Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum

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

Ergo Sum

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

Nomination

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]

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]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: 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

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 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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

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

2020 Taal Volcano eruption - Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. ~~~~, What administrative actions would you take (or not take) on this report? Iffy★Chat -- 13:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[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]

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?

talk) 18:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[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]

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

]

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

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

]

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

]

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 {{

WP:WHYBLOCK#Protection for two days and place {{Uw-bioblock}} on their userpage. Ergo Sum 17:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[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?

A:

Discussion

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

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

Support

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]
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]
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]
4. Support Per my trust in BD2412. GMG^talk 01:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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. --
   talk) 02:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Support. Excellent content contributions. The
   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
   ]
9. Support - great content creator, has a clue about WP policies. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support clear net postive and good content creation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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 @
    Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
19. Support - I don't know this user but I don't see any issues. Deb (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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.
    WP:NETPOSITIVE here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. As I would support
    the nom, so I support the candidate. ——SN54129 10:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support per nom as well as per Amakuru. Certainly a net positive, no concerns of going rogue and deleting the main page. –FlyingAce^✈hello 10:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
28. Support precious enlightenment --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
34. Support - thoughtful, clueful, and here to build an encyclopedia. --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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
    ]
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]
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]
38. Support - Per Amakuru. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support for a definite
    net positive. Trustworthy editor, trustworthy nom. Opposes not a concern. Miniapolis 16:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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). –xeno^talk 16:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
46. Weak support as per others. >>BEANS X2t 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
47. Happy to support. El_C 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. See no problems here. -- Visviva (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
62. Support per non statement. Net positive. quality over quantity.-- Deepfriedokra 01:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[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
    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
    ]
64. Support – Kurtis ^(talk) 02:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support: a level-headed contributor and unlikely to abuse the tools. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support per Barkeep49, Amakuru, and noms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
69. Support. Experienced contributor. Accepting that they have little maintenance experience, I still have no concerns.
     ■ 07:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
71. Support Smallchief (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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. --
    old fashioned! 15:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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. Iffy★Chat -- 16:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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, Lindsay^Hello 21:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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
    ]
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]
86. Support. Why not. Conlinp (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
    Help out at CCI! 12:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
93. Support. No issues here. Meets my criteria.
    ZettaComposer (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
94. Support--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support per Xeno and similar. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[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.
    T/C) 14:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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. --
    talk) 16:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
100. WP:100 support. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
     ]
101. Support No concerns. Vadder (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support He has tripped the edit filter probably multiple times as seen
     talk) 19:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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.
     talk) 00:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
     ]
107. Support - An excellent editor who will no doubt will become an excellent admin, I see no red flags here. Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
110. Support. I conceived my first question based on
     net positive with the admin tools. ƏXPLICIT 07:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
     ]
111. Support - strong contribution history, understands the editing environment, will do fine. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
117. If someone appears to have clueY, has demonstrated that they handle constructive criticism wellY, and has given no reason to believe that they secretly want to lord it over other editorsY, 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]
118. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
121. Support - solid editor, didn't spot any issues.--Staberinde (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
124. Support – great editor, will be a great admin. Cavalryman (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
125. Support - Overwhelming net positive. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
129. Support,
     WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
     ]
130. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 11:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
132. The ayes have it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
134. Support - per Sandy, Mike Christie, and Floq. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support, per Sandy, Mike Christie, Floq, and Ealdgyth. NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
137. Giving them the benefit of the doubt. Most admin work really isn't that difficult. — 🦊 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, first comes content. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
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
     ]
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]
143. Support per Mike Christie's comments.
     Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
146. Support based on answers to questions and content creation history. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support Trusted and experienced. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 06:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
149. Support. Excellent candidate who may make a few mistakes; however, he generally thinks things out. He thinks, therefore he is.
     ed. ^put'r there 09:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
     ]
150. Support Trustworthy, experienced editor who will benefit the project with the tools; has a lot of clue. Spencer^T•C 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
152. Support LittleChongsto (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
155. "Support" Very little risk, hence support. Nigej (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
157. Support per supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
159. Support In all possible ways. --Pudeo (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
161. Support Why Not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support No doubts. A first class candidate. Poltair (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[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
     ]
164. Support Content creation comtribtions are so expansive that I'mm sure the nominer knows the rules for using the tools. —
     talk, contribs) 06:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
     ]
165. Support - SMcCandlish has expressed my views well. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support Dede2008 (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
169. Support No reason to believe they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     

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
     ]

     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]

     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]

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. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[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.
     ✉ • ✎) 18:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
     ]
173. Support Positive contributions to the project, can be trusted with the tools. W42 19:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
175. Support trustworthy candidate. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[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]
177. Support - Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[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]