Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth

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

Ealdgyth

Final: (250/0/2) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 14:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) – Now, some people think just because I wrote this, I know something about writing articles around here. Well, compared to Ealdgyth I know nothing - this editor has a phenomenal track record with over 50 featured articles and 100 good articles including getting such heavyweights as the Battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror and (gasp!) the Middle Ages to FA; something I am truly in awe at. So when she decided it might be a nice idea to have the admin tools, I, like several others, leapt at the chance to nominate.

Now, I think I should be honest and say that Ealdgyth is not the sort of "career admin" who is drawn to the maintenance areas of the project, but her AfD stats, showing 95% correct out over 100 discussions, convince me she is not going to cause any harm with the tools, and she is always willing to lend a hand where possible. In particular, I think she would be a good fit for working at WP:ERRORS, where we need more admins with a good understanding of content and sourcing, and can fix a wide variety of articles with the minimum of fuss.

I just showed my other half the list of accomplishments and her response was, "she shouldn't have to request adminship - it should simply be given to her!" I hope there's an unanimous agreement that's the case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination I've known and worked with Ealdgyth for many years on Wikipedia. She is knowledgable, helpful and humorous. Her work in pushing articles through the Featured Article process shows many excellent qualities for adminiship - striving for excellence, collegiate working, persuading people, dealing with less knowledgable people who 'know' they are right, dealing with WP:OWN and a whole heap of other useful stuff.

To those who may wish to accuse her of liking to collect shiny things, with her impressive set of FAs and GAs, note this. She is very unselfish. In addition to pushing through her "own" quality materials, Ealdgyth is willing and able to give copyediting time and dedicated attention to those of others. Over the years, she's weighed in at WP:PR and WP:FAC on a number of articles I've been involved with, on a range of topics she mostly knows little about - and cares even less, spotting mangled English, misplaced punctuation and missing citations as keenly on cricket articles as in her own beloved medieval history genre (eg here). (Thanks again, Ealdgyth).

I think the one Achilles heel Ealdgyth may have here is the thorny old issue of 'need for the tools'. I'd say a few things in response. First, she has expressed interest in helping at ERRORS, where we are desperate for more admins since the most active administrator there is no longer able to help. She'll be a massive asset, as Main page quality issues are a constant problem, with difficulties over nuance of language etc. Second, I have no doubt that as she eases into the toolset she will, as we all do as admins, find areas that interest her that she can bring her mindset and experience to grips with. What you're !voting on is her aptitude for the tasks she'll face, not whether she already has demonstrable experience in every aspect of the various tools.

We are desperately short of even-tempered, knowledgable, experienced Wikipedians who give their time unselfishly ... and have the tools. I implore the community to give the toolset to this excellent candidate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination I'd also like to sponsor the nomination. I don't want to repeat everything that's been said above, though I agree with it. In addition to taking on big, amorphous articles that are the hardest to write and get to FA, Ealdgyth has been a voice of reason in the often contentious disputes we have had at WT:FAC, and her effectiveness in that is shown by the fact that she is one of the few people there that everyone is on speaking terms with. :)

I am not greatly concerned with need for the bits. Our purpose here, though we contribute in many ways, is to put high quality content before the public. We are not short of mops. It is quite sufficient if she uses the bits to expedite her own work, as I do, and as other admins do who are principally content contributors. Anything she cares to do beyond that is bonus.

I understand that others wish to co-nom as well, so I'll shut up and get out of the way, but not before saying that in my view there are very few people, if any, more qualified to have the bits than Ealdgyth.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, although I'm blushing quite a bit from the praise above, which I don't honestly feel is quite deserved. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 3 January 2017 (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: The main areas I would see myself regularly participating in would be WP:ERRORS, once I figure out how to safely edit things on the main page. I would also try to help out some with WP:DYK, but probably not to a great extent. I am unlikely to become involved in blocking many editors, as I'm really not into that sort of behavior. I could see some work at WP:RPP, if things got backlogged. I'd also try to weigh in a bit more with my opinion on the various noticeboards where admin input is sought. As far as my own editing, I would find the ability to move articles over redirects to be useful as well as occasionally seeing deleted articles that might need recreating.

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

A: I enjoy working on historical topics - especially medieval and equine topics. Personally, I'm most proud of the obscure topics I've brought up to snuff - such as Jersey Act or Monroe Edwards. For a while, I seemed to specialize in "bad boy" bishops - such as William Longchamp, Stigand, or Geoffrey (archbishop of York). I do recognize, however, that many folks are more impressed with the "big topics", and I do know we need more work on topics such as Middle Ages or Norman conquest of England. I am proud that I've slowly been working on bringing up the coverage of medieval English ecclesiastics to a higher standard. I've branched out somewhat lately, due to being in a (very lengthy) process of moving, and haven't been doing as much content work as much of my library is being packed up. This is one reason why I was willing to consider becoming an admin - the desire to contribute while unable to do the in-depth research I'm used to (at least until the move is finished).

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 biggest conflicts have taken place on the "big articles" - William the Conqueror, Middle Ages, Norman conquest of England, and Battle of Hastings. One conflict is the "anti-Bulgarian bias" problem that's documented in the archives of Middle Ages. Some of it's at Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 8 and Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 7 which spilled into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive. The lead image at Middle Ages has also attracted controversy which is documented at Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 6 and Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 5. The Bulgarian issue was definitely a POV pusher (who turned out to be a sockpuppet), and the best way to handle those is to remain calm and attempt to reason. That particular disupte did, however, teach me that I'm not well suited to hunting out sockpuppets - I just miss them entirely. You can be assured I will not be involving myself in WP:SPI! In the image issue, I got a bit testier than I'd probably like to get, but there are times when wall-of-texts just get to me, and my way of coping is to step back, get outside input on my own behavior, and try to ride out the storm.

The issue with Norman conquest of England is documented at Talk:Battle of Hastings#September/October 2016 was again a situation where just getting outside input and riding out the storm was the best solution. Sticking to the best sourcing possible, being willing (within reason) to listen to the other side, and avoiding edit warring are the best solutions to these sorts of disputes. I will admit that having that dispute blow up and ruin Hastings' chance at being on the main page for its 950th anniversary did make me a bit crankier than I like to be.

There's also the run in with this sockpuppeter: here. This one was easier to deal with, but again, I totally missed the sockpuppeting. Oops?

As I'm sure most folks know, I've collaborated with Eric Corbett quite successfully in the past. I generally avoid commenting much on his language or behavior, but I did get a bit testy here, which wasn't my finest hour, I'll admit. I know that I'm much too involved to ever possibly block/unblock/take any admin action on EC, and am also quite clear that I need to avoid doing administration actions on other people with whom I've worked closely on Wikipedia over the years. I do, however, reserve the right to comment on such situations at noticeboards or talk pages, while also noting my involvement.

Further to stress levels, one major source of (non-wiki) stress is no longer relevant in my life so my stress levels as far as editing are much less than they had been in the past few years. Besides the move, nothing else major is on my horizon - I am officially an empty-nester and no longer need to care for my elderly and ill mother, so life is much better than it had been the last few years.

---

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 Biblio

4. What are your views on the observation of the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies? Is it ever justifiable to ignore them?

A: In general, they shouldn't be ignored. But, we also need to be aware that different areas of the world have differing standards of civility. I'm American and thus my normal standards of civility differ from English which differ from Australian which differ from Indian, etc. etc. I generally try to avoid cussing in the wrong company, but I know that what I would consider a nasty cuss word that no one really ever utters is in other parts of the world something that isn't nearly so horrid. There is more to civility than just using cuss words or avoiding attacking people directly. Civility is a two way street also - you can avoid cuss words all you want but if you're constantly pushing other editor's buttons, you shouldn't be surprised to have someone cuss you out. In the end, we're here to make an encyclopedia. I'm much much more concerned about poor sourcing and POV pushing than I am about civility. My personal opinion is that being rude/incivil is counter-productive, but I understand that this isn't an opinion shared by most. I think blocking for civility is also counterproductive, but unless it's wildly inappropriate, I'm of the opinion that fighting about it is akin to Cnut fighting the tide - it's never really going to help matters to get up in arms about it.

As far as NPA goes - one thing I've learned over my years of editing (something I learned at a summer camp I worked at, in fact) is to avoid "you" statements and concentrate on "I feel" statements when in a personality dispute. If you feel attacked - don't say "you're attacking me"... instead say "I feel attacked by <statement>." This approach doesn't always work perfectly, but it does help de-escalate the situation some. I see a lot of people throw around "That was a personal attack" when it's often a borderline case. I don't always manage to comment only on the edits, not the editor, but I do try. I try to cut other editors some slack even if I feel like they are attacking me, and would like to think most other editors would at least endeavor to do the same.

In sum, I generally turn the other cheek (even though that's not really my religious imperative), and hope most other editors try to, but I also recognize that I'm a bit more laid back about the situation than most and am not likely to raise a stink about other admins enforcing other standards as long as they aren't wildly outside community norms. I reserve the right to perhaps discuss and make my opinion known, but blocking/unblocking isn't something I'm interested in. And I reiterate my complete understanding that there are a number of other editors with whom I should NEVER block/unblock because I've worked too closely with them over the years. If I'm ever in doubt about whether I'm involved with some other editor, I'll not take admin actions concerning that editor.

I also think some of the worst episodes of incivility/NPA occur because of internal wiki-politics. We all know that there are "backside" battles that happen, and those battles seem to be the occasion of some of the worst of the flare-ups of cussing/attacking/etc. I have no good answers on how to solve that problem - I suspect it's endemic in the human condition to be somewhat tribal and choose sides. The best we can do is try to remember that the "other side" is human too, and treat them as best we can.

Follow-up: @Ealdgyth: Hi again. I plan to support this RfA—I just haven't had time lately—but I have one last follow-up question (to clarify, follow-up questions are permitted). In your 2015 ACE voter's guide, you said, "I do not consider myself suited for ArbCom, I do not deal well with high stress situations nor do I have the tact required." Adminship and ArbCom are, of course, quite different, but as an admins you may sometimes have to deal with high-stress situations, and according to policy admins are expected to calmly explain their actions.

Therefore, could you elaborate on how you will reconcile with your stress intolerance with your adminship? Thanks. Biblio(talk) 22:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

To be blunt, my elderly mother died a bit over two months ago. She had dementia and we were caring for her at home. She was unable to grasp the she was physically incapable of walking, and had to be monitored 24/7. That was a huge stress, and no longer applies. (I alluded to this at the end of my answer to question three.) We are moving, but that stress doesn't begin to compare to the stress of caring for an elderly dementia patient. (We've been doing that since 2011, pretty much.) I still consider myself unsuited for Arb Com, but since I don't have to involve myself in the really stressful areas of admining, I should be able to keep the stress levels bearable. (You can rest assured I'm not likely to start working in the Israel-Palestine area, for example.) ArbCom has no choice in being involved in high stress situations, admins have much more choice. One reason I am unlikely to block/unblock much is that is one way to avoid higher stress. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

5. How should we treat new users who make mistakes when editing articles?

A: It depends on what the mistake is. If it's taking the article on Sparta and replacing it with THIS IS SPARTAAA!!!! ... well, that sort of mistake just needs to follow the "do not feed the trolls" advice.

If the editor isn't doing obvious vandalism, but it is something minor - say adding in a reference to an article in the wrong format, or if they've put in an unreliable source - the best practice is to fix it and explain in an edit summary or similar. Explanations are best, although often it can be done in an edit summary. It's nice if the editor is really new if you put an welcome template on their talk page.

If the editor persists in making the same or similar mistakes even after having it explained to them, well, then it's a bigger problem. It could be a POV problem or it could just be not understanding the explanation. When I run into these situations, I generally try to get a second opinion on my own behavior to see what *I* can do to improve things.

I'm not perfect - I will freely admit that I don't go around checking on how long other editors have been around or seeing if the person who just made a mess out of an article is a newbie or has been around a while. I try to adhere to the best practices, but I know I've probably fallen down on the job in the past - it's hard to remain ultra-polite when you've got someone inserting nonsense or mucking about with an article with an established style. I have a belief that as long as the other editor is trying to learn the ropes, I'll try to help, but if they keep making the same mistakes (or, worse, don't bother to read the relavant help pages before leaping into editing...), at some point competence has to come into the picture.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Support I think the ORCP gives a pretty good summary of Ealdgyth, which is extraordinarily positive. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Support After making a long examination of the candidate, well more than I usually do, I found every reason to support and not a single reasonable reason to oppose. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Looks like an excellent candidate. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Support. One of Wikipedia's finest editors. Please don't stop working on content! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Support, nice to have a candidate with almost 100K edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Support without hesitation. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
8. Support Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 14:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
9. Support. I was delighted to see this one in the making, as Ealdgyth is surely in the running for our most clued up editor and one of the biggest contributors of top-quality content that we have. She knows the rules and how to apply them better than most, as any look at her history will show. What's more, Ealdgyth is mild-mannered, courteous, and very helpful with people - I really wish what she regards as being a "bit testy" (above) was the worst I've ever been guilty of. I'm humbled to be able offer my strongest possible support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
10. Support as my default stance since I see no reason to oppose. Also, I don't see my opinion changing in the future either thanks to the rather helpful nomination statements outlying the candidate's qualifications. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
11. Support I can think of few other editors whose hard work and good judgment I've admired more in my years on Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
12. Support as co-nom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
13. Support it's about time this went live! Lepricavark (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
14. Support (edit conflict) Extremely strong candidate. 9 years of continuous activity, 95k edits, 50+ FAs, and a clean block log. If she isn't qualified, I'm not sure who is. Joshualouie711^talk 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
15. Support marginally. I don't think Ealdgyth will clear any administrative backlogs or contribute administratively in a significant way, as she prefers content creation to such things. I also don't think Ealdgyth will cause any harm, though, so she's a net positive as an administrative. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
16. Support unreservedly. In my time on WP I have seen Ealdgyth display the attributes that I have appreciated most when observing or interacting with admins. Nortonius (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
17. Support -- The only deserving candidate for well over a year. I share Joshualouie711's comments, above, although I consider someone's block log to be irrelevant. . Cassianto^Talk 14:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
18. Strong Support—this is an utter no-brainer of a candidacy. Ealdgyth is perfectly qualified for the role of administrator and I am honored to be able to support. –Grondemar 14:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
19. Support I've known her for a long time. She'll make a good administrator even if she continues to work mainly on content. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
20. I usually don't bother voting in RFAs that I think are going to be landslides (knock on wood!), but I just want to express my happiness that Ealdgyth finally decided to do this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
21. Support unreservedly. (Can we do this by acclamation?) Kablammo (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
22. Support Easy net positive, great editor. Their work says it all I feel. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
23. Support to the Graham's numberth degree: of course. Esquivalience (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
24. Support no issues. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
25. Support- well overdue. Reyk _YO! 15:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
26. Support, per all the above. Exceptional content work. Will be an undoubted asset as an admin. Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
27. Support. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
28. Support no brainer. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
29. Support gave my support at ORCP and will also here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
30. Support. An excellent editor with both kindness and clue. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
31. Support- Per what i said at her ORCP poll. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
32. Strong Support: Good FA/GA writer and will do great with the mop. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
33. Support. If ever there was a reason to give someone the mop without all the drama of an RfA, this would be it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
34. Support. Definitely. Deb (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
35. Support, per Floq. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
36. Support Woah. Actually, might be a bit of a shame to take up the time of such a content powerhouse with admin chores... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
37.  ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
38. (edit conflict × 2) Support: Another candidate in pillar 1! After another look, I'd say they're in pillar 2, which is still great. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
39. Strong support. Highly qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
40. Support Should have been an admin long back. Brilliant credentials. Lourdes 16:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
41. Support. Eric Corbett 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
42. Support without reservations. Katie^talk 16:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
43. Support. Easily qualified. DrKay (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
44. Support with enthusiasm. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
45. Support because I would like featured article authors to have an easier time out here. Mihirpmehta (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
46. Support. I can imagine few better candidates. As to the need for the tools argument, main-page errors is one place that requires thoughtful & meticulous admin attention round the clock. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
47. Support. A calm, sensible editor, with an excellent track record of content creation. Should make a good admin, with a solid understanding of how quality articles are created in practice. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
48. Support. Not a difficult decision to arrive at. Irondome (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
49. —Kusma (t·c) 17:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
50. Support No reason to believe they would misuse the tools or position.--MONGO 17:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
51. Support. Highly experienced and dedicated editor. Intelligent and capable with an understanding of Wikipedia norms and policies. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
52. Support - long overdue. Highly valued, long-term editor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
53. Support also with enthusiasm. As Dweller says, "We are desperately short of even-tempered, knowledgable, experienced Wikipedians who give their time unselfishly..." Buster Seven Talk 17:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
54. Support - Excellent candidate, I see no red flags, Easy support. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
55. Support - euax eugeque! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
56. Ayup.—S Marshall T/C 18:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
57. Support - Great experience and temperament. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
58. Support No issues for me. Practical article content creation background is extraordinary. Intothatdarkness 18:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
59. Support It is unfathomable that someone so dedicated and competent should not be given the mop. Mduvekot (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
60. Support. will be fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
61. Support one of the most productive and level-headed editors I've ever met on here. I can't imagine any reason to object, Ealdgyth is one of the best people on this site. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
62. Support I believe we should be giving prolific content creators access to the tools at every turn we can if they've demonstrated themselves to be trustworthy and reliable. Any other criteria is secondary. Mkdw ^talk 18:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
63. Support No obvious red flags, good answers to questions. Deryck C. 18:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
64. Support: for exactly the reasons that Boing! said Zebedee gave. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
65. Support Outstanding candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
66. Support Exemplary wikipedian. We have a backlog in a place she can help. She'd bring great content creation credentials to the admin corps. Her AfD track record is admirable. There's reason to believe giving her the tools will improve our project and none to believe would be detrimental.. David in DC (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
67. Support – Very good experience; will be just fine. United States Man (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
68. Support outstanding contributor who will be just fine with the tools. Bencherlite^Talk 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
69. Support Ideal candidate. Mathsci (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
70. Support – I have noticed many contributions from this editor, all positive. Oculi (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
71. Support - Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
72. Support more than qualified. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
73. Support – This is a fully qualified candidate and the objections in the "Neutral" section are unconvincing. All of our administrators here are volunteers, so there is no reason to require that administrators contribute to areas they have no interest in. (To clarify, there's no harm in asking administrators to give something a shot if they're interested, but if they say no, then that is certainly not a reason to deny them the toolset itself.) The relevant question is this: is Wikipedia improved through granting the candidate the toolset? The answer is yes. Mz7 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
74. Support Qualified candidate. — Music1201 ^talk 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
75. Support I think Ealdgyth will be a fine admin. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
76. Support – Well-qualiified, as pointed out by many people in the ORCP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
77. Support - somewhat surprised, but if you would like, sure and best wishes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
78. Support. Yes please, by all means! I've elaborated in a reply in the neutral section, but short version I warmly welcome any amount of help from someone well-versed and trustworthy! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
79. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
80. Support Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
81. Support. A colleague, SandyGeorgia, once described a similar candidate as "would be a great administrator even if she pooped on a bot". Ealdgyth is an even better candidate, for the same reasons. Risker (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
82. Support - I'm too lazy to explain myself. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
83. Support. Normally, I like to take some time to do some investigating before I comment in an RfA. Frankly, this time I didn't have to. (The concerns about not being oriented towards working on backlogs do not convince me, because any positive work anywhere is a net improvement.) A vastly better Wikipedian than I, and an easy support. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
84. Support - Have fun putting me in the Doghouse in 2017 - Pocketthis (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
85. Support. Whether she would make prolific use of the tools is not really the issue. We don't have a limit on the number of administrators so it's not as if Ealdgyth would be occupying a spot that could be taken by a more prolific admin. What is at issue is that we trust her judgement, so we know that when she does use the tools, it will be for the good of Wikipedia. I have no concerns about Ealdgyth's judgement, and writing so many featured articles will certainly have honed all the skills and experience an admin needs to do their duty. I share Ritchie's awe at Ealdgyth's 50 featured articles; as someone whose tenth is just working its way through FAC, I can very well imagine the challenge of writing about a sprawling subject like the Middle Ages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
86. Support Never brought the no need for the tools reasoning. Easy support given their contributions, experience and history. AIRcorn (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
87. Support Victoriaearle (tk) 21:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
88. Support as a clear net positive with all the content creation and AfD work. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
89. Support – couldn't think of a more qualified or deserving candidate. Describing her content contributions as "outstanding" is an understatement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
90. Support precious "horses and people who made history", who is between TFAs, 28 Dec and Jan 13, the latter in collaboration, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
91. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
92. Support. Very happy to see this. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
93. Support – This is about the most obvious support I can remember giving at any process. A wonderful user who has a level head and will handle the tools well when the need arises. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
94. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Moved back to neutral
95. Support I read through several of the linked Middle Ages talk page archives and came away impressed with Ealdgyth's patience. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
96. Support. One of our finest contributors. Here to help. No qualms about handing this editor a mop. BusterD (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
97. Support. Outstanding experienced content creator, and a very constructive and courteous Wikipedian. Will be a net positive as administrator. GermanJoe (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
98. Support Not much to be said beyond what everyone above has. An excellent editor who should be able to use the tools in a positive manner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
99. Support No question. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
100. Support—per above; highly qualified. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
101. Support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
102. F*****G FINALLY. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
103. Support. Tony (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
104. Support Without question Ealdgyth is highly qualified to be an administrator. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
105. Probably a foregone conclusion, but has seemed clueful when discussing admin-related manners, while still being (primarily) a content editor. --Rschen7754 01:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
106. Pile on Support. One of the more impressive candidates I've seen. Beyond that I can't add much that hasn't already been said above. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
107. Support, I can't give wiser reasoning than Risker has already done! Seriously, Ealdgyth is just the finest, and Wikipedia will be better for her service. Now, as to memory of things past said ... sheesh! Risker, that was 2008, what a memory. Ealdgyth still meets all my criteria. [1] Maybe Moni3 will poop ... errr ... pop in for a wise word, and remind us all why anyone was pooping on bots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
108. Support Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
109. with ease --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
110. Support - no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
111. Support. Why ever not? Double sharp (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
112. Support Why not? -FASTILY 02:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
113. Support per Ritchie. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
114. Support: Great candidate. And we need more women administrators! Drmargi (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
115. Support. Long overdue. -- œ^™ 03:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
116. Absolutely. — foxj 03:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
117. I hope that some day, in the dim, distant, future, that I will come close to emulating your content contributions. Vanamonde (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
118. Support OlEnglish is correct - very long overdue. MarnetteD|Talk 03:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
119. Support I swear I thought you became an admin before I did. Phew. We'll here's my support. Long overdue. → Call me Razr Nation 04:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
120. Support Great candidate - our areas of interest overlap, & I have often worked with her. I just hope it doesn't take her away from content creation too much. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
121. Support: I have hadn't had the pleasure of working closely with Victoria before (I think - I have a terrible memory, though), but have certainly had the pleasure of reading her work before. I have also seen her interactions at FAC and elsewhere for many years and have no concerns about her abusing the tools whatsoever. Thank you for volunteering to help the project once again. Good luck and all the best for 2017. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
122. Support: The answers so far are quite thoughtful and show clue and communication skills. Great temperament and trustworthiness established long ago. It's hard to add anything else that hasn't been noted above. So, especially per Ritchie333, Dweller, Boing! said Zebedee, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Espresso Addict, HJ Mitchell, and AustralianRupert. Donner60 (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
123. Support - Impressed with her contributions, and no reason not to trust her with the tools. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
124. I have no doubt Ealdgyth will make an excellent admin and would happily have co-nominated, but there was a lot of competition for that honour. ϢereSpielChequers 06:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
125. Support wow, all that content creation and she wants to help out with the mop? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
126. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
127. Support. +1 vs WP corpse of hall monitors. And per Spock, "Fascinating." IHTS (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
128. Support. I haven't interacted with this editor that I can remember, but they have responded well to the questions and they have the support of a lot of people I trust on here. I think that they can be trusted with the tools. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
129. Unhesitating support, per HJ Mitchell. She'll surely be as capable, courteous, balanced and methodical as an admin as she is as an editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
130. Support. Very pleased to see this candidacy. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 11:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
131. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
132. Support almost as soon as i discovered this; this candidate completely meets my criteria, the opposes are entirely unconvincing, and "need" for the tools is a questionable rationale to my mind: Giving this candidate more tools can only benefit the community and WP itself. An easy !vote. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
133. Support Ideal candidate. --Folantin (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
134. Support without hesitation. J3Mrs (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
135. Support - per nom.--John Cline (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
136. Support A solid contributor and stable enough for an admin, though always got the impression she doesn't like me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
137. Support. This decision is enough of a no-brainer that even I can get off my butt and show up to support. One of the most qualified possible candidates. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
138. Support, easily. bd2412 T 13:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
139. Support Seems ideal, with no concerns on my part. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
140. Support It's great to have a candidate with such a strong content creation background. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
141. Support -- not sure how I missed this until now, perhaps I saw it and couldn't believe my eyes that such an admirable content creator and source reviewer would want to get her hands dirty with the mop, but perhaps that's a good enough reason in itself to wish her the very best with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
142. Support per BSZ. Crikey, I didn't perceive her comments at ANI as "testy" at all. Best of luck! Patient Zero^talk 14:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
143. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
144. Support. I wish all of our best content creators were as patient and adept in their interactions with new editors and content debates as Edith, who never falls off her horse because she generally steers away from jousts rather than engaging in them. She keeps her "stable language in the stable." Luv it. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
145. Support – Has the experience and the temperament. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
146. Super easy Support Sadads (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
147. Support Excellent, experienced and well-qualified. AD 15:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
148. Support - I was genuinely under the impression that Ealdgyth was already an administrator. She has shown herself time and again to be an incredibly valuable editor and a voice of reason, which makes this a very easy support. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
149. Oppose because the mop will distract her from continuing her record of excellent content creation; content creators shouldn't be administrators. (this is tongue-in-cheek, of course I support this excellent applicant) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

     I realise this is ha ha only serious but I have twice as many GAs under my belt now as when I passed RfA about 18 months ago, so I wouldn't worry too much. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

150. Oppose The opposite of oppose as per the reasons as Ivanvector and literally everyone else; Ealdgyth can be trusted with the tools so she can create more awesome content. epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
151. Ealdgyth is not an admin? That's absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable. Jonathunder (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

     You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

     What Jonathunder probably wants to say is, it's absolutely ludicrous that Ealdgyth is not an admin. (Which it, technically, isn't since she's never had an RFA before, thus providing no previous possibility for her to obtain said tools.) epicgenius (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

152. Per nominations. No concerns on my end, this is long overdue. Connormah (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
153. Conom support (sorry about being late to the party).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
154. Support An established editor with an exemplary record of contributions. Graham Beards (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
155. I join the long and valiant tradition of trusting this user to abuse the tools only in ways that I approve.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
156. Support - CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
157. Seems to be competent enough to use the sysop bit well, and has a specified area of use for it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
158. Support Per Ed, who sums up my feelings on this candidacy nicely. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
159. Support - Has been around with no associated dramahs. A Wehwalt co-nom is a reliable barometer of acceptability as well. Carrite (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
160. Support. Some of these candidates seem almost too good to be true. The answers to the questions are good, and more admin attention to WP:ERRORS can only be a good thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
161. Excellent candidate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
162. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions so far are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
163. Support, I think Ealdgyth's one of the best content creators on Wikipedia. She'll be a great admin.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
164. Support - But of course! GAB^gab 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
165. Support - long track record of good writing, competence, and familiarity with Wikipedia custom. When I've seen her drawn into controversial areas, she's equitable and even-tempered even when asserting a strong viewpoint on a topic. Choess (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
166. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 02:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
167. Support - wow, what an amazing editor! Enough has been said. All the best. Yash! 03:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
168. Support. Ealdgyth is an outstanding writer and a level headed person. She understands the process of creating excellent encyclopedic content far better than most other editors. I am confident that she will make an excellent administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
169. Support. If I had any concerns, the thoughtful answers to the questions, and the support of so many good editors would definitely balance out those. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
170. Support Per my old friend Sadads above. A support from Malleus in an RFA counts for quite a bit too. lNeverCry 08:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
171. Support The amount of work in featured content is impressive. Also seeing no glaring reasons to oppose. South Nashua (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
172. Support: Sometimes a bit highhanded (see below) but a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
173. Support Full confidence she will be a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the mop brigade. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 13:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
174. Support An extremely experienced editor with an impressive history of work. Will definitely be a positive force as an admin. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
175. Support per basically everything above. Sam Walton (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
176. Support Long overdue; will be an excellent admin. Miniapolis 15:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
177. Support Probably perfect - fabulous at content creation and everything else. Why weren't they an admin already? Rcsprinter¹²³ (witter) 16:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
178. Strong Support - No reason to oppose unless jealous of her featured article contribution. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
179. Support - seems very well qualified. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
180. Support, why not? Graham87 17:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
181. Support - Rarely does a more qualified candidate come forward. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
182. Support about time, too - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
183. Support - Wikipedia is lucky to have such contributors. Haukur (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
184. Support: This is one of the easiest !votes I've made. Administrator? Ealdgyth has shown such clue and ability, maybe go direct to bureaucrat.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
185. s Hmmmm....I've always heard that editors who create articles about horses are, well...strange, but to have that many FAs & GAs to their credit...now that is cause for concern...if you don't vote SUPPORT, which I just did but the s didn't expand. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
186. Support. She had me at "That particular [dispute] did, however, teach me that I'm not well suited to hunting out sockpuppets - I just miss them entirely." I can sympathize. Q's are gold. The AfD percentage is unreal but stale. Happy with competence and reserve. Glrx (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
187. Support. I have encountered Ealdgyth occasionally over the years and admire her work and attitude. Excellent choice. - PKM (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
188. Support. Clueful, long-term contributor; unquestionably capable. No concerns at all. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
189. Support. In fact, Strongest possible support. This is one of the best, most experienced editors on wikipedia and someone who has a thorough grasp of the written and the unwritten rules of wikipedia. Ealdgyth began editing about a year after I did and has become one of the stalwarts of several wikiprojects. This is someone who most definitely needs to be granted the mop, I cannot think of anyone more qualified. Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
190. Support Can't find a reason to say no! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
191. Support Of course. --joe decker^talk 23:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
192. Support Ealdgyth was well qualified to become an admin years ago. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
193. Support - This user is too good to become an admin. Great article creation content and very experienced. He also answers questions in a very precise and confident way. NgYShung ^huh? 04:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

     Just FYI, Ealdgyth is female. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

194. Support I challenge anyone to find a more qualified candidate. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 08:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
195. Support - No concerns here. Well, the dragon scared me, but only a little. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 09:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
196. Support – easily qualified and a net positive. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
     to reply to me 16:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
197. Support -- Completely qualified. Glad to see their nomination here. -- Shudde ^talk 16:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
198. Yes - Ealdgyth has demonstrated total commitment to the project. And she once gave me a BarnStar. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
199. Support - Has demonstrated knowledge of relevant policy and likelihood of thoughtfulness and good judgment in difficult situations.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
200. Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
201. Support - I think she has the experience and the trust needed for this role. CLCStudent (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
202. Strong Support - Excellent editor; I have no doubt she will make a great administrator. J947 22:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
203. Strong Support - Excellent editor who is an asset to the community and would make a great administrator. In my 2+ years on Wikipedia, I have not come across a more qualified candidate who was not already an admin. Bringing Middle Ages to FA alone is amazing, and that's far from the only thing Ealdgyth has done in her 9+ year long editing career. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 23:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
204. Support Absolutely...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
205. Support Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
206. Support Great editor; won't misuse the tools. No issues here. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
207. Support Ealdgyth can definitely be trusted to use the tools well. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
208. Strong support A excellent candidate! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
209. Support as Ealdgyth has the right experience, knowledge and temperament to become an administrator, in addition to excellent content creation work. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
210. Very impressive contributions.  Sandstein  14:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
211. Support Will be a useful asset to WP:ERRORS. Spencer^T♦C 15:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
212. Support - Solid content creation background. No concerns.--Catlemur (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
213. Support: clearly committed to improving the encyclopedia, shows sense in her answers above about working with others, and has some sensible intentions about using the tools. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
214. Support - I'm happy to pile on my support for this experienced candidate. - tucoxn\^talk 22:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
215. Support - Very good candidate. VegaDark (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
216. Support. Of course. --Hegvald (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
217. Support per BU Rob13, though having more clue around is always nice. "Pepper" @ 02:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
218. Strong support - For all the obvious reasons. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
219. Oppose, sorry. I appreciate the candidate offering the opportunity to help at WP:ERRORS, which is a critical but sometimes neglected administrative area. But I cannot tolerate split infinitives in edit summaries, and nor should the community. [2] --Mkativerata (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

     Do you think you could actually pay a bit more attention to where you're posting your vote and make sure that it's in the relevant section? Cassianto^Talk 16:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

     I very much enjoyed your joke of criticising me for not taking care while at the same time pinging the wrong editor. Having said that, there is far too much levity at RfA. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

     Keilana, apologies, Mkativerata, whilst I respect your vote, it's posted in the wrong bloody section. There is a "support" and an "oppose" section for a reason; either that, or you're being ironic. Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

     Cassianto: They are. Those are support votes, same as below. Citing split infinitives as a reason to oppose is something of a giveaway. Again, whether one finds that funny is up to one's personal taste -- and it seems to be so far from your own tastes that you are effectively incapable of even detecting it. But it seems that you are getting worked up over what looks like a good-natured joke to this uninvolved observer. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

220. Support - no doubt about it. She'll be freaking amazing. :) Keilana (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
221. Support. No better time for the old cliché: I thought Ealdgyth already was an admin. The candidate has a long history of strong contributions and sound judgment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
222. Support. Tremendous content contributor. Trusted user. No question that this will definitely be a net positive. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
223. Support No issues to note of here. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
224. Support Qualified, heavily engaged in content creation, balanced thinker, sound judgement, involvement in administrative work, WP:TTWOA --JustBerry (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
225. Support particularly for all her great work on Good and Featured content. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
226. Enthusiastic Support my experiences with her have been uniformly delightful.→StaniStani 23:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
227. Support Experienced editor with very impressive credentials, but I'm most impressed with the interactions I see on review. Mature, fair, honest, constructive - just what is needed here. — soupvector (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
228. Support Easily the strongest candidate in a very impressive RfA field.   Aloha27  talk  01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
229. Support Very qualified candidate. Bradv 03:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
230. Support What a brilliant and amazing woman! I don't know how anybody could have a good look at her user page without thinking wow! Any editor capable of all that great work should have no problem becoming one of the best administrators here too. Daphne Lantier 06:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
231. Support No concerns. Gap9551 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
232. Oppose, not enough content creation experience. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

     Are you being serious or is this another monotonously unfunny piece of sarcasm? Cassianto^Talk 16:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

     Cassianto I briefly wondered when I put my !vote just below, but it appears to be rather clear sarcasm. There are other answers along those lines above. As far as the tools are concerned it seems everything at top-level in the list counts for a support -- unlike an AfD, where the bolded contents actually matter, so this does no harm that I can see. (Whether it's actually funny is another matter, but since this looks like a pretty stress- and drama-free RfA... live and let live?). — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

233. Support Again, nice to see outstanding content creation here. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
234. Support. Should be a trusted user, excellent content creation. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
235. Weak support. Not the most convincing demonstration of likely tool use, but I suppose that some activity at WP:ERRORS is better than none. As an aside, I dispute Ritchie333's use of the word "correct" when he states "AfD stats show 95% correct out of over 100 discussions". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
236. Support I see not problems with another mop. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
237. Support - I don't recall ever seeing a better candidate for the tools. The "need" for tools isn't particularly strong but occassional work at WP:ERRORS and WP:DYK is fine for such a stellar candidate. 56 FAs? that's genuinely an amazing contribution to the encyclopaedia. Definitenly support this candidate. Though, Ealdgyth, I'd point to Gwyneth as a "th" ending name that is obviously feminine, though I didn't know about the vowels thing. Makes me think of the Roman era; Julia vs Julius, Claudia vs Claudius, Antonia vs Antonius. Many "ius" names for men and "ia" names for women. Though a rare example of a male name ending in a vowel would be the nicknames of emperors Caligula (little boots) and Caracalla (a gallic cloak). The Greeks were not so dissimilar with womens names ending in vowels like Hypatia and male names ending in "vowel s" such as Seleucus and Hippocrates. Wonder about the Egyptian... damn it, now I have to go find out. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
238. Support Can't believe I've never heard of this editor. Looking at her significant contributions on her truth-telling userpage has really left me gobsmacked. Minima© (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
239. Support. I am satisfied with Ealdgyth's responses to my questions. There is no doubt that she has incredible and virtually unrivaled experience in content creation, which is something I admire and respect greatly. I seem to recall that we did have a somewhat spirited disagreement a few months ago over a policy issue (from which I simply withdrew to avoid escalation), but I agreed to disagree, and based on her response to my follow-up, I now understand that she was going through an enormously difficult and stressful time. On the whole, all the interactions I can recall have been quite positive, and I am confident that Ealdgyth will be a clueful, competent admin who will know where and where not to get involved. Biblio (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
240. Support Possibly the best candidate I've ever seen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
241. Support I am glad there is room for one more thumbs-up! And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
242. Weak Support Somewhat satisfies my simple criteria for RfAs: a) Solid net positive, as evidenced by work in content creation, b) Weak need for the tools, but I do believe there is good work to be done, particularly in WP:ERRORS, c) Demonstrated kindness. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
243. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 03:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
244. Support Excellent candidate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC))
245. Support even though there are some areas admins normally get involved in that are left alone by our candidate. She has explained what she wants to do with the tools, so lack of deleted content is no issue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
246. Stephen 08:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
247. Support without reservation. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
248. Weakish support solely because the pro case is not overly strong. I don't see any convincing reasons to say "no", though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
249. Support - I don't normally pile on supports where the result is obvious, but nearly 250 supports with no opposes must be a record and I want to get my name on it! Optimist on the run (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
250. 250- --Stemoc 13:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - The editor has great content creation skills, however has not demonstrated a need for the tools. She has indicated she would do some work with WP:RFPP, however I would be concerned at this point as she hasn't done anything there and therefore it is difficult to judge her understanding the protection policy. She has a low level of participation at anything in the "Wikipedia" namespace as of recently (her last surge of participation in that namespace was in January of 2015). In terms of her activity level, it seems rather sporadic with less than 500 edits per month since May of 2016. If she increases her participation in vandal fighting and wikipedia namespaces, I could support in a few months. -- Dane ^talk 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

RFPP is not rocket science. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor ... however has not demonstrated a need for the tools. The editor has clearly expressed an interest in fixing errors on the main page (indeed, yesterday they suggested putting Charles I of England in the On This Day area as there was a lack of catchy and verifiable content queued up), so this assertion is factually incorrect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I must agree with Ritchie333 - the user has expressed a clear interest to deal with content matters which require access to the administrator toolset, such as editing through protection to resolve issues on the Main Page. Comments about supporting if they do some vandal 'fighting' or waste time editing in the Wikipedia namespace is simply insulting, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not build up edit counts in subsidiary namespaces and playing vandal 'fighters'. Nick (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that we (obviously) are here to build an encyclopedia, I also would argue that if you're trying to become an administrator for a greater toolset access, you should be at least contributing to namespaces where i'd expect Administrators to monitor. This specific RfA mentions a desire to work in WP:RFPP, however exhibits absolutely no nominations for page protection to judge the candidate on. As for the desire to work on the main page, I can respect that and did not catch that request in my review of the candidate - but it is not enough to sway my vote to give the tools. -- Dane ^talk 11:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Folks, I appreciate the desire to discuss and understand, I think we all need to let Dane have his opinion, one which I respect. I thank him for his comments and respect the fact that he shared it and is willing to back it up with reasoning. That's the true spirit of editing here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have struck the section regarding the concern with need of the tools as I reviewed this further in depth. I also withdraw this oppose and will move to the Neutral section - I have manually reviewed over 300 additional edits by this user and although I maintain reservations regarding activity level and participation at WP:RFPP, I can no longer maintain a position of Oppose on this RfA based solely on those two things. -- Dane ^talk 19:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

oppose with no notice, this editor has just reverted 20 or so of my edits, not because there was anything wrong with them as such, but because I mistakenly used an incorrect edit summary. Such high-handedness is NOT what is needed for administrators. Did s/he just start tracking my work here? Hmains (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmains, please see AWB Rule #4. Changing [[circa|c.]] to c. qualifies as a violation of that rule. You were changing this on a lot of articles Ealdgyth would logically be watching (if not editing). Please stop making these edits. Risker (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I can make all the changes manually if that is what it takes, but the fact is that the appearance of the article is changed and MOS is being violated by Ealdgyth's edits. I just left this message on his talk page: "*You also seem to changing your articles in a manner not prescribed by the MOS MOS:CIRCA that calls for use of c. or the {{circa}} template, never this [[circa|c.]] which I have never seen anywhere else in WP except now in your articles." Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Taking this to your talk page. Risker (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for our discussion and your reasonable explanation, which I accept, of the value of this editor's edits. Sorry to be of bother here. Instead of editing, I should be nursing my cold. Hmains (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hmains: Does that mean you are withdrawing your Oppose? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have no objection at all. She must be a perfectly fine editor and admin to be. If I could just delete my comments here, I would do so, but probably not allowed, right? Hmains (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You can withdraw your !vote by striking the oppose at the beginning of your comment. —MartinZ02 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

BOLDLY striking this !vote per Hmains' express statement above. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 13:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you everyone Hmains (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"I just left this message on his talk page [emphasis added]"—she's a woman, just so you know. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I get this all the time - it's the "th" ending on the username - culturally we're conditioned to think of women's names as ending in vowels most often, so my username confuses people. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I still find it weird—the word she appears forty times in this page, the word her appears thirty‐eight times. —MartinZ02 (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral (leaning support). Obviously I am in the minority here. Although Ealdgyth's content creation is massively impressive, I am inclined to sit out this one and !vote neutral for now, since I didn't think giving her the tools would help clear any significant backlogs. She looks like a terrific editor and a good content creator, so this should be a no-brainer, but given the circumstances, I need to think about it a little before definitely supporting. epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC) moved to support epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As a general comment, when one is undecided on an RfA, often a better course is simply to wait before casting one's !vote, rather than posting "neutral for now, still thinking" comments, because these tend to clutter up the page a bit. In any event, please be assured: your instinct that this RfA "should be a no-brainer" to support was indeed the correct reaction, and I hope you'll act on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the advice. I still have to think about it, though. epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As you are entitled to do, without badgering from some supporters. Take your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

#Neutral leaning support. As Epicgenius said, I don't actually think that she'll do much as an admin. There's no point in supporting an admin who won't do anything, I'd like confirmation that she will work on more traditional admin things, like fighting vandals, deletion and such (WikiGnome work), before I agree to support. (I know that I could just wait and not have a neutral !vote, but I'd like other people's opinions on the matter) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Moved to supportThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Moved to support again

My perspective: When I was nominated at RFA in 2009 I thought I would work on WP:CP and WP:NFCR (which doesn't even exist any more) and didn't end up doing much of either. I knew the tools would be useful and took my best guess at where I'd end up helping. My point is that many admin candidates can't know where they will use the tools until they get more experience; I bet if you did an audit of where candidates said they'd use the tools and where they actually did, you'd find a lot of disparity. Is it OK to hire a janitor just knowing they want to help keep the place clean, or do they have to say they really want to get to scrubbing that graffiti on the second floor of Building B? --Laser brain (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I described something last month as "the stupidest comment I've ever seen at RFA", I wasn't expecting that record to be broken quite so soon. What exactly do you think admins do? Vandalism-reverting is a tiny part of Wikipedia—most active admins can easily go for months without blocking a vandal. ‑ Iridescent 19:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Question worth engaging, IMO, since it comes up so much. My thing--and I'd wager there must already be an essay to this effect somewhere!--is that to some extent admin time, like money, is fungible. If someone trustworthy and competent is willing to take the tools and pitch in a bit of work in really any corner of the admin portfolio, that frees up other admins to take on other more specialized tasks or backlogs they'd tackle if only they had the time. As long as we don't have to worry the tools will be used to ill effect, any amount of help is welcome, to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NONEED is helpful. Kablammo (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that editors who are primarily content creators should become admins. We need people to do the maintenance work, as you don't need to be an admin to create content. I'm not opposing as I don't think Ealdgyth would be a bad admin, and I hardly ever oppose RfA's, but she doesn't really have a need for the tools, and mainly writes content, as Dane said. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, if this RfA was close, I'd support, as we still need admins. But as it's likely to pass, I'll go neutral. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The guideline I cited above says in part:

. . . a contributor who uses the administrators' tools once a month still benefits the community. If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose.

It is not up to any of us to dictate how volunteers spend their time. We should be happy that a seasoned, collegial, and competent editor is willing to be an administrator. The "no need for the tools" argument is rightly discredited. Kablammo (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kablammo: convincing argument. I'll move back to support. (I'm very indecisive, yes).ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Neutral - Please see my comments in the Oppose section which I have withdrawn the oppose vote for upon further review. -- Dane ^talk 19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Neutral: Generally seems like a net positive, but has supported WP:SSF arguments against our style guidelines. An editor who thinks guidelines or other site-wide consensus should be ignored for the sake of writing like specialist sources would for specialists, instead of writing like an encyclopedia should for a general audience, could cause a lot of drama as an admin. It's a bit like being a cop who decides that federal and municipal law applies, but to hell with state or county law; or being kind to dogs, except long-haired ones; or insert some other analogy here. Either someone is on board with how WP:POLICY functions and why, or they are not. That said, the editor seems smart and committed to the project; I can just hope for clear separation of admin activities from WP:INVOLVED topical areas like whether our guideline on something says what the candidate wants it to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• As best I can tell from this information, this RfA has gained the 5th–highest number of supports ever. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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