Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum

Ergo Sum

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (8/27/5); Scheduled to end 23:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

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)

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)

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

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? Iffy★Chat -- 13:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
4. Support Per my trust in BD2412. GMG^talk 01:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
9. Support - great content creator, has a clue about WP policies. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
10. Support clear net postive and good content creation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 @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)
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)
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)
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)
19. Support - I don't know this user but I don't see any issues. Deb (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
22. As I would support the nom, so I support the candidate. ——SN54129 10:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
28. Support precious enlightenment --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
34. Support - thoughtful, clueful, and here to build an encyclopedia. --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
35. Support will be a net positive to the project. Great contributions across Wikipedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
38. Support - Per Amakuru. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
39. Support for a definite net positive. Trustworthy editor, trustworthy nom. Opposes not a concern. Miniapolis 16:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
46. Weak support as per others. >>BEANS X2t 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
47. Happy to support. El_C 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
48. Support. See no problems here. -- Visviva (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
62. Support per non statement. Net positive. quality over quantity.-- Deepfriedokra 01:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
64. Support – Kurtis ^(talk) 02:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
65. Support: a level-headed contributor and unlikely to abuse the tools. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
66. Support per Barkeep49, Amakuru, and noms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
69. Support. Experienced contributor. Accepting that they have little maintenance experience, I still have no concerns. AGK ■ 07:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
71. Support Smallchief (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
78. Support Strong content contributors are needed in all areas, but none moreso than as admins AlasdairEdits (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

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) ,
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)
3. Oppose - Sorry, but you fail my criteria. Foxnpichu (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

   You have lots of criteria listed there -- which one in particular does Ergo Sum fail? --JBL (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

   The user only has 820 edits on Wikipedia articles. I except at least 1,000. Foxnpichu (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

   For everyone else: by "Wikipedia articles" Foxnpichu means "pages in the WP: name-space". --JBL (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

   Levivich, we do have Senior editor rank. Not one but three ranks. DBigXrayᗙ 04:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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)
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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    @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)

    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)

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! QueerFilmNerd^talk 08:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
13. 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, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.--DBigXrayᗙ 23:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
24. Oppose per above. Concerns with limited administrative experience in the areas candidate wishes to work in. -FASTILY 03:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)

    Forgive me, but I don't recall interacting with you, expect just moments ago on the Federalist Society RfC that I mention in Q3. Ergo Sum 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

27. Per above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 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)
2. 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. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
3. 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)

   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)

4. 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)

   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)

5. 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)

   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)

General comments

• 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 MEDUSA^talk 00:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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 (u • t • c) 01:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)]

      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)

      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)

  • 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)
  • I was nominated by a non admin - me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @Ritchie333:, if I may redirect Clausewitz... Nosebagbear (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  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)

---

• 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)

---

• 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)

  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)

  I resent not being called a "determined little cadre" of supports  ;) ——SN54129 15:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  • Not at all an extreme case of "character plus content"; we used to see it all the time. Unfortunately, I can't even remember all the content people I nominated for adminship, but here is a sample: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain. And Laser is doing just fine today, no controversy, because we judged on character first, having worked in an environment (FAC) where humility and willingness to learn are essential as others pick your work apart. Those admins who have never engaged content creation disputes are the ones who worry me when I see frequent suggestions of topic bans at ANI for content disputes. We need more who have BTDT. For example, I had a content dispute with Ergo Sum on a FAC, and got to observe how they handled it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I found more of my noms by checking WP:100: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dabomb87, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbmurray, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GrahamColm, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moni3, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steve. There are others, but those are content contributors who garnered more than 100. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)