. CSD, page protection, and to some extent vandalism blocks are pretty straightforward reading of policy and given your content experience I had zero concerns about your ability to correctly apply written policy and guidelines especially given your promise to go slow. But closing discussions for me is a different skill. Do you have experience you can point to showing your ability to judge consensus?
A: Sorry, allow me to clarify my comment on AfD. I have no plans to engage in AfD now or in the near future. However, I meant to indicate that at some point in the future (whether months or years), it's possible that I might become interested in that and start learning about it. For now, I have no intention of working in AfD.
11. Sorry one more line of inquiry. It's unusual for someone who has been so disinterested in the project side of things to decide to go for sysop. If you'll forgive the double question on one theme, why now and why get involved in this way?
A: Well, once I got involved in some of the higher-level content areas of Wikipedia (GAN, FAC, TFA), I came to appreciate the extent to which administrative work affects content. I'm sure there was once a time when I had no interest at all in the admin side. But, I do feel quite strongly about content, which I think necessarily translates into feeling strongly about the administrative tasks that are intimately tied up in content creation/improvement.
That being said, with administrative tasks, I think there are degrees of attenuation from content. Some are more closely tied to it than others. All are important, and I'm very glad that we have talented administrators who work prolifically on the "purely" administrative matters. At the outset, I would leave those tasks to those talented administrators, and focus on the administrative tasks more closely tied up with content. To answer your question in short, as I've elevated my content editing skills, I now see adminship as an appropriate step to facilitating those skills.
Additional question from Iffy
12. At the time of this question, there is a current WP:RFPP request: 2020 Taal Volcano eruption - Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. ~~~~, What administrative actions would you take (or not take) on this report? IffyChat -- 13:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: There has been both vandalism and disruptive edits by multiple unregistered and new users, likely due to media coverage of the event. Since the page has not been semi-protected before, an indefinite semi-protection would not be appropriate. I tend toward the minimum necessary duration of semi-protection, so I would semi-protect for 48 hours. This would give the unregistered/new users sufficient time to cool down or direct their attention elsewhere, and also media coverage may have waned somewhat during that time. If vandalism persists after the 48-hour expiration, then I would semi-protect for a longer period of time (perhaps a week). If vandalism resurfaces after that, then I would indefinitely semi-protect. Ergo Sum 16:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Taewangkorea
13. If you become an admin and encounter an area in Wikipedia that you were unfamiliar with, which you were asked to deal with, what would you do? Taewangkorea (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I'm assuming this request is coming in the form of an editor asking me to do something on my talk page. I would first determine whether I was technically comfortable performing the task being requested. If I were, then I would naturally investigate whether the request was appropriate, per the policies and guidelines. However, if I were not comfortable, I would direct the editor to the appropriate noticeboard or other venue for making the request. Depending on the nature of the request, I might also loop in an administrator with whom I have a past relationship and who I know performs those sorts of tasks routinely. Lastly, knowing my own inquisitive nature, I would want to investigate why that editor asked me to perform the task, since if I were not comfortable doing it, that means I hadn't done it in the past. Ergo Sum 19:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from ƏXPLICIT
14. Under what circumstance is an opining participant of a deletion discussion (not the nominator) allowed to close said discussion?
A: The rules for this are laid out at WP:DPR#NAC. An editor who has voted and expressed opinions in a deletion discussion may not close the discussion, with the exception being an editor who closes their own nomination as speedy keep. Were this editor to have not voted/been involved, then they could close so long as it is not a delete (since they cannot delete), it is not a close call, and they note that they are not an admin. Ergo Sum 17:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
15. User A created Category:Foo, California in October 2019. User B moved the category to Category:Foo, Goo County, California to harmonize the category set in November. User B tags the resulting redirect category with {{db}} and the rationale "not needed" in January 2020. What action do you take?
A: To clarify, my understanding is that it is Category:Foo, California that has been tagged with {{db}}, and that category is now a category redirect but was once populated. Since WP:C1 does not allow category redirects to be deleted via CSD, I would remove the {{db}} tag, and leave a note on the tagging editor's talk page informing them that to delete the category, they would have to list it at WP:CfD, and link them to the non-binding essay Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept, for consideration. Ergo Sum 17:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Coffee
16. You come across an article on a relatively unknown (yet notable) living children's book author that says they have "caused 5 car accidents resulting in 3 people's deaths and they showed no remorse". The claim is directly cited to a reliable source that says they have been "accused by their former roommate of driving under the influence". What do you do?
A: If that is the only relevant thing that the source says regarding the statement, then I would remove as an unsourced/poorly sourced statement per WP:BLPREMOVE. Ergo Sum 17:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
17. You discover an editor who has created three unsourced BLPs in the past week after being warned thrice about not providing reliable sources to verify claims about living people. What do you do?
A: First, I would make sure that the articles are tagged with {{BLP unsourced}}. Then, since the editor has been warned three times, I don't think it would do much go to continue warning or using further-escalating templates. Moreover, since the violations are not on just one BLP article, and is coming from one editor, page protection would do no good. Therefore, I would block the editor in accordance with WP:WHYBLOCK#Protection for two days and place {{Uw-bioblock}} on their userpage. Ergo Sum 17:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Nick Moyes
18. I realise this is a very late question but, bearing in mind some of the comments expressed below about your lack of past experience with CSD and AFD, I wonder whether you feel it might allay any concerns if you were to declare whether you would be willing to add your name to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?
Additional question from Minecrafter0271
19. How long have you been editing on Wikipedia?


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

  1. Support. I have watched the development of this editor for some time, and they appear to be clued in and motivated to do good. BD2412 T 00:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support. Youbetcha. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC) Because we need admins who know how to build content, more than we need those who know how to delete content. Because we need admins we have worked with and can trust, more than we need admins who have focused on climbing the grease pole and checking all the boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Strong Support, as this nominee is actually one of the few that meets my criteria. ES not only has a featured article, he has six, and he earned a Four Award for each. There appears to be no impediments to his being an admin. This is exactly the type of editor who should be an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 00:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Per my trust in BD2412. GMGtalk 01:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. I learned on the job and so did many other content creators. It's true that it's no longer 2008, but nothing has changed that much. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. User appears clueful and low-drama, and suggests a thoughtful approach to how they will learn the ropes as an admin. In light of this, opposes are not particularly convincing. --JBL (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support. Excellent content contributions. The vandalism and protection noticeboards could always use more participation, since it would be in Wikipedia's best interest for reports on those noticeboards to be addressed as quickly as possible. Writing featured articles demonstrates a strong understanding of content policies. Ergo Sum states that they will approach new areas with caution, and their assurance is credible in light of their uncontroversial history. I appreciate Ergo Sum's promise to contribute content and be courteous to other editors at the same time. — Newslinger talk 02:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC) Edited — Newslinger talk 05:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support - great content creator, has a clue about WP policies. L293D ( • ) 02:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support clear net postive and good content creation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Excellent content creation and no drama whatsoever. Clearly would be a net positive with the mop, and the vast majority of admins end up "learning on the job," so to speak. Not really convinced by the opposes, given that the user clearly demonstrates an understanding of policies. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support - unusually excellent record of content creation. Not so much experience of classic admin areas, but has said he'll start slowly. Has always seemed very level-headed. I'm not at all put off by the first dozen opposes. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support I understand why people are opposing, but I'm really not all that fussed - I don't think working in admin-y areas is necessarily a prerequisite to becoming an administrator. This is clearly a user with the best interests of the encyclopaedia in mind, and I trust they will use the tools well. SportingFlyer T·C 05:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support per many of the above. Always good to see a content creator to balance out the more...'nuts and bolts'/'classic admin areas' candidates. Those who have a little skin in the game see things from a slightly different view, and it's good to have balance across the admin cadre as a whole, rather than insisting all admins must be of a certain type. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support – A great builder and not a bickerer. Those complaining about the low edit count have not seen this efficient editor at work. They do not clog watchlists with minor tinkering but produce well written and sourced content that is just awesome!!! My interactions with them perfectly embody the very essence of "We are here to build an encyclopedia." There is need for content creators as admins to balance out the squad. God forbid, if @WP:TFA coordinators and @WP:FAC coordinators: died today, our Main Page would be at a complete loss for what to do. We need these types of users to become understudies at WP:TFA and WP:FAC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. support per Johnbod. Given the level of opposes I would suggest taking part in a few AFDs, sourcing/rescuing those that can be sourced and supporting the deletion of those that can't; then coming back here in a few months. Supporting now because I'm confident that the candidate is already has the skills and smarts. ϢereSpielChequers 09:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support - Moving from oppose.[2] I'm persuaded by Johnbod's reasoning, and have seen Ergo under pressure during a very hostile review where they were unfailingly cool under pressure when others had lost their heads. Ceoil (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support per nom, per GregJackP and per User:Ritchie333/CSD log. An editor with an outstanding level of content contribution and excellent civility (which can be demonstrated by their level-headedness at multiple FACs) will have grasped the important policies and can learn everything else on the job. In particular, somebody with multiple FAs can grok AIV in about ten minutes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support - I don't know this user but I don't see any issues. Deb (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Ergo Sum's contributions so far have shown that they are here for the right reasons - they are clearly capable, and enthusiastic and dedicated. If such a person wants to turn their hand to admin roles, I am happy to support them - sure, they might not have done much in those areas to date, but they've shown the capacity to learn and I've no doubt that they'll proceed cautiously. Plus, it's so nice to see GregJackP in the support column for once, I want to be able to join him for a change :) GirthSummit (blether) 10:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support - there are a few points to make upfront - (1) we need more admins, (2) this editor has the longevity and the clear commitment to the project and its well-being which we would expect of any admin, and (3) he knows and understands the content-creation arena better than most. The question is, are there any risks associated with promoting him to adminship? The prospect of him going rogue and going round deleting things on a whim, getting into conflicts, or maliciously blocking newbies, seems remote given his history of sensible contribution and interaction. So the main question we have to ask is whether he will make inadvertent errors or prove to lack the judgement necessary to make good admin decisions. J947 says below that "he would most likely cause more harm than he's worth"... that's a legitimate point of view, but having given it some thought I don't think I share it. The candidate talks of starting with simple things and then building up knowledge on the job, and I think that's a good way to do it. Speaking personally, I started out as an admin on a fairly narrow range of experience, but the community trusted me and I've built up more knowledge of things as I've gone along. I foresee the same thing here, and I don't think we should pass on the opportunity to add to the corps at a time we need it. I also see a number of highly trusted names in the support ranks above, so it's clear it's not an outlier view to think there would be a WP:NETPOSITIVE here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. As I would support the nom, so I support the candidate. ——SN54129 10:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support per nom as well as per Amakuru. Certainly a net positive, no concerns of going rogue and deleting the main page. Face-grin.svgFlyingAce✈hello 10:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support per TRM's nom and most of the comments above. I don't believe extensive content work is an essential prerequisite to adminship, but we certainly shouldn't fault a candidate for having focused on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support. Content creation is the heart of why we’re here. I see no benefit of making them wait further if they’re willing to take on and learn new skills benefiting everyone, they obviously have a clue. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support - clearly a good content creator. Do they need the tools right now? Maybe not. However, they clearly know what they want to do, so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support. I was on the fence, as though I like Ergo sum's content work, and they seem levelheaded judging by their interactions at FAC, they have not, as many have noted, got much of a track-record of admin work to judge. But Amakuru's reasoning has tipped my over into the support camp, and I agree with SchroCat that it's good to have balance across the admin cadre as a whole, rather than insisting all admins must be of a certain type Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support precious enlightenment --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support per Amakuru. Someone who clearly has Wikipedia's best interests at heart is not going to go rogue, so there is a net positive to letting the candidate help out. The one concern, and it's a small one, would be if the candidate were to dive into an area they know nothing about and start firing from the hip, but I trust the reassurances that won't happen. Good luck, we need more variety! -- Tavix (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support I don't remember ever interacting with this editor, which is probably a good sign. Also doesn't seem like a power-hungry weirdo. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. An experienced content creator with no major issues. Adminship is not supposed to be a big deal, and the fact that someone doesn’t spend their time fighting vandals or reporting stuff to UAA isn’t a negative in my book. If they hadn’t mentioned the three letters “CSD” this likely would be passing right now. They can do that slowly and learn. The ultimate question is are they competent and will they abuse the tools. My phrase is typically “not a jerk, has a clue.” I think Ergo sum more than passes that. Thus support. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Adminship is supposed to not be a big deal. ES has shown me that they will not mishandle the tools, and will be a bet benefit for the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support for meeting my minimums and no big deal. NYB said it well above, I have seen huge oppose pile-ons for not enough content creation (which I do not agree with) and this candidate has opposite? They appear committed, eager, and motivated - given them a mop. Ifnord (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support - thoughtful, clueful, and here to build an encyclopedia. --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support will be a net positive to the project. Great contributions across Wikipedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support - we're building an encyclopedia over years, and the candidate has shown their commitment to that work. A little learning on the job is not only acceptable, it's expected - we're all amateurs here. I have no reason to think, and plenty of reason not to think, that the candidate will be reckless with the admin tools. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Strong support. I was tempted to oppose on the grounds that this candidate's content creation might suffer from energies being diverted toward adminship tasks, but I don't have a right to second-guess such things and my impression that Ergo Sum's approach to the tasks would be at the highest level of competency and responsibility is very strong. All things considered, Wikipedia needs administrators like this one. – Athaenara 15:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support - Per Amakuru. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support for a definite net positive. Trustworthy editor, trustworthy nom. Opposes not a concern. Miniapolis 16:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. No reason not to trust the candidate. Lack of experience in many admin areas is not a problem if accompanied by clue and willingness to learn, and I think this is the case here (see also Q5). —Kusma (t·c) 16:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support (with some hesitation) Your content creation is excellent and commendable, and I appreciate your answer to Q5. I have confidence you will be a great admin (even if this RfA fails, your next will succeed), but hesitate due to your relative lack of experience in doing admin-y things. However, on the whole I think you understand policy (even if you lack some experience with them), will be cautious, and will not abuse the tools, so I support. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. A thoughtful, collaborative, and cautious editor. I see no reason they could not be an effective administrator as long as they start slow, recognize their limits, and perform due diligence in new areas. There are dozens of administrative areas with which any number of trusted admins are unfamiliar- yet we trust them to know when (and when not) to use the tools and to self-assess their competence. There are many resources available to bring administrators up to speed and understanding/applying GA/FA criteria demonstrates an ability to understand/apply policies and guidelines, so I’m not seeing a pressing need for them to intern in administrative work tasks for six months when we have pressing backlogs to attend to now (CAT:RFU comes to mind). –xenotalk 16:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Strong support Ergo sum's contributions give the impression of a level-headed, dedicated, extremely clueful editor. With powerhouse contributions to the encyclopedia, and a cool head even when discussions aren't going their way, Ergo sum seems an easy candidate for us to trust with some slightly more disruptive tools. I have complete faith that they'll do their homework before entering any new/contentious areas. Ajpolino (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support This is weak support actually, there are a number of valid reasons in the oppose section but so in the support. On balance I don't think this candidate would be a net negative. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support No reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. Also the arguments in the oppose section are unconvincing.--rogerd (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Weak support as per others. >>BEANS X2t 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Happy to support. El_C 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support. See no problems here. -- Visviva (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support Multiple FAs and GAs demonstrate a strong ability to understand and apply policy. As long as an editor is willing to slowly enter new areas and responds to feedback on their actions, there is no particular need for prior experience in admin areas before becoming an admin. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. I disagree strongly with the supports of "no big deal". If it were no big deal it would be far more common for users to gain and lose adminship. But just because it's a big deal doesn't mean only the platonic ideal of administrator need apply. For any of our permissions (and RFA is just a kind of turbocharged permission), my philosophy all is: will granting this improve the encyclopedia? This is an interesting case. We have lots of evidence about what this user is like, it's just not the sort of evidence that we are used to at RfA. But it doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. I believe that all sysops should have a good overall grasp on policy and guidelines. But this doesn't mean that they have to have them all memorized but it does mean that they know what's out there. This way when doing something that doesn't fall in their core policy mastery they know if there's a policy or guideline out there to be consulted. Writing high level Wikipedia content shows this kind of understanding. I support those who aren't content creators because they can show this mastery in other ways. But I just won't believe that you don't know how Wikipedia works on a deep level if you are capable of producing high quality, top tier, content. Period. So Ergo checks this off criteria off easily. Next I look at disposition. And I don't see any red flags and indeed see much that is positive. Foremost is the humility I see with how they will start to use the sysop toollkit and the way that they used another high level permission, template editor. The "has no need" for the tools argument also just doesn't resonate with me. We have someone saying that they think they have a need for tools and have outlined specific tools, the ability to speedy delete, issue page protections, and perhaps do vandalism blocks, that they would use. Those three tools (delete, protect, and block) are the heart of the sysop toolset. And there is work to be done in those areas so to whatever extent Ergo chooses to use the toolset in those ways is a benefit to the encyclopedia. But only if we can trust that Ergo will use the tools in ways that is supported - through policies and guidelines - by community consensus. As I think the answer is yes and I think they will approach administrative work with the right mindset it is my pleasure to support this candidate and I hope others will join me in doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. The candidate has clearly demonstrated their commitment to improving the encyclopedia and the opposes (e.g. "only" 820 edits in Wp namespace) are unpersuasive. DexDor (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support Prolific content contributor with sensible answers to questions. He's experienced in the core purpose of Wikipedia; the admin-specific details can be learned given good judgment and a cautious approach to the areas where experience is lacking. Also per Amakuru. --Noren (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support Who among us came to Wikipedia because we wanted to read all the administrative rules and see how the governance of the organization happens? Hardly any of us came for that, but rather for the knowledge and the scope of what we can learn and contribute. Ergo has significantly contributed to what Wikipedia is and is therefore likely to use admin tools appropriately. There is room in the admin group to have diversity of skill sets. Deep policy expertise is important, but so is deep content expertise. Ergo's positives far out weigh any areas where development may be needed, and I don't see any negatives. Amakuru also makes excellent observations. --Glennfcowan (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support The whole idea of 'need for the tools' is overrated IMO. If you're a trusted, competent editor, you should be allowed to deal with issues when you come across them rather than having to ask someone else to deal with them. You shouldn't have to go looking for such issues and demonstrate a history of asking someone else to deal with them in order to prove you 'need' the tools. This is a well-intentioned, trusted, competent editor. I believe such people should have the mop, even if they only use it occasionally. Mops for all the well-intentioned competent editors! --valereee (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support per the users above, particularly SandyGeorgia. We are here primarily to build an encyclopedia, not to frequent our drama boards or excel at technocratic abbreviated dark corners of our enwiki world. Ergo Sum is a great contributor to our project, there are no red flags, therefore I am confident he will make a very good administrator.--Darwinek (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support not needing the tools is not a good reason to deny them, neither is not having much experience with the things that do need tools - without some evidence that Ergo Sum will actually misuse the tools, or acts in a way unbecoming of an administrator, I'm voting support. Banedon (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support per Xeno and several others. I've read through the opposes and, while I understand their perspective, I haven't seen anything there that makes me worry the tools would be abused or misused. 28bytes (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support - Experienced content editor (which is what Wikipedia is all about) and plenty of Wikipedia space edits too. Garion96 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support This is a difficult one. The most important consideration is if the candidate being an admin would be a net positive or not. Considering the immense amount of disruption that can be caused by an incompetent admin this requires large amounts of trust and experience dealing with policies and guidelines. While Ergo Sum haven't demonstrated much experience in admin areas they have consistently shown good judgement and all the Wikipedia space edits I reviewed showed great competency and have shown lots of experience dealing with policy by creating top tier content. I trust that they will go slowly and not cause issues. While not having a CfD log is quite bad it is not enough to oppose. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support Despite concerns raised, editor in question seems like a net positive in the end & that’s really all that matters, perfection isn’t a pre-requisite for requesting the mop.Celestina007 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support I think the candidate's familiarity and experience in content editing will make up for lack of experience in AfDs to date, and suspect they will be a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support per non statement. Net positive. quality over quantity.-- Deepfriedokra 01:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support unless somebody can show me a red flag in terms of temperament. I appreciate the honest answer to question 3 and don't see a major issue with their conduct on Federalist Society; I'm also convinced by the idea that Ergo Sum's content creation and familiarity with seeing CSD and AfD from a content creator's view are good enough for the no big deal of assessing CSDs or closing AfDs. I feel like they address AfD stats concerns adequately below: With most of those articles, I nominated them knowing that they were on the fence (in my view). I haven't had much interest in nominating articles that are clear keeps or deletes. [...] when I find an article that seems to be on the fence with CSD criteria but might be one of those unaccounted-for scenarios, I will nominate it. If you've got a solid base to work from, I think AfD or CSD aren't that difficult to learn as you go, and I think Ergo Sum has a particularly solid base of knowledge from their excellent content creations. — Bilorv (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. SupportKurtis (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support: a level-headed contributor and unlikely to abuse the tools. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support per Barkeep49, Amakuru, and noms. signed, Rosguill talk 02:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support - after doing a bit of homework, everything I learned about this candidate is conducive to being an excellent administrator - skills that I firmly believe will serve as an enhancement to adminship not a hinderence. It is the type of content knowledge that we need in our admin force. After a basic review of editor interactions, what I saw confirmed to me that this candidate is polite, level-headed, knowledgeable about WP:PAGs and above all, has a clue about creating content and how to bring that content to the level of excellence. Considering content issues are typically at the core of most disputes at our drama boards, it seems pretty clear to me we have an excellent candidate in Ergo Sum. As far as having experience in other areas, I believe the candidate has enough knowledge about WP to do the job and do it well. Atsme Talk 📧 04:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Opposes are utterly unconvincing. Really, the idea is to create good content and then the adminship (at least the AFD stats that everyone obsesses about) will come from that. --Rschen7754 06:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support. Experienced contributor. Accepting that they have little maintenance experience, I still have no concerns. AGK ■ 07:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support The lack of experience in admin areas would usually put me off, but the candidate has shown they are level-headed, knowledgeable and are highly unlikely to abuse the tools. Kosack (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support Smallchief (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support. I'd much rather have great content contributors learning admin on the job than those who know the ins and outs of admin-related policy but generate very little content (shuffles nervously, trying not to look in mirror.) In fact, I'd say extensive content experience is the best admin learning route there is. And TRM's opinion on who would make a good admin is one I value. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support Full of clue, intelligent, polite and even patient (he's put up with me really dragging things out over GAN review without losing his temper). Respects policy. Total confidence in this user. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Weak Support (moved from neutral (edit conflict)). I think Ergo Sum is an excellent editor - his FAs and GAs truly are enjoyable to read and I've supported several of these nominations. I also have found him to be calm during discussions. Initially I had reservations about not having experience in admin areas, and my support is "weak" because I still have such reservations. However, I trust him highly as a wiki-colleague and am confident he can learn on the job. epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support definitely has a clue and is definitely not a jerk. Adminhip is not rocket science so I fully expect that giving Ergo Sum the bit will be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. weak Support, After evaluating my RFA criteria, I was torn between supporting or !voting neutral, so I asked Q12, and while their answer isn't perfect (indefinite protection should be a last last resort), it's good enough; and combined with their other answers, gets them my support here. I don't care about a lack of CSD log as Twinkle shouldn't be a requirement for adminship, and while I share the concerns of the Opposers citing a lack of experience in admin-y areas, I'm not convinced that this lack of experience on its own is disqualifying. IffyChat -- 16:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support The crux of the argument against this editor becoming and admin is that they're not acting like an admin already. Which is kind of a weird argument to make, in a way, since non-admin editors are often told to not act like admins. In any event, editors should be editing in whatever areas interest them and their answers to questions demonstrate clear cluefulness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support Strong content contributors are needed in all areas, but none moreso than as admins AlasdairEdits (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support I don't find the Opposes very convincing, especially those in line with CaptainEek's reasoning; i don't know the candidate through mine own experience, but (a) my criteria appear to be met and (b) there are a large number of editors i greatly respect above also supporting. Happy days, LindsayHello 21:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support A good content creator that has a clue. They will not mess up with the tools, even if they won't get as widely used in the controversial areas. Stephen 22:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support per Barkeep49, Valereee and, especially, Boing! said Zebedee. I find most of the opposers' comments unconvincing to the point of being ill thought through. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support. Experience in high-quality content creation makes up for any lack of experience in the admin areas, and per Boing! said Zebedee's comment above, a thorough understanding of content issues is a great way to learn about policy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support - no real need for the tools as of now, but might be occasionally helpful. I've also looked through a bunch of their past interpersonal interactions and they all seem reasonable. Low risk, can clearly understand and interpret policies, and might even expand into a bunch of admin work someday. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. To the best of my knowledge I've never had the slightest interaction with this editor, but the "oppose" section contains some of the goofiest pretexts I've seen in a long time. If all those with grudges and all the serial-opposers are unable to find a single legitimate reason for opposition, that's a strong indication to me that such a reason doesn't exist. ‑ Iridescent 07:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support. I've pondered this for a few days and where I've got to is best summed up by Lee Vilenski above. Schwede66 08:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support. Why not. Conlinp (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support I personally believe that a good content creator will make a good admin. Seems trusthworthy and have a clue. Lulusword (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support I appear to have had a brain melt and forgotten to vote for my own candidate. Obvious support, and an assurance that he will take small steps assuages any concerns of lack of experience. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Ergo Sum becoming an admin will be a net gain for Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support I have no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. Would make a good admin.--Jayron32 10:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Moved from neutral. Clearly has the "temperament" (nobody disputes this), but now I think has also shown good "judgement" (and a sharp mind behind that judgement who can advocate it dispassionately and clearly, but easily accepts decisions against them). I take them at their word to go slowly on admin actions in non-FA/GA areas – it would be a tragedy if misfires of the tools, led to actions against them that caused them to leave WP. I also acknowledge concerns above that the FA-GA process needs new admins. Britishfinance (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support Ehh, so what if they aren't too skilled in non-admin areas? We have good editors who have the admin tools but don't always use them. If they mess up, we can just desysop them, but I have confidence that won't happen. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 12:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support thought about it for a bit, agree with the general concensus of the above and best summed up by Lulusword Edmund Patrick confer 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support. No issues here. Meets my criteria. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support per Xeno and similar. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support while there may be some dispute on whether the candidate needs the rights, I trust TRM's judgement in nominating the candidate. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support. Xeno put it particularly well, and I agree with that general sentiment that many other editors have raised here. A lack of specific admin-area experience, but tempered by an overall extreme impression of competence, which gives me sufficient confidence that there won't be any deranged charging into doing admin tasks without understanding. Ultimately more sensible users with admin tools are a good thing, and I think we've seen enough from Ergo Sum overall to make it a positive move. ~ mazca talk 15:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support based on temperment, content creation, expectation of cautiousness for new areas, and thoughtful answers above. Loopy30 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Not worried the tools will be abused here, but not really worried they will be used outside of article maintenance, so, meh, Support. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. WP:100 support. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support No concerns. Vadder (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support He has tripped the edit filter probably multiple times as seen here but it hasn't been due to vandalism. Like his user page, and has very little WP:TW notices on it. I would go with support because he seems to be nice when doing WP:AGF edits. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ for you, Ergo Sum! Bryce M (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support History shows dedication to what the project is about as well as level-headedness and willingness to learn, it doesn't show rushing in on unfamiliar terrain or barging in and posturing in general. I trust the candidate will stay the same after becoming an administrator. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support I have no doubt that Ergo Sum has what it takes to become a good admin. I appreciate that there are concerns about lack of experience in administrative areas, but ES has all the qualities that are much harder to learn, including the common sense to not wade into territory that they're not yet familiar enough with. I trust that they'll do just fine. Vexations (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support Although I do feel than an admin should have experience in the back-stage areas of Wikipedia, the solid content creation, temperment, and the answer to my question which indicates cautiousness for unfamiliar areas, I am inclined to support. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support - An excellent editor who will no doubt will become an excellent admin, I see no red flags here. Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support per many above comments. Although there isn't a clear admin area of interest that doesn't mean the tools won't be used, and I think Ergo will use them when appropriate to the benefit of the encyclopedia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support. In this era, we need to give trusted users the opportunity when they ask for it, like in the old days (gasp), whether or not their "demonstrated need" is a bit lacking. Some people show their ultimate promise in a role only once they are in the role. There is no need to gate-keep tools from trusted users; let them discover how much of an admin they want to be. Any amount is generally better than nothing. Outriggr (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support. I conceived my first question based on this request in 2018, where Ergo Sum asked an involved editor to close a TFD discussion. The answer to that question showed me that, while the candidate has made mistakes in the past, it is evident that he learns from these mistakes and adjusts accordingly. My second question is based on things I currently witness, where administrators delete categories under completely non-applicable rationales. To me, it is demonstrably clear that Ergo Sum has a solid grasp of policy, and is willing and able to fill gaps in other areas where he needs it. In addition to his extensive work on building the encyclopedia, I see no evidence to suggest that he would be nothing less than a net positive with the admin tools. ƏXPLICIT 07:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support - strong contribution history, understands the editing environment, will do fine. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support Good overall impression; and isn't an admin who does create content (and even knows how to do it) one of those things a larger number of people wants to see here? Also per Barkeep49. Lectonar (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support. I'm impressed with the candidate's content creation record, and also with the thoughtfulness and caution shown in their responses. I was made an admin on far less impressive evidence in both respects. (The only two things that I'd like to note after reading their answers are: be careful not to conflate disruptive editing, which may come from good intentions such as eagerness to bring an article up to date, with vandalism, a term we reserve for edits that appear intended to be damaging; and before blocking someone for any but the most urgent policy reasons, such as defamation, check that they've not only been sufficiently templated—and had time while still active to react to the templates—but that someone has explained the problem in plain English. We have a lot of policies and ways of doing things, and someone may honestly not understand that, for example, creating an article on a living person with no references is not permissible—or they may think an inline link to the person's website counts as a reference, or who knows what.) Opinions differ regarding whether an admin candidate should already have hung out in admin-type areas of the project, but so do admins and where they are active: if this candidate only uses the tools occasionally and when they are sure, that will still be a net positive, and with their background in collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia, plus their expressed caution, I'm inclined to trust their judgement even if they have to learn most of it on the job, as I did. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support I don't see it as a negative that that they intend to use the bits in generating content.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support. Spending most of her (generic pronoun) time in actually writing this encyclopedia would be a poor strategy for a hat collector. But this strategy is the best one for an encyclopedist. Don't they say: an admin should teach by example ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support Trustable and experienced editor. No red flags. Arguments like "no demonstrated need" don't convince me. Giving him the rights would be a net positive for the project. Dead Mary (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. If someone appears to have cluecheckY, has demonstrated that they handle constructive criticism wellcheckY, and has given no reason to believe that they secretly want to lord it over other editorscheckY, then I don't care much about experience in adminny areas. It can all be learned pretty easily on the job. With those boxes ticked, and with all the years of content work demonstrating they care more about the project than about the MMORPG, I'm happy to support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support - the "they haven't been active in admin areas" is a poor excuse to oppose. It's not hard to understand that trying to be active in an area where you don't have the tools to support your work can make one feel it's a futile effort to wander in. Appears clueful, respectful, and has put the work in = support from me. — Ched (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support What Ched said (and others, as well). Sure, it'd be great to see this editor more active in clerking deletion discussions. I do disagree that an administrator needs to be involved in clerking behavioural problems and in blocking users for violations. Doug Mehus T·C 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support - solid editor, didn't spot any issues.--Staberinde (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support I think this individual is a wonderful candidate for the job, based on the editorial record accomplished to date. And at the risk of stepping on toes, I consider the excuses among the opposition to be the weakest arguments imaginable. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support We are building an encyclopedia and this editor has been doing just that. My belief is that an administrator's main purposes are to protect content and protect content creators. This editor will be that kind of administrator. 75% contribution in main space! Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support – great editor, will be a great admin. Cavalryman (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  125. Support - Overwhelming net positive. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Somewhat hesitant support. Clear evidence of being here for the right reasons, solid content work, good temperament, etc. Adminning can largely be learned on the job, but it cannot be completely learned on the job; hence my hesitation; but the candidate's other experience, and the caution they've expressed in their answers, make me think they will be a net positive. I'd also like to echo the advice given above by Yngvaddotir. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support: More evidence of experience with the back of the house would be good, but Ergo Sum has shown good judgement and I trust that as an administrator they will continue to think the way they have as a content creator. SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. I like how Barkeep put it above: it's not that we don't have evidence of this editor's understanding of policy, it's just not the kind of evidence we're used to at RfA. Ergo Sum has clue and an in depth knowledge of our content policies, so I'm not very worried. Granting tools to Ergo Sum will be a net positive for the encyclopedia, so I support. Wug·a·po·des 06:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 11:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Weak support, I looked at this too many times dithering between weak support, neutral, and weak oppose examining the arguments of others and the candidates answers till I'm blue in the face. In the end my weak support seems not too unsafe in this circumstance, but I am very borderline.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. The ayes have it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support - I agree with the statements by Yngvadottir and Floquenbeam. I trust Ergo Sum will make positive additions as an administrator. CactusWriter (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support - per Sandy, Mike Christie, and Floq. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support, per Sandy, Mike Christie, Floq, and Ealdgyth. NASCARfan0548 (alt)  19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Strong support - Per nom, SandyGeorgia, GregJackP, Yngvadottir, et al. I am absolutely unconvinced by the opposers' claims that he "does not have enough experience", when article writing is the single most important topic on Wikipedia, giving him more experience than many current admins. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how the Special:Block interface works, and how to use it to stop a vandal. (Please nobody look at my block log; I totally didn't mess it up.) Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Giving them the benefit of the doubt. Most admin work really isn't that difficult. — 🦊 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, first comes content. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Weak Support -- I would ideally like to see more admin type activity, but I believe they would be reasonably competent. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support, creating content is hard, and if one can figure it out, they will figure out the admin bits. Renata (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support. I was going to write my own rationale, but in scrolling down, saw that Floquenbeam's support said essentially exactly what I was thinking. Martinp (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Strong support - "has a clue" and "is not a jerk" would do it for me, but that would be damning him with faint praise. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support per Mike Christie's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support. A talented and dedicated editor who knows what we're here for. Based on quality of contributions to date, temperament, and willingness to contribute further as an admin, I am very confident that Ergo Sum will take the time necessary to be an excellent admin. Cbl62 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support. We could use more help at WikiProject History Merge. There's a bit of a learning curve, but it's routine gnoming work so you're unlikely to run into controversy there, unlike the drama boards. Just ping me when you're ready to get started, and I'll answer any questions and walk you through it if you like. A lot of history merges are pretty easy; after you've done a bunch of those you can move on to the more complex cases. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support based on answers to questions and content creation history. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support Trusted and experienced. - FitIndia Talk Commons 06:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support Support. The failure scenarios here would if they act with ill intent or incompetently. Someone who has been here as long, and has contributed so much, can be trusted not to do the first and also to get up to sufficiently up to speed in new areas not to break things.Scribolt (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support. Excellent candidate who may make a few mistakes; however, he generally thinks things out. He thinks, therefore he is. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support Trustworthy, experienced editor who will benefit the project with the tools; has a lot of clue. SpencerT•C 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support I have debated this one, and decided that "strong content creator" outweighs "not enough experience in admin-related areas". That experience can and should be gained without difficulty. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support LittleChongsto (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support The article creation and editing show they know what's best for the encyclopedia. StaniStani 16:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support. I have waited on this one in order to see the opposing arguments develop. While I would prefer that a prospective admin have more experience in admin related areas, I personally don't see that as a deal breaker. Ergo Sum certainly seems to have a strong grasp of Wikipedia and its policies, procedures and ethos, without setting off any real red flags. That's enough to satisfy me that they will understand the tools before using them, and they are unlikely to abuse them.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. "Support" Very little risk, hence support. Nigej (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support. Per Mojo Hand right above me here. I think that Ergo's deep content creation experience show a familiarity with Wikipedia's policies as a whole which makes me less trepidacious about handing them the mop. Nomader (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support per supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support But promise to run your AfD closing decisions by an experienced XfD closer. I see that you have done much work to make this encyclopedia better. Wm335td (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support In all possible ways. --Pudeo (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support. The candidate has extensive experience in Wikipedia, and I have confidence that knowing a little about improving article quality is more than adequate for perhaps knowing slightly less about which acronym is flavor of the day. Contributing to quality articles is way more important than making a fuss on noticeboards. MPS1992 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support Why Not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support No doubts. A first class candidate. Poltair (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support. Moved from neutral. While I agree there's lack of much relevant experience in deletion and other explicitly admin-ish areas, I am also impressed by the content contributions, and the general WP:HERE history, and civility, and other good qualities. I see no evidence that the candidate would willfully abuse the tools, and am pretty sure that any accidental misapplication of any of them would be brief. That is, I assume in good faith and based on observation of competence and of care for the project that "on-the-job training" would turn out well, and it's worked plenty of times in WP's past. Not every incoming admin has to be a clerk at X page, or a daily participant at Y process, or mostly focused on internal adminny Z stuff, versus just actually getting encyclopedia-building work done.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support Content creation comtribtions are so expansive that I'mm sure the nominer knows the rules for using the tools. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support - SMcCandlish has expressed my views well. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support Dede2008 (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support The opposes based on lack of experience in Admin areas, while well intended, suffer from a common weakness. As a top quality content contributor this candidate already has the innate ability to detect BLP vio., spam, vandalism, paid editing etc. All that they need to do is steadily learn which admin actions are needed as a response. I cannot see much strength in the argument that they must go off and somehow learn what Admin judgments are needed in response to situations which their existing level of content development will already be "built in". Leaky caldron (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support Ergo is an competent and considered content creator with limited admin experience. If this project had a surplus of admins maybe I would oppose, but it's hard to imagine a character flaw cropping up in 6 months of focus on AfD/CSD/RFPP that hasn't had ample oppertunity to emerge. I trust he'll research the tools as carefully as his 7 FAs and begin slowly. --Spacepine (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support No reason to believe they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An admin candidate leaps over some magical bullshit bars.
  170. Strong support We need more admins who come from a content creation background, as that is the soul of this project, not the wankery of those who hang out at AN/I, chirping their agreement so they'll clear some magical "s/he's got relevant experience in admin areas" bullshit bar some seem to want admin candidates to leap over. This editor writes well and often, does not seem to be at any risk of abusing the tools, and is a good member of the WP community. That should be all that's required to get the administrative tool set.  Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hallward's Ghost, the question 'Why do people badger oppose voters and not support voters?' is often asked, so I'm going to buck the trend. I agree with you that this request should be accepted (see my support vote above), but what did you hope to achieve by criticising the opposers in the terms that you chose to use? I don't think it adds any weight to your support. GirthSummit (blether) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I "hoped to achieve" making it clear that I view requiring excellent content creators, with no history of bad behavior, to jump through ludicrous hoops regarding "X edits at Y namespace" is absolute bollocks. I feel like those issues should only matter when an editor does not have a long track record of creating excellent content. And I "hoped to achieve" using the same kind of personal terms to generally describe those opposing this fantastic editor that they used to describe him specifically. I pop into RFA from time to time, and I sometimes see people talk about how few requests there are. This kind of nonsense is one reason. Editors like Ergo should sail through easily, while those who spend the large majority of their time as regular editors poking around admin namespace should get this kind of microscope. My experience on the project (which long precedes even the many years of this account) tells me the quality of admin is generally correlated with how much experience they have in creating the actual content that allows this project to exist. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 02:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support. (Moved from Neutral.) For the exact reasons articulated by Britishfinance. I wanted to see this candidate's judgement on display during this RFA. I have no further concerns in that area. –MJLTalk 17:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support: We are here to build an encyclopedia and Ergo Sum is perfect for that. I don't see how this user will abuse the admin tools given to him. Wish more admins had the editing experience he does. MX () 18:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support Positive contributions to the project, can be trusted with the tools. W42 19:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. based on the opposes:
    1. do I think he will misuse or abuse the tool?: No.
    2. do I think he will make a mistake with tools?: like any other human, there is a chance.
    3. in case he makes a mistake, will he try to improve himself?: looking at the nomination, candidate's talkpage, over-all RfA; I think he will.
    4. will the tools be used for just one purpose, or some very narrow field?: possibly. But they might start increasing the fields of activity in admin capacity.
    5. will he edit Wikipedia on his desktop or laptop? Or would he place his laptop on a desk's top?: whatever sails his boat.
    • as long as there is no trouble/porblems, I am okay with a single purpose admin. I dont expect anybody to be all-rounder.
    • and also per adminship is no big deal as long as the candidate is trustworthy. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support trustworthy candidate. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. I'm sensitive to the views presented in the opposition section (actually, I'm not really, come to think of it) but ultimately, if you believe the drivel in the oppose section, there's pretty much nobody left on Wikipedia who should be promoted to admin (much of the current admin corps, myself included). The project is heading towards being totally fucked by the lack of active administrators, the departure rate far exceeds the promotion rate and for no good reason. Ergo Sum is a fine candidate who would have sailed through RfA a few years back with a 150/5/2 'score'. There's the familiar refrain about 'experience of admin areas' but that's farcical nonsense, people treat admins and non admins massively differently, you don't truly get admin experience until you get the bit, despite what people might try to suggest. How people around you behave when you handle disputes is very different when you're an admin, being able to view deleted revisions and deleted content has a huge impact on what you say/do yourself, and of course people behave very differently when you're able to do protections, deletions and blocks for (or on) them. I don't believe you get more than a glimpse into the role of an admin until promoted via RfA, and I certainly don't believe you can gain much relevant experience prior to promotion, certainly, when it comes to the technical stuff, you absolutely cannot. And back to the project. It's increasingly fucked by the drop in admins, given that, what's the real risk in promoting someone like Ergo Sum who some seem to think might fuck up, unless they're unspeakably shit (which they won't be) they're unlikely to be a net negative and even if they do fuck up, it's not going to be anything like as problematic as what happens when we're short of admins. TL;DR - don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good... Nick (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support - Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support - As indicated by most opposers, the candidate might not have much experience in admin areas where they have given an interest to work in and also future areas they might work on in the future. However, given the candidate's track record of excellcent content work, their communication skills and their attitude shows me that they can and will learn things easily as they go along learning the new ropes of an admin. Hence, I believe that overall Ergo Sum would be a net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose Ergo Sum's content creation is truly exceptional, and I do think that admins need solid content experience. But they also need proto-admin experience. I'm afraid I don't see that in Ergo. 76% of edits are to mainspace, and a mere 2% to Wikipedia space. They have only 5 AfDs, all of which they were the nom in. I see no significant experience in the other traditional admin areas, like NPP; no edits to AIV (unless I've missed them), only 4 edits at ANI. I also see no convincing need for the tools. Making an FA does not require special rights, and it appears that Ergo already has all the user rights that could be needed for making content, such as template editor and page mover. Becoming an admin is not something you do after having been around long enough. Because of the combination of lack of experience, and lack of clear need, I regretfully oppose. If Ergo were to expand their proto-admin experience, I would likely support in 6 months to a years time, but just can't at the moment. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm sorry, but at this time I can't support, per CaptainEek. It's early in the process, so answers to the questions may sway me, but for now I'm here. Sorry. Puddleglum 2.0 01:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose - Sorry, but you fail my criteria. Foxnpichu (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You have lots of criteria listed there -- which one in particular does Ergo Sum fail? --JBL (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The user only has 820 edits on Wikipedia articles. I expect at least 1,000. Foxnpichu (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For everyone else: by "Wikipedia articles" Foxnpichu means "pages in the WP: name-space". --JBL (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose pending the answers to questions. I have a bad feeling about his low level of experience in adminny affairs; his apparent lack of a CSD log is all the more troubling given his answer to Q1. (EDIT: Many of the supports seem to be invoking NOBIGDEAL, at least implicitly; while I don't disagree with that, if it's the only reason for me to support I'll tend to oppose.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose, I don't find the lack of participation in AfD's too concerning, but what is concerning is the candidate's awful track in record in the discussions they did participate in, of the 5 articles they nominated 3 were kept. This is especially problematic as the nomination has drawn explicit attention to how the candidate would close AfD's. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose per Not Quite Yet. This is a deeply regretted oppose as the candidate is an outstanding content editor and a huge positive for the community. But they need some experience in the behind the scenes part of the project like AfD CSD and other areas that demonstrate a good grasp of WP:PAG and maybe some anti-vandalism work. They don't need to be a jack of all trades but I need to see a bit more evidence that they are ready to be handed the tools. I'm not seeing any other red or yellow flags so maybe six months of work in adminny related fields should do the trick. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose as per Not Quite Yet and per CaptinEek's response/opinion. Ergo Sum appears to be quite the editor, but they seem to lack much experience with administrative tools, the ANI process, AIV, etc, which shows they aren't quite ready yet. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Reluctant oppose as Not Quite Yet. With six Featured Articles in diverse subject areas Ergo Sum easily meets my content creation criteria, but has almost no track record in admin-ish areas. Six months' work at AfD, non-admin closures and vandal-reporting and Ergo Sum2 should be a shoe-in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. I'm awed by and grateful for the amazing content contributions. If we had a "Senior Editor" rank, I would support promoting ES. If we had a "Best Editor" status, I would !vote in favor of bestowing it. But adminship is neither a rank nor a status. It's about giving an editor access to restricted tools. I don't think it's a good idea to give someone access to the page protection tool if they have little or no experience requesting page protection. Nor to give them the ability to delete pages if they have little or no experience with our various deletion processes. Nor to give them the power to block an editor if they have little or no experience mediating conduct disputes. These tools are restricted because they are powerful. And they're very difficult to take away once granted—it's basically a lifetime appointment. I oppose giving someone the tools who doesn't have a solid track record in the relevant areas, regardless of how wonderful their content creations are. Show me a solid track record and I’d be happy to support in the future. Levivich 02:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Levivich, we do have Senior editor rank. Not one but three ranks. DBigXray 04:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. I went looking through the candidate's last three years of deleted contribs, and I found no speedy deletion tagging other than two T3s (on Template:Infobox U.S. federal court and Template:Santa Clara University Presidents) and one F8 (on File:St Stanislaus Novitate Frederick Maryland.jpg), and a whole bunch of G7/U1s. For someone planning to work in speedy deletion, that's disqualifying. —Cryptic 03:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also unimpressed with how the candidate edited another user's signed comment in this very RFA to introduce a malapropism not previously there. Doesn't matter whether the aim was to subtly ridicule one of his opposers, to provide the opportunity to ridicule later opposition based on it, or he was simply blind to the fact that this is about the least wise place for him to make even a correct typo correction to someone disagreeing with him. —Cryptic 02:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’m guessing that Ergo Sum meant to correct their own typo in their reply to Horse Eye Jack and just accidentally changed the wrong “expect”.P-K3 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Twice. —Cryptic 02:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, my apologies. Ergo Sum 03:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose with no prejudice against a future RFA by this candidate. As stated in the arguments above, very good content creation record, but barely any experience in core admin areas like AfD, CSD, and AIV. I'd like to see the candidate get some experience in those core admin areas before getting the tools. Hog Farm (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose; I'm very big on NOBIGDEAL but he would most likely cause more harm than he's worth. There is little backlog in the areas he says he would contribute too and thus he would probably cause little benefit with the toolset and make more incorrect decisions; most importantly, incorrect deletions. It often takes a while to learn the ropes of CSD and he would be better solely improving content like he has been doing marvellously. Levivich says it better than I can. J947(c), at 07:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    J947, likely cause more harm than he is worth is incredibly harsh for a long time contributor. Feel free to oppose because of inexperience, but try to do so in a respectful manner. Ergo obviously has a stellar contribution history and has done nothing in the past to show they are likely to do "harm". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was a bit harsh with that comment but I do feel like he is better off working how he has been without distractions in other areas. With the admin toolset what would most likely happen for him and the encyclopedia is less content creation and little benefit with the admin tools as there is next-to-none backlog in the areas he wants to work in. Many, many editors with much more experience in CSD and RFPP than Ergo has would fail an RfA—a lot rightly so—and those editors would probably perform better with the tools than Ergo Sum. Basically, likely cause more harm than he is worth means 'likely have less benefit to the encyclopedia with the tools'. J947(c), at 21:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @J947: I hesitate to write this, as by no means do I want it to seem that I disagree with your right to oppose my RfA. However, I can't refrain from expressing my opinion that I don't really think the spirit of Wikipedia is to tell other editors how they should be spending their editing time. Certainly, it's fine to tell them they can't exercise advanced permissions (hence the RfA process); but, those strike me as materially different things. Ergo Sum 05:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is fair. On reflection I am withdrawing my oppose and will not !vote further this RfA. I feel like any further judgement I make this RfA would be either too restricting or too unrestrictive, and more importantly I do not feel comfortable doing an editor review, which is basically what this RfA has come into. I appreciate that Ergo Sum has come forward and challenged me on this; that is a quality I appreciate in prospective admins. J947(c), at 05:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose, also due to not quite yet. Mostly per CaptainEek's message, they don't have a need for the tools right now. As Levivich mentioned, just because someone has good content creation, doesn't mean they should be granted tools they don't need. I'd say come back in about a year and try again! QueerFilmNerdtalk 08:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Strong oppose per CapatainEek. I am also a little bit disappointed about the lack of response to my second question; it seemed rather vague. However, I am impressed by the candidates content creation, but I can't support as they have simply dabbled in the areas they intend to work in. Cheers and good luck, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose - obviously Admins do lots of learning on the job, but I do feel that it's necessary to demonstrate at least some admin skillsets so we can see the editor gets the "rough area", which they can then spread out from. They look look in the other usual snag areas (nice person, good content), six months and some work in whatever areas interest them seems the best way to point at this time. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose the candidate has very little experience of any admin related areas. For example the answer to Q1 mentions speedy deletion. The candidate's speedy deletion experience seems to be limited to requesting speedy deletion of his/her own drafts. As such I don't have enough confidence in them to let them perform speedy deletions. The same goes for page protection and the other areas mentioned. These areas are not rocket science but there are things you need to know, you can cause damage if you don't know them, and there are plenty of people who aren't trusted with it. Writing lots of high quality content is excellent in its own right but I don't think it overcomes this. If a commercial airline pilot with no driving experience applied for a driver's licence on the grounds that flying a commercial airliner is a lot harder than driving a car then they wouldn't get one without proving they can drive safely. Hut 8.5 12:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose (regretfully) as it's too early. Get more experience in admin areas and come back and you'll smash it. GiantSnowman 13:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Weak oppose per a combination of Levivich and J947. Like J947, I'm a WP:NOBIGDEAL-type RfA voter these days, but unfortunately, next to no experience in admin-related areas is cause for alarm. It's a WP:NOTQUITEYET situation, and I could see myself supporting after more evidence in admin-related areas is shown; being an administrator and utilizing the administrator toolset affects Wikipedia as a whole, and is more than just creating high-quality articles (which I commend the nominee on doing though ... that's a good amount, and I'm happy that they are here as an editor.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Regretful oppose per Steel 1943 and Levivich. Although I'm more inclined to support than oppose an RfA, I think the lack of experience in the proposed work areas means that I can't support at the moment. I would be happy to support a future RfA if the candidate demonstrates experience and competence in those areas. Overall, adminship is a specific set of tools for a specific task, not an evaluation of the editor's contributions in general—which are excellent. buidhe 16:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose Per CaptainEek, Steel 1943, and Levivich. Candidate lacks experience in admin-related areas and shows absolutely no compelling need for the admin tool kit. Kudos on the content creation, though. Keep up the great editing! Demetrius Tremens (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose. Ergo Sum has demonstrated superb content creating skills with 21 GAs and 6 FAs. This is truly impressive I hope it is something he continues doing. This content creation experience is valuable to admins and is something which leans me to support the nomination. However, the current lack of involvement in Admin-related areas like AfD (5 of which the candidate was the nom in), NPP, AIV, ANI, etc is a worry. If the candidate was to come back in 6–12 months with more experience in those areas I would be far more inclined to support.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose I think you're a really great wikipedian, and I really like what you've done, that said I don't think you're quite there yet. I wish you the best of luck and I think you'll be a great future administrator. Flalf (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose The candidate has indicated that they want to work in deletion areas. Unfortunately the AfD logs shows they need to participate more in those areas. The lack of CSD and PROD log also does not inspire any confidence. AfD participation and good track record is one of the main things I look in a RfA. The candidate also indicate they would like to contribute as an admin at ANI, but the lack of experience is evident there as well. I would encourage the editor to gain relevant experience in the admin areas and reapply later.--DBigXray 23:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose with regret. I rarely oppose at RfA, but I do expect candidates to have some basic familiarity with at least some of the areas where admin tools are used, such as article deletion, page protection, dealing wtih vandalism, etc. Ergo Sum seems like a valuable content contributor and generally admirable editor, but I am unable to support them for administrator. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose per above. Concerns with limited administrative experience in the areas candidate wishes to work in. -FASTILY 03:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose per above. A competent content creator but near-zero experience even in the most common admin areas. When granting powerful tools, to seek signals of competence is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, here we see that not much has been found. — kashmīrī TALK 17:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose per above and because I simply don't trust this user’s judgement based on my interactions with them. I think that judgement is just as important as competence in an admin. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Forgive me, but I don't recall interacting with you, except just moments ago on the Federalist Society RfC that I mention in Q3. Ergo Sum 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Horse Eye Jack, I'm sorry, but that is a very, very weak oppose, without any specifics. Ergo Sum, if this RfA fails, you'll know for next time: folks who disagree with you in some matter, some content matter, will show up to oppose you as an administrator even without a decent reason. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Drmies is talking about himself here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Per above. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pppery: could you be more specific? --JBL (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Oppose, with regret. There's no doubt that your experience with content creation is anything but exemplary and extensive, but having a proficient amount of experience with AIV (warning and reporting users), RFPP (filing requests), and CSD (tagging articles correctly) is paramount if you wish to request access to the administrator toolset and state in your answer to Q1 that these are the very areas that you wish to start using the tools in from the very beginning. I did some searching through your contributions (from the beginning of 2015 to today), and I saw that you've made zero edits to AIV, only 5-6 edits to RFPP, and have tagged only a handful of pages (excluding pages within your user space) for CSD. You also have almost no experience in AFD when I look at your stats. While your content creation is truly amazing and to the level that many editors can learn from and look up to, someone who wishes to become a successful administrator must have experience with both "talking the talk" and "walking the walk" in the administrative areas they wish to contribute to. I need someone who not only has well-documented and demonstrable "non admin experience" working in the very areas they state that they wish to work in as an administrator, but someone who also has experience with explaining these policies and procedures to others, and who can show that they can guide misled users through those processes and assist them. While I absolutely agree that much of what you learn in handling these areas as an administrator is learned after you've become one, one should have a well-established level of demonstrable experience with these areas as a user first. Unfortunately, I don't see that this prerequisite experience exists yet. As much as I dislike opposing an RFA for what is seen as "trivial reasons", I must do so here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Oppose. Admin work isn't rocket science, but it does take a different skillset than writing content. Mistakes with the tools can be a "big deal" and at the moment Ergo Sum just hasn't done enough maintenance work to make a reasonable judgement of how well they'd do with them. – Joe (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Oppose per not quite yet. I was hoping to come to a different conclusion, because I generally do think that adminship should be no big deal. However when a candidate has little to no experience in administrative areas, even when they are an exceptional writer and an accomplished content creator, they are not ready for the tools. With some participation at XfD, some record of CSD tagging, or anything else that shows me that they can successfully apply policy, I could easily support in a few months. ST47 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Oppose with regret, per Oshwah and ST47. To support I would need to see some experience in the admin areas in which they wish to work.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Oppose per Levivich. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Oppose with regret per the very articulate reasoning by Levivich. What I’m also really struggling to understand is why someone with an interest in adminship would seemingly have shown almost zero prior interest in CSD, AFD, AIV or RFPP. Of course everyone has different interests on Wikipedia, and I appreciate that adminship isn’t all deleting, blocking and protecting. But not even having dipped your toes in these ‘pseudo-admin’ areas before running for adminship seems odd. Hugsyrup 21:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Oppose per the many above me, specifically Ad Orientem. Nihlus 21:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Oppose. The lack of experience in administrative areas would alone make this an unsuitable request, but there are other concerns too. The candidate's statements about why they wish to become an administrator, together with answers to questions, come across somewhat as "Oh, why not have  a go at being an administrator?" rather than as someone who actually has any clear view of something they wish to do which needs admin tools. Comments about what administrative tasks they would do read as though they have just picked out some tasks from the list in order to be able to give an answer, rather than as though they actual have any clear idea of what they want to achieve by becoming an administrator. Answers to some of the questions seem like parrotting back what they have just looked up in the relevant policy, rather than like any original thought on the issue. No, this is not a "reluctant oppose". We are dealing with an editor who has considerable aptitude for article writing, but who has precious little experience of administrative work, has shown no interest in it, and has so far not demonstrated aptitude for it. Doing what one does well is a good policy. JBW (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Regretful oppose - I truly hate to find myself on this side today as Ergo Sum is an unquestionably wonderful content creator who I think will eventually make a fantastic addition to the admin corp, but Ergo Sum's answers to my questions don't make me comfortable supporting his adminship quite yet. I asked my questions fully expecting Ergo Sum to pay attention to the nuances and give appropriate answers, but unfortunately that's not what happened. Answer 16 missed entirely that the statement was defamatory/libelous and needed to be sent to the oversight team for suppression (best practice would have been to remove it from the article [as Ergo Sum at least stated correctly], then delete the revisions, then immediately send to the oversight team for complete suppression). Answer 17 was correct inasmuch as the block was concerned, but recent unsourced BLPs do not just get tagged with {{BLP unsourced}}... any completely unsourced BLP needs to be proposed for deletion using {{Prod blp}} which forces the article to be sourced or deleted within 7 days. Taking this into consideration with the valid concerns raised by Oshwah, User:JBW, User:Ad Orientem, User:MelanieN, User:ST47, User:Levivich and many others above, I unfortunately find myself as being opposed to Ergo's adminship right now. If he comes back in 6 months time with some clear experience dealing with BLP issues, AFD, CSD, AIV,, RFPP, etc., I will be very, very glad to support. I do hope Ergo Sum does not take any of the opposes here as a reflection of his worth to our site, as his content additions to our site have been priceless. This is merely the result of him not having enough experience in matters he will have oversight of upon becoming an admin, nothing more. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand what you're getting at Coffee, but I think you're being a little harsh. In the examples, Ergo Sum did not suggest anything that would have likely seen them get dragged to ANI for a telling off, and I think if you said "hey, for unsourced BLPs, we need to use BLP PROD", they would have "got it" immediately. The important part of BLP is get it out of the article; the "paperwork" side for revdel / oversight is important, but not quite as important as stopping libel appearing on the encyclopedia (since requests for oversight can take an hour upwards depending on who's looking at the mailing list). So I don't see what difference six months is going to make, and why should we deprive a stellar content contributor's work just because they've got to tick a few boxes at AIV and AfD (and then people would notice they're just "padding stats for RfA" and oppose anyway, wouldn't they?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Oppose - Not quite yet. While the candidate has made some excellent contributions to the community, their inexperience with administrative areas make me uncomfortable with granting them the tools. I hope to support a future RfA once the candidate has proven competency in the administrative areas. -- Dane talk 00:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Oppose – per Oshwah and Coffee. I think Ergo Sum is a great contributor to the project, but they have identified AIV, RPP, CSD as areas they would like to participate in as an administrator -- yet, as an editor have seldom done so. Great content contribution is always important (and can be done without tools!); however, countering vandalism is equally important (quite abhorrent to see some editors who have suggested otherwise) which will need an experienced administrator to use their tools to go that extra step in blocking, or performing revdels. Ergo Sum should spend more time building up a clear record of combating vandalism (revert, warn, report), considering it is the area they've nominated here. Ergo Sum I'll be more than happy to support a future RfA provided you've demonstrated this experience. —MelbourneStartalk 04:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Oppose, regretfully. I would really like to see some experience dealing with some of the issues administrators face to see how you would handle them. Your contributions to the encyclopedia are truly fantastic and inspiring, but the administrator's toolkit is for protecting the project, not writing content. Get some experience dealing with vandalism, BLP violations, and spam and I would be happy to support. – bradv🍁 04:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Oppose I don't see a demonstrated need for the tools and wanting to dive into all admin areas with no visible experience in any of them is a solid no in my book. Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Oppose per Ad Orientem & others Find bruce (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Oppose Lack of experience in admin areas, its just too soon to be running. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Opposes Needs much more experience with AFD, having only participated in 5, and having only a 40% success rate. This user has also only made 8 requests for page protection, and has never edited any Administrator Intervention against Vandalism pages. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 18:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Oppose AfD participation is insufficient given that the candidate wants to do deletion-related admin work. Lepricavark (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Oppose - since the candidate has said they wish to use the deletion tools specifically, I agree with several here that their lack of participation in XfD is quite the barrier to them demonstrating the competence to use the deletion tools appropriately. Combined with a lack of experience in other admin work areas, I'm going to say that it's not the right time to give them the tools. No prejudice against them running at a later date, since from what others have spoke about them here it seems they are still a good editor - they just need to gain more experience in the areas an admin is expected to be working in. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 02:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Oppose very regretfully. I've debated this !vote for several days now. I greatly appreciate Ergo's tremendous contributions, but I would feel far more comfortable handing out the tools if there had been even a small effort to gain meaningful experience in the areas that they specifically state they wish to work in. CThomas3 (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Oppose Lacks AIV exposure. - Neils51 (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Oppose (edit conflict) - Lack of anti vandalism and XfD work, and these are the key things needed for me to support a nomination. I do not see a reason why this user needs the tools at the moment. WP:NOTQUITEYET. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Oppose for the same reasons as the concerns raised by MelanieN, Nosebagbear, Oshwah, Fastily, JBW, and Bradv. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Oppose lack of participation at AfD for a candidate who wants to work in the deletion area. The candidate nominated five articles for deletion in total of which three were closed as keep. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Oppose because Ergo Sum has very little administrative experience, and I feel they can continue with their excellent content creation without these tools. This person seems to be one of the most involved Wikipedians around, but this should not equal an automatic adminship. See for corroboration of claim of minimal admin experience. Benica11 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Opposeper above, and particularly Oshwah, JBW, and Ad Orientem. The candidate clearly has an outstanding grasp of content creation, but very limited experience in administrative areas as an editor, especially in AIV and CSD. 72 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Oppose although I am impressed by their content creation, I feel the arguments presented by Oshwah, JBW and Ad Orientem are important to bear in mind. Pretty much not quite yet: they need to get stuck in admin areas first. Their answer to question 17 flagged to me that they did not know what {{Prod blp}} is and so don't have a full understanding of WP:BLP. This answer made me move to oppose instead of neutral, as getting biographies of living people right the first time is of utmost importance to Wikipedia.
    On further inspection after deciding on opposing, their AfD stats are not good in my books too: although I don't care too much about the number of AfDs a person has took part in, I do care about when recent AfDs they opened have been closed as keep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Portland Black Panthers: Empowering Albina and Remaking a City (all !votes keep, bar one weak keep) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tequila Party (all !votes keep)) which both show flaws in this users understanding of notability. The first one was a misread of a notability guideline, with issues of this user prodding when it had already been prodded and contested twice before and seemingly a lack of WP:BEFORE. Second one was failure to understand that notability is not temporary. Therefore, I can only oppose. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Oppose WP:NOTQUITEYET applies here. They don't have experience in admin areas. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Oppose reluctantly - content creation is on point so all they needed was to show a basic understanding of other areas: AfD record is poor; only 342 User talk edits indicates low experience with direct editor interaction; No WP:AIV or WP:UAA edits; Only 8 WP:RPP edits; Very low approve & patrol; No indiction of experience of dealing with vandalism. A quick look through the 124 Wikipedia:Help desk edits (most in any WP area), most appear to be asking for help, so little experice giving help/guidlence. I just wish they had been advised to spend a few months being a bit more involved with other areas before applying then they would probably be flying thought with a high 90s support rate. If they don't get through certainly would advise to just get a few months of non content creation experience and re-apply KylieTastic (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Oppose Per above. Too soon for this candidate, not enough experience in admin related areas. Perhaps in 6 to 12 months this candidate could be ready, if they spend time on WP:ANI and focus in other admin areas they intend to work in.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is basically a 'moral support'. I think there are valid reasons to oppose, but don't want to pile on against a solid content creator. The candidate can certainly follow the advice to do more admin-related work and then come back in 6-12 months, but they shouldn't necessarily change their editing habits unless they really want to be an admin. After all, they are already doing valuable work. Lepricavark (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) moved to opposeReply[reply]
Neutral. There are people I respect on both sides of this right now even at this nomination's early stages. I don't feel comfortable supporting per CaptainEek and Levivich, but I don't feel comfortable opposing per the points raised by Newslinger and OhKayeSierra. All raise pretty compelling points if you ask me.
I think that this RFA will honestly be the best litmus test for how Ergo Sum operates under pressure, so if I see a stellar response to folks' concerns then I might re-evaluate the candidate if they handle the intensity well. –MJLTalk 04:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I see Ergo Sum has not cracked under the pressure, so that's generally a good sign. I'm not particularly impressed by the candidate, but I don't see them causing trouble. I'm going to move to support. –MJLTalk 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Neutral. I did advise the candidate some months ago that their lack of experience in proto-admin areas would count against them in an RFA and another editor gave them similar advice: that they needed to up their involvement in such areas. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that they've fully taken that advice onboard and the opposes which I predicted may mean it's a no this time. I can only repeat my advice to the candidate to work more in such areas and, should this be successful, apply again late this year. Valenciano (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do appreciate your advice, Valenciano. I just thought some of my editing philosophy that I shared above might land better than it seems to have. Ergo Sum 15:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral I've thought this over, and unusually for me I am landing here. It is certainly possible to learn on the job, and the candidate looks to have an appropriately cautious approach. (I recall when I successfully ran for adminship, I had no experience whatsoever with speedy deletion, yet that's where I've ended up working these days.) However I am concerned at the lack of participation in AfD, and especially nominations such as The Portland Black Panthers: Empowering Albina and Remaking a City, Tequila Party & Homeless dumping, where the subjects meet the appropriate notability threshold. I'm also concerned that, though the content contributions are very strong, they fall within a rather limited subject area. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I appreciate your concerns. With most of those articles, I nominated them knowing that they were on the fence (in my view). I haven't had much interest in nominating articles that are clear keeps or deletes. I am generally an inclusionist, although definitely not all the time; but, I think the CSD rules may not have contemplated every possible article (understandably so). Therefore, when I find an article that seems to be on the fence with CSD criteria but might be one of those unaccounted-for scenarios, I will nominate it. Ergo Sum 18:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral can't support a candidate wishing to work in areas where they have not demonstrated experience, but I don't find any reason to oppose. – Teratix 01:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm going to comment here for now. I think Ergo Sum is an excellent editor - his FAs and GAs truly are enjoyable to read and I've supported several of these nominations. I also have found him to be calm during discussions. However, I don't really see too much involvement in admin areas. I don't believe in NOBIGDEAL, as it actually is a very big deal to have admin tools. So I guess this is a "moral support". This is not to say anything negative about Ergo Sum - in fact, I really respect his contributions and think highly of his writing - but I need to think about this a little more. epicgenius (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Moved to support. epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral. For me it is not the content per se or the thousands of quasi-admin actions per se, it is temperament and judgment. Having looked through the candidate's history, they have the temperament (this is a good recent example), plus my understanding is that if you have poor temperament at FA-GA you will "light up", which is not the case here. The issue is how to assess judgment, for which I would normally rely on a history of AfDs/CSDs etc. I spend time at AfD and have seen FA-GA focused editors misfire badly at times because they implicitly ask whether an article could become an FA-GA article, instead of applying WP's labyrinthine notability criteria (which can produce very different answers), so I am sympathetic to this candidate's AFD record. I also think that if the candidate had clarified at the outset, that their admin focus would be on the tools that related to the upkeep of WP:TFA and WP:FAC (and had not mentioned CSDing), this would have been a surer pass. The question is how does a non-FA-GA editor (my bad) assess judgment for this case, outside of relying on the views of others (which I may simply have to do)? Britishfinance (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moving to support - I have seen enough now to be happy that this candidate has good judgment. Britishfinance (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral - I am somewhat concerned about the candidate's apparent lack of experience in the administrative areas listed in Q1, but not strongly enough to outright oppose this candidacy as I firmly believe that people can learn how to do new things. If this RfA passes, I hope the candidate exercises extra caution when beginning to work in RfPP, AIV, and especially CSD. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 22:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral - After skimming through this page, I was leaning support per NOBIGDEAL and Ergo Sum's impressive content work. Now that I'm starting to do my typical research, I'm finding some cause for concern. Putting myself in neutral for now, since none of these are, by themselves, disqualifiers, and Ergo Sum might have a good response:
    I want to make clear that in all of these cases, Ergo Sum was respectful and, again, none of these are terribly egregious. But in the absence of, as other people put it, "admin areas", where we can see someone's judgment on contentious issues, examples like these lead me to raise an eyebrow when I think about someone taking admin action concerning, say, Wikipedia policies and guidelines on fringe theories. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: Thanks for bringing those up. The memory (mine) is of finite capacity.
    • As for the Thought Catalog edit. I plead a partial mea culpa on that. At the time I made the edit, Thought Catalog was considered a RS. I didn't know who that author was until you just linked to his article. I didn't think linking to a source with a POV (but still RS) was all that big a deal since the statement it was supporting was POV (i.e. a characterization of the article's subject as comporting with one ideology or another). After all, the subject of that entire article is a POV. In order to substantiate a POV, you generally need to cite to a POV article (e.g. op-ed). Ergo Sum 05:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As far as the Obama instance was concerned, it seems the point I was trying to make was not appreciated by the other editors. Upon reflection, one can conclude that was a failure on my part to make my point clear. My point was not that conspiracy theories (theories about physical events) shouldn't be called false, but that theories that make a metaphysical claim (religious or otherwise) can't be called true or false in the voice of Wikipedia because they logically cannot be proven true or false. No matter how confident a RS is that a metaphysical claim is true or false, that's still an opinion on a non-truth-apt statement. The particular claim in question in that discussion was that some religious sects claimed that Obama was the anti-Christ. I don't know how one would go about proving this as true or false without resorting to internal reasoning of what it means to be an anti-Christ. That sort of internal reasoning is not something that Wikipedia does. We don't say, yes according to the theology of X religion, person Y is indeed the anti-Christ. I appreciate that this may seem a bit too philosophical for many, including the editors there, but I stand by it. By no means is my view fringe in philosophical (and much less theological) circles, even if it may not have been contemplated by the WP policy on fringe theories; on the contrary, it would be quite mainstream among epistemology faculties. As I say above, one cannot expect WP policies to contemplate ex ante every possible scenario. Nor is it a minor point; stating something as true or false in the voice of Wikipedia is very different than saying one religious sect has said X and most others have said not X. Ergo Sum 04:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • For the third one, frankly, I don't see an issue there with my conduct. I made an argument about recentism, which I think was pretty reasonable. Some other editors disagreed. That's the nature of content discussions on WP. People are bound to have civil disagreements over content. Ergo Sum 05:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Having read the above, I am going to move from Neutral to Support. Yes, I didn't agree with all of Ergo Sum's positions (esp. Catholic Church), however, they were dispassionately advocated, in a logical manner (clearly, this candidate has a sharp mind), and some of which were countered by more emotive opposition. Britishfinance (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Mainly wanted to follow up here to say thanks for taking the time to write up this reply. These are generally reasonable responses. I still find myself in the neutral camp, but it looks like this is going to pass regardless, and that's probably for the best. Thanks for throwing your hat in. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Neutral - I looked through the Xtools before reading the comments. My first concern was the AfD stats. Ergo Sum's content creation is wonderful and applaudable. I would be more comfortable "giving the mop" if Ergo Sum had more experience on the "maintenance side" of Wikipedia and demonstration of good judgement there. Should Ergo Sum become an admin, I would not be overly concerned, but I am not quite comfortable and vote support if I saw more work in admin-type areas. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Neutral Seems to be unaware of the importance of AfD etc. Collect (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Neutral, not sure why candidate actually needs a mop, will benefit from more work in adminny areas when a "support" will then be a given. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Neutral. I can't bring myself to oppose, but I'm concerned by the answer to Q3. Ergo Sum states that they used WP:BRD in a disupte, but the page history reveals that after their edit was reverted, they restored it before taking it to discussion. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the BRD method. I'd like to see more evidence of dispute resolution, and also keeping cool under pressure, before I can support. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 19:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral. While I agree that there's a strange lack of any relevant experience in deletion and other admin-ish areas, I am also impressed by the content contributions. While I see no evidence that the candidate would willfully abuse the tools, I think that accidental misuse of them is likely. I'd be happy to support at a later date, after establishment of some CSD and XfD track record (by which I mean reasoning we can look at, not easily manipulable stats), or perhaps even better yet, a lot of WP:NAC work. Just 6 months to a year of demonstrating ability to apply policy properly and assess consensus within policy. On the other hand, I won't be alarmed if the candidate passes; I assume the good faith that "on-the-job training" wouldn't turn out poorly in the long run even after some probable early errors.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Moving to support. 04:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Neutral - On the one hand, I think that being an "excellent content creator", on which there is agreement that this candidate is, is an overrated qualification for administrators. I have read the concerns of some of the Oppose editors that this candidate has too little admin-like experience. On the other hand, I am not sure whether this candidate has enough admin-like experience. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • I am aware that TRM was a former admin. But I have never seen a non-admin RfA nomination. Is this a rare sight? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Not at all. I am not an admin, and I lost track of how many succesful RFA candidates I nominated. Trust is what we are measuring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It's rare only insomuch as RfAs are rare in general these days. It used to — and should still — happen more often. The rarity also probably involves some "permission" creep among nominators. Likewise with single- or self-nomination RfAs; the process is rare, so it probably creeps towards having more. Not ideal. ~ Amory (utc) 01:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
        TRM is also a former ARB. I think in good standing is whats important, and he is certainly that. Ceoil (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        A recent-ish RfA Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Greenman had Lefcentreright as a co-nom. the nominator. Since he's active in articles relating to South Africa and was familiar with Greenman's contributions, I'd say that's a good thing. That particular RfA didn't pass but I think that a nom/co-nom being familiar with the candidate counts for something, especially if I'm not familiar with the candidate myself. Clovermoss (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Just to be clear, I've never been an Arb (I ran twice and bought something like 750 pizzas) but I did used to be an admin and I did used to be a 'crat. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm a non-admin, and I've nominated two candidates, both who had their RFAs succeed (here and here). (Granted, I was a co-nominator on both, and both happened over 5 years ago, but still...) Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I was nominated by a non admin - me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just a question, not saying anyone should, but why pd everyone fine with GregJackP supporting with his criteria but when he opposes with those same criteria, he gets jumped on? Puddleglum 2.0 15:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's simple. They know that the project desperately needs content creators in control, but they think that my criteria is too stringent. So the more mature among them will support my right to set my own criteria, and will jump to support when I support, but will exercise their own judgment when I oppose. And the less mature oppose my position all the time, whether they are aware of my thoughts on administrator age or not. GregJackP Boomer! 18:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not to badger ( ;) ) but almost certainly the explanation is much simpler, and has nothing to do with you: if an AfD is passing 100-3, even if only 5% of AfD voters are inclined to argue with "the other side" then the opposers are still going to get about 2 comments pushing back each; and of course if they respond then there's active discussion, which draws more eyes. --JBL (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's nothing stringent about your criteria (rather, criterion); they're lenient to a fault. Write one FA and you're in. I respect your right to enforce your own standards, especially as they so rarely influence the end result, but you should be aware that many of us oppose single-issue voting in general because it's usually not thorough enough. I'd hold in much higher regard a requirement like "five career FAs" or "recognized content promoted in the last three months." Getting one FA star is trivially easy and frankly says nothing about an editor's skill. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You may want to re-read my essay, which states that before I evaluate the candidate on other issues, they have to make it through the content creator gateway. You still need more to be an admin, but most people don't have what I consider to be the minimum requirements.
    Also, while you may think that it is "trivially easy" to put a star on an article, only 0.1% of the articles have that star. GregJackP Boomer! 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't normally respond to GregJackP's !votes, and really wish everyone else would follow my lead. Don't want to get opposed by Greg at RfA? Get two articles passed through GA! Simples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ritchie333:, if I may redirect Clausewitz... Nosebagbear (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks all for the answer; I did not intend to imply anything negative about Greg's criterion, just wondering. ☺ Puddleglum 2.0 18:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yeah - normally, I don't think hanging around admin-y places is necessarily a good quality, and I'd normally be really trusting with content-creator types and deletion, but someone who lists speedy deletion as their first intention, and has only participated in AfD to nominate 5 articles for deletion, three of which were kept (and one closed as redirect, but looking, was actually a merge). That seems like pretty clear evidence of bad judgement on these issues. WilyD 08:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've already registered my support above, I just want to express my surprise that at a time when we need more high-calibre admins there is such a determined little cadre of opposes trying to keep the tools away from this candidate, who has a clear understanding of what this encyclopedia is all about, is cautious in areas with which he's not familiar, and is very obviously sober, trustworthy, and would never abuse any privileges. – Athaenara 13:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Athaenara, I resent being described as part of a "determined little cadre of opposes". We all have our standards for what we want to see in an administrator; I have mine. One of my main criteria - right up there with temperament - is that the candidate should show at least some familiarity with the uses of at least some of the tools they are asking us to give them. I don’t think that is an unreasonable expectation. And it is shared by several dozen other people here. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I resent not being called a "determined little cadre" of supports  ;) ——SN54129 15:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree with MelanieN (about tool familiarity), but I respect her views, which she is more than entitled to voice. El_C 15:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some RfA !voters evaluate the editor as a person (e.g., "high caliber", "sober", "trustworthy", "net positive", etc.), other RfA !voters evaluate the editor's skills or experience (e.g., experience with deletion, requests for page protection, responding to vandalism, etc.). These are simply two different philosophies to what adminship is or should be. Some say, "They're a trustworthy editor, therefore let them have the delete button". Other says, "They know what they're doing with deletions, therefore let them have the delete button." Everyone who subscribes to one of these two philosophies thinks that their philosophy is better than the other – that's why they subscribe to it. Levivich 15:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are certainly good grounds to support Ergo Sum, which is why at least half of the opposes are reluctant, weak, or would like Ergo to run again in the near future: nobody thinks he would abuse any privileges. But 2 dozen is not a "little cadre". @Levivich: has a good point on the differing ideologies, but I think they'd be better viewed as priorities. Even ruling out extreme cases for either side, the "skills/experience" advocates in particular would always view significant trust is needed, it's just that that particular facet of the candidate isn't in doubt. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nosebagbear, I see them as layers. Some think that good character is enough (without relevant experience); others want good character plus relevant experience. And of course, how much relevant experience is needed varies, too. Levivich 15:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are actually three groups here: don't forget the content-creation folks. Some commenters think good character is enough; some want good character plus relevant experience; and some want good character plus content creation. Most of the really good candidates exhibit all three qualities to some degree, and such candidates tend to pass with almost universal support. What is unique about Ergo Sum's nomination is that it is an extreme case, a "good character plus content creation" only candidate. I have seen candidates pass as extreme cases of "character plus experience" with very little content work; if this nomination is approved, as seems likely, it will pass as an extreme case of "character plus content" with almost no relevant experience. In any case, I do think it is important that we all respect each other's right to have our own criteria. (In particular, can we please stop arguing with User:GregJackP every time he trots out his own version of "content creation first"?) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kashmiri's oppose is verging (if not actually) a personal attack: to seek signals of competence is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, here we see that not much has been found "Not much competence has been found" in this candidate, eh? Needs retracting or rewording, assuming it's just a misuse of language. ——SN54129 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think they were saying they had looked for "signals of competence", referring to competence in admin areas specifically. i.e. evidence that the candidate understands the duties and responsibilities of adminship. Those "signals" were not found, because Ergo Sum doesn't have a lot of experience in the traditional admin domains. Perhaps it could be phrased better, but I think it's the same sort of thing that other opposes are saying and not a personal attack as such. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. In which case their own competence could be called equally into question for failing to make a rather basic point clear. Still, I'm sure it's water under the bridge. ——SN54129 19:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thanks Amakuru, agree that I wasn't terribly clear, but I had no bad faith and you got my intention right. Competently Face-smile.svgkashmīrī TALK 20:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just for clarification, since the nature of many of the opposes has been discussed, mine may be understood as a weak oppose. I think Ergo Sum is an outstanding editor. My only concern is their lack of hands on experience in almost any adminny areas. That said, I was seriously tempted to vote for them purely on the basis of their use of Latin in their user-name. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Regret? How does oppose with regret stack up with consensus evaluation? I understand weak or strong support or oppose. Is a regret vote mean I don't like you but I'm sorry? Do crats read regret votes a half oppose? I do not see any regret support votes. Does regret mean come back later and run again? Why not clearly vote for or against a candidate. Maybe its just a way to express an opinion but not really. People are going to do what they want but I just wonder why regret keeps popping up in opposition votes.Eschoryii (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not a pleasant thing, to oppose a good-faith volunteer's request for additional permissions; regret (v) used in polite formulas to express apology for or sadness over something unfortunate or unpleasant.xenotalk 16:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As in, "I'm sorry but I oppose your candidacy." Levivich 17:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per Xeno, it is an attempt to shore up their self image as a good person while doing something they know is hurtful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Xeno hits the nail on the head; opposing a good faith RfA is not something one feels good about. Sometimes it must be done, but it's something that most editors feel bad about. Telling someone they're not ready yet, and explicitly pointing out their failures, is a harsh thing to do, and something I, nor anyone I know, enjoys doing. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If there is a project that could not benefit from twice the number of active admins that they currently have, I haven't seen it yet. Even if out of nothing but an appreciation of the mission, every oppose at every RfA ought to be regretful at some level. GMGtalk 23:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • My first time ever making any post at all at an RfA, because I feel I have not been experienced enough to. This is prompted by the use of the "Adminscore" above by Benica11 at O51. It seems my score (yep, I do realise this is just a very rough indicator) is higher than the current nominee, yet there is no way I would feel ready to be an admin? Aoziwe (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • PS I think this says more about the admin score than the experience of the nominee, who clearly has much more content work than I do. Aoziwe (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Aoziwe you're probably right when you comment about admin score. I just needed an easy way to prove that the user has taken administrative actions tens of times when some of us would think that number should be in the hundreds
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.