Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Standard of approval?

Does 75% or consensus apply for Ergo Sum? Was the past issue resolved? Eschoryii (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is pretty clear (near the bottom). Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it not? ——SN 54129 18:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean this:Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 252#New RfC: Limiting bureaucrat discretion ? –xeno^talk 18:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the proposal to limit crats' discretion...which Eschoryii supported :) ——SN 54129 19:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to Xeno. Candidate was at 65% when I asked. I am a political science person and wonder and care about a floating standard. I really have no background to judge a specific administrator candidate. Eschoryii (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eschoryii: Still about consensus. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eschoryii: FTR, the candidate would've passed even if the voting had stayed in the discretionary zone :) ——SN 54129 11:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]