Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DatGuy

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

DatGuy

Final (158/16/8); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

WP:AIV/TB2 are familiar with
. I've created a few articles and helped promote other (mostly Olympics related) articles to GA. You may have seen me around on some seemingly random places, from AIV to ITN to EFN, as I generally prefer to contribute wherever I can rather than place myself in one specific spot.

One thing I'm sure people will be concerned about is my inconsistent activity, or lack thereof. To be 100% truthful, I don't think I'd ever get back to 3000 edits per month that I used to do, but in my opinion my edits now are of higher encyclopaedic quality and contribute more overall. I would also like to mention that when my activity levels were lower, I still mostly responded to anyone who looked for me on my talk page or pinged me.

Thank you for your consideration and I'm looking forward to hearing the community's input. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: The main reason would be to help ease the backlog for the usual admins who spend a lot of time on
WP:ITN
. Despite not having participated in many AfDs or CSDs recently, I would make sure I know the policies well and eventually help with those queues as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Content-wise, I enjoy looking at the before and after of the articles I've helped promote to GA. Some of them already had decent quality and just needed better referencing or a little push, but the entire research process of articles such as Spyridon Louis's before and after and knowing that I contributed is a great feeling. Aside from that, I'm sure the tasks my bot does has saved many hours of manual editing that is then spent on contributing to Wikipedia in different ways.
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 elephant in the room is probably
WP:BRD
, with the D being especially important!
I realise my answers are shorter than most RfA answers, but feel free to ask any follow-up questions and I'll respond to them.

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.

Optional question from Clovermoss
4. I'm not that great with technical stuff (so I'd appreciate if you kept that in mind in a reply to this question so I can understand what you're talking about) but since you seem to be interested in technical areas, I was wondering if you have any plans to eventually being an interface adminstrator since you need to be an admin to be one? Clovermoss (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: I don't think IA is a very frequently used permission on enwiki, and it seems xaosflux and the others have the noticeboard under control. If there is a sudden reason for more interface administrators, I'd be willing to help out, but it seems that right now at least there's no need for additional ones.
Thanks for answering my question. Since only 12 people have it, I'd agree it's not a very frequently used permission. I just had a vague recollection that someone who runs a bot has it and you have experience running bots, so I was curious if this was something you had in mind. Clovermoss (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Deepfriedokra
5. Thanks for running. When might you block a user who has not received a full set of warnings?
A. When a user
unflinchingly persists with their disruptive editing after it has been communicated to them their activity is unacceptable
.
Optional question from Red-tailed hawk
6. To what extent do you plan to be an active contributor to Wikipedia's article content over the upcoming year? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: Regarding good articles, I'm hoping to complete Austria at the 2016 Summer Olympics soon which I've been working on since 2017. After that, Butterworth Squadron and Seven (1995 film) seem like they need a little push to be good articles too. As for article creation and general editing, I don't have a particular topic that I stick to - usually, I see something interesting while browsing, go to its Wikipedia article, and if I see any possible improvements I try and make them.
Optional question from Giraffer
7. Thanks for running. Overall, would you say that your fluctuating activity levels have affected how in-touch you are with the community? Or are the two not correlated? Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: Depends on how deep you consider in-touch to be, but I wouldn't say so. Wikipedia's five pillars have existed since 2005 and have mostly stayed the same. I do however usually see on my watchlist the administrators' newsletter, which contains the smaller changes that I should know about in the 'Guideline and policy news' section. If you're asking about the more personal side with ArbCom cases, ANI epics, and WMFOffice blocks, If I'm uninvolved I usually take a seat but the gist of it always somehow makes its way to me.
Optional question from Mccapra
8. Hi I notice there’s a whole slew of accounts with very similar names to you - DatGuy0309, DatGuy1011, DatGuy110, DatGuy1576 and half a dozen others. Do you have any connection with any of these accounts?
A: No, totally unrelated. I suppose I just have a desired username.
Optional question from TartarTorte
9. (Sorry for the specificity of the question) With the recent changes in
WP:BEFORE might not have been properly followed? TartarTorte 19:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
A: I myself may have created some articles that only fit the previous presumed notability criteria. To be honest, I'm unsure if the change applies retroactively (which I see now was also a question on one of the RfCs) and would right now probably defer it, but I'd assume so. To answer your question: if that is the point made by the delete !voters and no proper reasons have been found by anyone (including me) to keep the article, then I would indeed close the AfD and delete the article.
Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
10 As required to disclose did not see it in your statement have you ever edited for pay?
A: No.
Optional question from Apaugasma
11. There appears to be some concern over the pattern of you editing for a few months and then remaining off-wiki for a few months. How will you make sure to be accountable for any admin actions you might take, as required by
WP:ADMINACCT
?
A: I definitely understand the concerns, but I will never shy away from explaining any actions I take, be it admin actions or normal edits, and I will never totally disappear from Wikipedia. In the months I wasn't actively editing, whenever someone edited my talk page or pinged me with a legitimate query, they never had to wait more than a few days for a response, as can be seen in my talk page archives.
Optional question from Wugapodes
12. An editor requests page protection. You review the edit history and see 50 edits going back 4 years. Those edits are mostly back-and-forth reverts between dynamic IPs (v6 and v4), redlinked usernames, and some names you recognize as recent change watchers, but there are some helpful IPs who improve the page every few weeks. The disruptive editing occurs in clusters, and an RC watcher or helpful IP usually reverts the disruption within a minute or so, though on a few occasions the disruption has lasted for up to an hour.
My question: in this situation, whats action would you take, and why? Feel free to ask me for more details if it will help you, but I'm mostly interested in how you would approach the report and weigh trade-offs when acting on a request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: To me, the question when protecting pages is the tradeoff between the time saved and the possible impact on the content. Is the page worth protecting, discouraging non-confirmed users from editing (unless through an edit request or PC protection, but still discouraging), worth it to save on the time used reverting the vandalism? In the example case, I wouldn't say so. The article has a good thing going, it's being improved. Considering the page has existed for four years and the rare vandalism doesn't stay long, I don't find it a good idea to protect a page because of vandalism that's existed for 0.00005% of the article's lifespan. There can never be enough people looking to improve articles, and the tradeoff of possible lost improvements isn't worth the protection to prevent rare briefly lasting vandalism. What action would I take? I'd add the page to my watchlist and make sure it stays clean, but I wouldn't protect it.
Optional follow-up question from Goldsztajn
12.a You have my support, but wanted to examine this a little further. Same general scenario, but the article is a BLP and the inserted material relates to an ongoing criminal matter before a court. Would you respond differently? --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: While unfortunate, the volume and frequency of the vandalism in relation to the article's lifespan and the constructive edits is still not enough to protect the article. If any of the edits are flagrant violations of the BLP policy, they can be revdelled under
WP:RD2
.
Optional question from The Most Comfortable Chair
13. In light of opposition based on your activity-levels, I wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about how you are able to stay in touch with important developments or be aware of policy changes, despite of low activity-levels: Can you talk about an instance where your response or your involvement — in main space or discussions — showed sentient understanding of policies that relate to administrative work or otherwise? In other words, an instance where you demonstrated a firm grasp of our contemporary policies (or policy changes) that one wouldn't generally expect from an editor with such low activity levels (like yours truly).
A: This really isn't the greatest answer, but I couldn't find a solid real world example. But that's not to say that policy/guideline/consensus changes slip by me. I do see deprecations of
website
. To my knowledge, I have not made an edit that was problematic due to me being behind on policy changes.
Optional question from Dr vulpes
14. There are a lot of great communities here that work hard to keep wikipedia running for example Articles for Creation and the New Page Patrol. We've seen a really large page backlog with these groups, for example AfC has a 4+ month delay and NPP is nearing 9,700 articles that need patrolling. Do you have any ideas or experiences on how to bring these numbers down? There's no wrong answer to this and I'm not looking for some concrete plan of action or anything just your thoughts. Thank you for your time and good luck with your RfA! Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 01:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: Unfortunately, the only good way to have a stable, lower backlog is to have more volunteers participate. Slightly easing the requirements for new page reviewer may be useful, but it's a very fine line to toe to ensure the quality of the wiki doesn't fall due to misguided reviews. Backlog drives are also always useful, and the previous AfC one in July cleared the backlog in its entirety.
Optional question from VersaceSpace
15. I'd like to preface this question by saying I've already given you my support. However, some have expressed concern about you editing on-and-off. Would passing this
request for adminship push you to edit more consistently? —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
A: I would indeed like to put the zero-edit months in the rear-view mirror. However, as I mentioned in my nomination statement and, I don't think I'll ever get back to 3000 edits per month, but my belief is that my edits now are of higher value than my 3000 in 2016. I won't lie to you and say I will have a constant 500 edits from now until 2030, sometimes things get in the way, but as in my answer to Q11, I have been and will always be available to questions or concerns.
Optional questions from Ixtal
16. Would you be open to recall? If so, under what conditions?
A: Same conditions mentioned in User:Floquenbeam/Recall
17. What systems do you have in place to ensure you are accountable for your actions if you happen not to open Wikipedia that week?
A: I haven't been totally unavailable onwiki often, but I of course recommend any uninvolved administrator to undo any actions I take if they feel my actions are misplaced. In addition, if I'm not reachable onwiki they can always email me.
Optional questions from VickKiang
18. (Apologies that this is similar to Q11, and is too specific.) I've seen that you haven't been too involved in AfDs and PRODs, but you said that [despite] not having participated in many AfDs or CSDs recently, I would make sure I know the policies well and eventually help with those queues as well. IMHO, considering the recent changes on
WP:SNG for geographic features, I would like to ask you to comment on what are your views on those, and how would that change your closures at AfD are related topics? Many thanks for running this RfA, I'd be very happy to support after the answer! VickKiang (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
A: No worries. The big question is should certain topics having inherent notability improve the quality of Wikipedia, and I think it may help but with a very narrow scope. Rather, I think it should be used more as a sort of BEFORE helper to let editors know which subjects would most likely pass GNG. What may seem to be a insignificant one-line stub of a small village (or train station) with no potential for expansion might in reality be a storied town that has significant coverage in foreign language sources. My closures at AfD would always take into account the current notability policy and the arguments presented.
Follow-up question from VickKiang
18.2. Thanks for your reply, it's definitely well-written! I am interested in a further question- you raised the notability of train stations through [what] may seem to be a insignificant one-line stub of a small village (or train station) with no potential for expansion might in reality be a storied town that has significant coverage in foreign language sources, could you please comment your views on the updates to
WP:SNG regarding train stations? Many thanks for your help again! VickKiang (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
A: I'm not too familiar with train station articles, but going through
permastubs
.
Optional questions from North8000
19.I already expressed my support. In your shoes I would also not want to make a specific activity level committment, and you saying only to commit to a low number of one edit a month but not to an astronomical number of 3,000 per month is sort of in line with that. But how about this? Could commit to watching for a week after any administrative action and being significantly active (with the interpretation of "significantl;y active" being up to you) during most months? North8000 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: What I'm committing to is to be available to be reached for comment on any action I take.
Optional question from Barkeep49
20. How would you decide that your activity was insufficient to keep the administrator toolset? Would you use the minimums decided on by the community (100 edits over 5 years plus at least an edit or admin action in the last 12 months) or would you use some other criteria (perhaps even qualativative rather than quantative ones)? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: For me, I consider the community decided minimum to be the barest of bare minimums. I reckon if it gets to a point where the community feels me having the bit has minimal, unnoticable positive impact on the wiki, I welcome a recall discussion to prevent my account being compromised if nothing else. (And yes, I will enable 2FA).

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support DatGuy has been a long term editor and very helpful in technical areas and I have no doubt about their ability to be a good admin. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support LGTM. --Victor Trevor (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - operating a bot running many important tasks shows a readiness for adminship. I thought DatGuy was already an administrator. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 17:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, long history of productive contributions, with a very useful long-term bot. The silly block was a very long time ago and the issues are clearly in the past. ~ mazca talk 17:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongest possible support — I've known DatGuy for quite a while now, and they've been on
    outweigh a touch of inactivity — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Support per above Andre🚐 17:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per above. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 17:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support LGTM -- lomrjyo talk 17:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Seen them around. per other supporters. The inactivity did give me pause, but I've had worse. Sometime life gets in the way.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I understand and appreciate and respect the opposer's and their concerns about attendance, I should point out that mine from 2007 to 2017 was no better and perhaps worse. I should also point out that their extrapolations are at times on a slippery slope. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support Not somebody I'm especially familiar with, so I had to a little bit of digging. Alongside clear demonstrated understanding of policy and the technical chops to go with it, I find solid content creation, such as the GAs Edwin Flack and Didier Drogba, and more recently creating new articles such as Not For Broadcast. Most importantly, I'd forgotten that in 2019, I asked him to run for adminship, and he sent me an off-wiki request to do a deep dive that April which I never followed up on. So this RfA is about three years later than it could have been, which makes this an easy support. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support moving to support after reconsidering. While recent activity levels are low, their work in the past has been good, and as TheresNoTime points out, they are still a net positive. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 18:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per DatGuy. I'd happily have nominated and I've spoken to a couple of dozen other administrators, functionaries and stewards since this RfA went live who would equally have been happy to nominate. I do think we should have more self-nominations, they're prima facie evidence of a genuine deep-seated commitment to the community. Nick (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick: I hate to say it, but I think only wiki-seniors like us would get that reference these days. 😏 Kurtis (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support
    talk) 18:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. I have always respected self-nominations over being nominated by someone else, and especially over the "pretend nominations". I am familiar with DatGuy's work, and I have no reservations while supporting them. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I've been familiar with DatGuy for a long while, and would trust him to use the tools, and otherwise act, responsibly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good answers to the questions and editor seems to have a fair amount of good work. TartarTorte 19:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support low activity levels are unusual but I don’t have any concerns about them. Mccapra (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Top bloke. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 20:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per TNT. We need more admins, and I'll take inconsistent assistance over none at all. Thanks for stepping up! -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Sporadic activity is not my main concern. They addressed this transparently and plenty of admins are inactive here/there. As long as I can rely on them to refresh their knowledge of relevant policies, and to learn, I trust them. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support While a highly active admin is better than an inconsistently active admin, passing this RfA does not prevent the passing of an RfA for a more active editor. An inconsistently active editor should still be given access to tools if they can be trusted to use them. I don't think the inconsistency is an issue as long as they're able to respond to people when needed. PhantomTech[talk] 23:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Fully qualified. As we have never used consistent activity as a metric for determining suitability, I find the opposes unconvincing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    Wikipedia:RFAADVICE also mentions activity level, explicitly stating "30,000 edits with only 1,500 edits over the last five years isn't going to demonstrate that there will be much admin activity" (the candidate has had more activity than that, but I think it's fair to say that it's considered untypically low for an RfA candidate). I don't think the opposes are without precedent even if I personally disagree. Clovermoss (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Then it has never been considered a good reason. Many admin, including myself, have extended periods of relative inactivity because we have real lives. I suppose we should be desysopped. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I have no concerns with the activity. They clearly exceed what was overwhelmingly defined to be
    WP:SUPERMARIO effect for my tastes. We need to be OK with imperfect candidates. No civility issues, no content issues, net positive. HouseBlastertalk 00:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  28. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Productive user, and it isn't wrong to self-nominate. NytharT.C 00:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Seems to be a reasonably decent candidate. scope_creepTalk 00:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Suppport a dose of AGF + recommendations above. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I'm of the general opinion that adminship should be no big deal, and this user is clearly a net-positive for the encyclopedia. Unconcerned about inconsistent activity levels - we all contribute when we can. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, largely per Ritchie. Yes, ideally admins would have consistent activity, but we don't have an overabundance of admins, and I think we should extend a very helpful contributor the good faith that he will not abuse his activity pattern to be unaccountable. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Looks like a good candidate whose contributions are overwhelmingly positive. I am unconcerned about the lower activity levels in some months.To the contrary, I'm more wary about someone making hundreds of edits per day than someone who apparently has better things to do than be glued to their devices doing nothing but editing here all day and night.
    Banks Irk (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  35. Support for a clear
    net positive. Miniapolis 02:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  36. Support. On-and-off activity is not a problem. If he's unresponsive to questions, the bit can be removed. It's
    not a big deal. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  37. Support They seem competent and not evil. →StaniStani 03:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I'm willing to support almost everyone who is willing to take up more responsibilities as an admin or 'crat. If someone is keeping tabs on the number of admins, it keeps on going down almost every month. So why not give a candidate who is relatively capable a chance? The 'hit and run' (or inconsistent editing) issue already heating up from the oppose section is not solid enough to deny a candidate a chance to do something right. Volten001 ☎ 03:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support solid candidate and net positive. W42 04:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support; while the candidate's activity is pretty low, the candidate seems from a cursory glance well clued up – and any positive he can bring would be welcome. J947 † edits 04:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Trusted user in identifying and reverting vandalism, also created good articles.
    talk) 04:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  42. Strong Support - I have been familiar with DatGuy's work for quite a while and believe that they would make a good admin. -- Dane talk 04:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I find the opposers' rationales unpersuasive, and as I've pointed out in that section, at least one of them is plainly unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Fastily's oppose gave me a pause, but I find strong agreement in Tavix's, Volten's, Nick's rationale. Administrator numbers are in decline, and a good contributor should be given the tools. A net positive to the project. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 05:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support I have had my eye on DatGuy off and on for some time and have had nothing but positive interactions with him and wish our work on
    WP:TSB? ). --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  46. Support I see no reason to oppose on personality or ability; activity is less important to me than a willingness to help. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support From my experience DatGuy will make a good Admin. We need more Admins and although I hope to see more activity, I think there's enough. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I'm not very familiar with DatGuy, but I put a lot of store in the views of many of the supporters above who are familiar with him. I looked for anything to take issue with, and drew a blank. I did notice the intermittent activity levels, and I recognise the concerns that people in the oppose section have about activity levels, but it's not enough to make me withhold my support: I'd rather have a competent but only intermittently active admin than no admin at all. Good luck with the run. Girth Summit (blether) 08:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Not an editor I know well, but seems to meet my requirements of "not a jerk, has a clue, has created content". I'm not really concerned about the activity levels - we know we need more admins, and if they contribute here and there to clearing the backlogs, that's still a net positive. And I see no evidence that they aren't interested in Wikipedia or don't understand our policies. Also encouraged by the endorsements above by editors I do know. Cheers, and good luck  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I am normally opposed to admins who do not edit frequently, but I do not feel the 'gaps' in DG's recent history are sufficient to cause concern, and they would remain a net positive. GiantSnowman 11:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - others have put it aptly above: we would benefit from a competent and intermittently active admin. I do not see (nor has anyone else seemingly found) that DatGuy has been sufficiently inactive to lose touch with community norms and processes, which is one of the main problems with inactivity. Nor is there any evidence that they are unresponsive to concerns or queries, which is another. firefly ( t · c ) 11:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - "I oppose this user because they self-nominated themselves and don't make thousands of edits per week". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - and kudos for the self-nom!! I see lots of time spent helping to build the encyclopedia, and it's quite apparent they could make good use of the tools. Atsme 💬 📧 12:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I am not concerned with activities. We shouldn't limit adminship to Wikipedia addicts, even though I am probably an addict myself. Using Rust counts as a plus. 0xDeadbeef 13:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support – The answers to the questions above show to me that the candidate is in fact up to date with community norms, that they will make sure to be always available for accountability purposes (and actually have been so while running User:DatBot with its c. 7000 edits per month), and most importantly, that they have the levelheadedness and general clue that is so essential in admins. Combine this with the number of highly trusted users above testifying of their great interactions with them, and you've got a clear win. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I am not at all worried about the inactivity at times.
    talk) 14:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  58. Support - Answers to my questions are satisfactory, and I trust the judgement of multiple editors above as to the candidate's ability in their expected area of admin activity. Minimal concerns remain regarding activity, but I see little to no reason why the candidate can't be given at least a chance. The benefits of giving DG adminship greatly outweigh these concerns in my eyes. Good luck! —
    WP:FINANCE! — Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  59. Support with similar reasoning as per 0xDeadbeef--Jahaza (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support — A lack of high levels of activity is not a lack of understanding of contemporary policies and guideline changes. We assess candidates on how they demonstrate competence and temperament to exercise administrative tools positively — DatGuy has proven his case by diligent answers at this RfA and with his years of work on Wikipedia. — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: Sporadic inactivity shouldn't be a major problem. ToThAc (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support: DatGuy seems to be qualified. A little help is better than no help. Why should sporadic activity be a problem? This is not an award we give to people for dedicating their life to Wikipedia. It's a mop we share with people who are trustworthy and willing to help. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support: I'm unconcerned by the mentions of inactivity; DatGuy's general activity is more than enough. He's a solid candidate who's given good answers. Lkb335 (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I'm not concerned at all by the activity level. DatGuy is a respected, clueful editor and giving him the bit is very likely to be a net positive for en.wiki. Pichpich (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Thrilled to see a self-nom. I have come to rely on summoning DatBot for all of my non-free image uploads, and if DatGuy is half as reliable as DatBot, things will be fine. Experience is good, general activity levels are sufficient. —Kusma (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Trusted editor. Regarding activity amounts, he seems active enough to keep up with community norms. Endwise (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I don't really think that some inactivity in his editing stops them from being an admin. It seems that they edit when they can, which is still a lot more than some people. Also the bot he has made is very useful. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support: the opposers are focusing on stats that ring alarm bells, but these only indicate hypothetical problems and require investigation to see whether they're alarming in context. The
    steelman argument being presented is that because admins are required to be accountable for their actions, and DatGuy's answer to #2 indicates they would be in areas that can be heated and disputed (blocking vandals, protecting pages during edit wars, making contentious and time-sensitive ITN decisions), the sporadic activity is disqualifying. However, as DatGuy says, they are responsive to messages on their talk page at all times, and from a few spotchecks I think they are as responsive as we would expect (much moreso than many admins). If an opposer had a diff of a case where DatGuy failed to be accountable for one of their edits (particularly one with their current advanced permissions—being a high-profile botop, NPP, PCP), I would expect to have seen it. I couldn't find any such diffs.
    I would advise DatGuy to only take particularly time-sensitive actions, such as controversial ITN decisions, when they know they are able to regularly check to respond to any follow-up issues or requests for accountability. Beyond this, we are not in the position of being able to turn away good candidates who come to us able to offer whatever activity they can.
    Moreover, I am generally invested in tackling Wikipedia's systemic biases and one that is not talked about enough is a bias against people with real-world duties or limited time/energy: high-pressure jobs that involve 70 hours of work per week (whether Amazon warehouse worker or nurse), parents of young children, people with caring responsibilities, people with chronic fatigue etc. I do not care which category DatGuy is in, if any—it's not my business unless DatGuy wants it to be—but the attitudes shown by some very respected members of our community in this RfA contribute to this hostile attitude towards volunteers from many sections of society. — Bilorv (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  69. Support per above. Best regards,
    Guestbook 18:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  70. Support – I trust DatGuy to use the mop responsibly, and do not share the opposers' concerns regarding inactivity. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Understands the community, and has much needed experience we need. I'm not concerned with the inactivity, we all have things that come up and some take longer than others. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Level-headed, good (direct) question answers, and a commitment to being reachable if necessary is enough for my support. Content creation is superb as well. Bilorv above puts my thoughts on the inactivity stuff well in their first paragraph; DatGuy has shown himself to be responsive when someone queries him about something. They've also been right at RfPP for the past few years and should be an asset at AIV. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 21:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support@mdash;Insert lame "get DatGuy a mop" pun here. Kurtis (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I gave this some thought, but I
    trust them and I think they'd be a net positive. They've had good answers to questions, their contributions look fine to me, and I think they have a good point about how they're keeping up with policy. Apart from actual changes, a lot of stuff like how you interact with people and general community norms stay the same over time (at least in my experience). Some of the talk pages on my watchlist are subscribed to that newsletter and it often brings up policy-related things that even I (a relatively active editor) was not previously aware of. I think it's a good plan and I think DatGuy's aware of what they're better suited for compared to not. I also agree with the sentiment of Bilorv's comment. We need more people who aren't constantly on Wikipedia, for whatever reason. The more perspectives we have the better. A lot of people are busy with real life issues (I would know, I took a year wikibreak). Clovermoss (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  75. Support You deserve to be an admin for all the hard work you've done, most recently anti-vandalism.
    storm28 22:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  76. Support, per low participation in the Wikipedia talk namespace. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin Am I right in understanding that you support this candidate because they have low participation in Wikipedia talk space or is this a mistake? Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your understanding is correct. I mean that's not the only reason, but it's one I felt worth highlighting since for some reason it's being used as an oppose. Who wants admins who argue about policy all day?? Beyond that, generally per above. Also, for those concerned about ADMINACCT, I'll note that I notified DatGuy of an issue with DatBot on 10 May, at which point he hadn't edited in 13 days; he responded within 48 hours. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Wants a mop, get him a mop. Wikipedia does not take priority over real life. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, because of the strength of the positive attributes, and the weakness of the opposes. The question is not whether someone "needs" the tools, but whether the grant of administrative tools to this person benefits Wikipedia. The answer to that is clear.
    Kablammo (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  79. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  80. .support() Real life gets in the way sometimes, can definitely relate to that. Per Kablammo, as well. Chlod (say hi!) 03:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support No big deal candidate. This user is technically competent and, judging from a brief search of their talk page archives, cordial; these satisfy me, as does the support of this candidacy of users I trust. And so what if they are not super active? They are active now, and if they aren't later they can just be deprived - one hopes temporarily - of the mop like the zillions of other admins losing the mop for inactivity. No big deal. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support I've actually known DatGuy for some time now, and I can certainly say that they are a competent, trustworthy candidate. Happy to support. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, seems cromulent. -- Visviva (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, the perceived level of inactivity should not be an handicap, especially since it is evident that his contributions are in other ways like timely support and new improvements/tasks (if necessary) for his bot. imo, bot operators should be fairly cognizant about the latest policy changes in case their bot tasks are being affected by them. – robertsky (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. I think the only thing that matters is if DatGuy can be trusted not to misuse the tools versus whether they will use them a lot. I trust DatGuy enough where I do not think it will be a problem. –
    ☖ 04:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  86. Support, there's not any major glaring issues, and in a perfect world, the activity levels would be concerning, but he seems qualified, and we need more admins, so I'm not going to pick and choose. Sea Cow (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support He might not be here a lot and I must admit, I also wonder why. But he is operating a bot designed in supporting the admins and this makes me feel he'd be a good addition the the Sysop team.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support: Excellent candidate. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support, should have become an admin years ago. Clear net positive. Taking sporadic breaks and having hobby-real life balance is a good trait to have IMO. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Seems to understand the norms of the wiki, wants to help out, no obvious sign they'd scare away good-faith contributors. That's basically everything one needs in an admin. /Julle (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support generally, with some mild reservations over levels of activity. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Weak Support (moved from Neutral) After thinking it through, I am going to support. My only concern was a lack of activity: But we currently have around 400 semi-active admins, who are still using the tools. Also, recent activity can not be linearily interpolated into the future. And while I maintain my position that a high edit count is highly desirable for an admin (candidate), I no longer believe it as important as the need for tools and the right mindset. And those are fulfilled here. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support trusted bot op. Seems clueful --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support looks fine //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support why not? MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Being a semi active admin myself, I find it hard to oppose. He may well do some good with the tools and does not look likely to do damage. --Salix alba (talk): 11:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I like many of their answers to the questions and being responsive on their talk page (which they have demonstrated in the past) is good enough for me. DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - seems fine Kpddg (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support I see strong supports and supports from editors I trust. While inactivity is something that may be a concern, I don't see this as a dealbreaker as we are in need of more admins and having a semi-active admin who has said they will keep up to speed with policy changes is not an issue. Hopefully DatGuy can increase their on-wiki activity, and if not I trust that they will know to get back up to speed before making admin actions. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Nothing wrong with being inactive once in a while. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  101. DatGuy is a longterm editor who has done a lot of positive work for the encyclopedia and shows the knowledge and temperament we expect of an admin through their past work and their answers to the questions offered here. Edit counts are an imperfect way of measuring commitment to the project and knowledge of what is happening and I think we see why in this candidate. DatGuy has clearly explained how they remain aware of what is going on and their ability to be accountable for their actions. So while I respect those who are opposing him on these grounds, and might do so for other superficially similar candidates, I do not find them compelling in this particular case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Not a jerk, has a clue, and while not highly active, is sufficiently active. As an editor who also edits only sporadically, I recognise that it is indeed possible to keep abreast of the latest happenings in our little nook of the Internet without actually pressing the edit button. DG is also clear about the areas he wants to work in, so...
    why not? W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 16:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  103. Fine by me. — Trey Maturin has spoken 18:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support No concerns. The idea that having only moderate activity levels should disqualify one from administrator status doesn't make sense to me. Wikipedia is a hobby. Ovinus (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support LGTM, Drummingman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - The inconsistent activity level is known as “having a life” and so long as it doesn’t dip below the level where they are basically not being an admin anymore (ie basically the desysop line or a multiple thereof) I have no concerns. The super-high edit counts that some people think are required can be a symptom of burn-out, if someone’s here and doing work on a regular basis they don’t need to be doing it all day every day - people with jobs and families should also be able to be admins. I don’t care if it takes the form of a “traditional” lifestyle or not: admins with a “hinterland” outside Wikipedia are desirable. Self-noms should be encouraged since not enough people are being nominated by existing admins. Appears to have useful work and be supported by editors whose judgement I trust. FOARP (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support A perfect candidate will never exist. A commitment to accountability is more than enough for me when combined with DatGuy's tenure, experience with the inner workings of Wikipedia, and previous rapid responses/ability to be quickly contacted. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support The candidate isn't perfect, but despite the low edit count recently, DatGuy has a vast, varied experience, created multiple GAs, and keeps updated on updated policies, shown from the answer to my follow up question. VickKiang (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support On balance an ideal candidate ... as an AIV admin I appreciate very much the support DatBot provides, and if his entire contribution to Wikipedia were devoted to his bots that would be enough. Ideally an admin would always be active, but some of our most problematic admins have been extremely active, if not overactive. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Sro23 (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. His contributions to the project are more than enough to make up for the low activity.
    talk) 01:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  112. Support. I trust this candidate. ––FormalDude talk 01:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Trustworthy and competent candidate; life happens and not concerned about gaps in editing. SpencerT•C 02:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Established user who I think has the experience for the mop, and life should always be more important than Wikipedia. CLYDEFRANKLIN 02:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Any concerns I may have had about their activity level and policy changes were addressed in their answer to Q7. Since that’s been dealt with, LGTM. HelenDegenerate(💬📖) 03:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  116. The answer to my question shows a good understanding of the spirit of the protection policy and a familiarity with tools like edit requests and PC protection. I would have liked to see (range) blocks discussed as an alternative to the protect/no-action dichotomy, but my scenario didn't make that obvious and the protection policy doesn't get into the weeds on blocking as an alternative to protection. These various options in the toolbox can all be learned through experience, and regardless of that, his answer shows an understanding of the spirit of the policy and basic tools which is really the fundamental aspects to consider. I'm also persuaded by Bilorv's comment which resolves any doubts I had about activity, and---while it's not something I weigh very heavily---I also appreciate that DatGuy chose to self-nominate. All together: no concerns. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. I see no obstacle to mop-equipping this editor. BD2412 T 04:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - No concerns. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - trustworthy candidate, no issues with inactivity. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Seems like an obvious net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 15:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. I see enough well-rounded experience, familiarity, and talk page accountability (regarding the latter, especially for DatBot queries and maintenance) that outweigh possible activity concerns (with which I sympathize). Complex/Rational 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. No red lights means good to me. If we want adminship to be
    WP:NOBIGDEAL, let's keep this way. Presenting adminship as a full-time job only does a disservice to Wikipedia. — kashmīrī TALK 18:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  123. You don't need to make dozens of edits each day (or even each month) to be caught up with policy changes; I don't doubt the candidate's ability to respond to inquiries in a timely manner either. eviolite (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. Decent editor. Decent activity. Likely won't abuse the tools. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, as I'm not particularly persuaded by the activity-related concerns below. However, I trust that DatGuy will move to assauge those concerns, particuarly the ones relating to ADMINACCT, by avoiding administrator actions prior to any potential leaves of absence.
    [majestic titan] 02:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  126. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. Obvious positive contributions, especially in the bot space, indicate a substantial commitment, even with periods of inactivity. We cannot expect any editor, admin or otherwise, to always be available. If they are not and something comes up, another admin or a community discussion can always address any concerns raised in their absence. I do not see any reason to believe that the candidate will misuse the tools, and that is my primary criterion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. Long term, obviously committed editor. Seems to have clue and good temperament. Concerns about periods of inactivity seem excessive: 1) periods of activity are a net positive even if interspersed with lower activity, 2) not spending time running around making edits does not imply being unreachable to discuss previous activity (and candidate has committed to being reachable), 3) as to keeping up with evolving norms, while details do change, our fundamental principles do not; and it is not that hard to catch up on what you've missed and stay out of trouble in the areas you are not up to date. Finally, I do generally have a higher bar for self-noms than non-self-noms. I haven't figured out exactly how much and therefore if DatGuy would meet it, given Ritchie333's support !vote above it is moot.
    Martinp (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  129. Support. My vote in this column is a little reluctant, as I share some of the concerns of others in the Neutral and Oppose sections. However, I love the bot, the GAs prove that DatGuy is not out-of-touch with content editing, and 500+ edits in the past year is more than enough to prove that DatGuy hasn't ditched Wikipedia. After all, staying in the loop requires only reading, not editing, and no-one has provided evidence that responsiveness has been an issue in the past. To object to this record would be hypocritical, and we need more admins! Toadspike (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support I've been thinking this one over for a while, and ultimately I believe DatGuy would be a net positive as an admin. I've noted concerns about activity, but I believe there's sufficient activity and contributions to show DatGuy is ready to be an admin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Low activity isn't a problem per se, and I'm satisfied by the answer to Q11 regarding ADMINACCT. I do hope the candidate moves cautiously in areas where he doesn't have a lot of recent experience (particularly CSD and AFD), but ultimately DatGuy isn't a jerk and has a clue, which is all that really matters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - They'll perform well. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - I see no reason not to support this candidate. If he has to disappear for a while, so what. There are other admins. He will will help the admin work, when he can. --Bduke (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 07:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. We need more of Dat. Jacona (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. (Would have supported sooner, but I'm not always active either...) My experience has been the opposite of Beeblebrox's; DatGuy has always been responsive to questions about his bot. Which, incidentally, I consider a vital part of the AbuseFilter operations. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support EvergreenFir (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Leijurv (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. --Ratekreel (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support -- EN-Jungwon 16:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Candidate seems well qualified and checks most of the boxes on my list of things I tend to look for in an RfA. As for the opposes, while I respect their views, I do not find them persuasive. Taking breaks, even long ones, is not a problem as long as the admin can respond in a timely manner to any concerns raised over their use of the tools. The areas where they have expressed an interest in helping out are not complicated. RfPP and ITN are perennially in need of admin attention. And one does not have to hold a PHD in WP:P&G to be able to identify naked vandalism which is mostly what is handled at AIV. (They even let me work there.) This boils down to... does the candidate have a reasonable track record demonstrating CLUE, a willingness and desire to help, and no really serious red or yellow flags in their past conduct. To my mind the answer is a clear YES. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - Net positive, wherein the concerns regarding activity do not tip the scales against giving them the mop. --Jack Frost (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support per Nick's comments below. GABgab 22:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Per reasons above.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 23:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support I'm late (actually thought I voted), but I wanted to add my support. Equineducklings (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Overall I think this user will have a positive impact. --Danaman5 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support. What I hope to signal the most with this is encouragement to more people on the fence about RfA. We need more admins, and DatGuy's got the content chops and demeanor to clear my bar. I don't love the inactivity, but this year has shown that the community has a clear path to pulling the mop if the activity level tanks or if ADMINACCT is violated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support ~ Valereee's comment dated 21:02, 9 August 2022 is smart and sums up well. In addition, the explanation from the blocking admin of the block and the fact that the candidate has learned (shock ~ someone is flexible enough to change!) makes it clear that this is a good move. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 08:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support there needs to be admins of all kinds and DatGuy is a well qualified long term editor -- Luk talk 08:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support There are some negatives that are outweighed by positives, including a record of operating a bot and an understanding of what the negatives are. It is good to see RFAs starting again and maybe being more civilized. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Belated support. I've seen the candidate around, and I trust him with the tools for the reasons mentioned by many supporters above. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support no big deal and I think having admins of varying activity levels could actually be a positive to the project. Scanning through the questions, contributions of the editor, and such, no objections. Skynxnex (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support—I will acknowledge that the opposes are quite reasonable—they seem to argue that DatGuy has basically made no edits in the course of a year. This prompts concern amongst many editors arguing that he will basically just get the adminship as a moment of glory and then fade out. However, we need to consider that we've lost 52 administrators in the period of just 11 months. If this trend continues, we'll be under 1,000 very soon. They say it's better to have a legacy admin come back for a bit and make a few good administrator arguments than to have no admins and have some editors are obviously qualified and we oppose them because we are not satisfied. Plus, I've seen their bot do a lot of things, from filing reports at AIV, to resizing non-free images. As for block in 2016–that I will disregard as it has been 6 years ago and it shows his willingness to learn (I've also been blocked once, FYI). Content-creation-wise, I feel he understands the nuts and bolts, and that's enough for me. I also commend this editor for self-nominating, which many people do not have the courage to do so. Again, how many more administrators are we going to lose? — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support I recognize the opposition's criticism which notes that this user is regularly away from the wiki. While we do need administrators to be reachable, I do not feel that they need to demonstrate continued and ongoing presence. This user has a solid editing history as a human and also has overseen hundreds of thousands of edits through their bot. I see no problems with their editing history. They have participated in a range of activities which demonstrate sufficient experience and commitment. Their part time contributions are great. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support - DatGuy seems like a clueful, sensible and experienced editor who will make a good admin. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. Experienced editor, whenever I've seen their comments around the wiki they always seem clueful, and good answers to questions. Not at all concerned about occasional inactivity, if anything it demonstrates a healthy attitude to avoiding potential burnout. the wub "?!" 16:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I hate to be that guy, but I'm concerned about the candidate's inconsistent activity levels. According to xtools:ec/en.wikipedia.org/DatGuy#month-counts, DatGuy shows up to make a handful of of edits, only to disappear for months at a time. To be clear, I think DatGuy is a great editor & bot-op and I understand that RL gets in the way, but I'm not convinced these activity levels are compatible with adminship. -FASTILY 21:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, Fastily, I hope this'll feel productive rather than otherwise. To me, the xtools count looks like someone who comes in to be helpful when they have time and energy. That looks like the opposite of those who edit furiously for a year, run RfA, then peter off and quit altogether, coming in once a year to make sure they tick the box to keep the hat. To me this editor looks like they're editing enough to keep up with policy, and they also look like they aren't just hat collecting. JMO, obv. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have an option now - there isn't a couple of dozen candidates coming through RfA each month, such, that we can choose to say "thanks, but no thanks" to great candidates who are less active. If someone is capable, as DatGuy is, then we need to gratefully accept their offer of service. Nick (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the other two commenters. RFA appears to be already nitpicking enough, so I'm willing to support a candidate who has some minor issues on activity. Despite that, I'm also considering
    talk) 00:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Oppose: I've been thinking about this for some hours now. I was considering neutral, but decided on oppose. I did look at the areas where DatGuy wants to work (AIV,RFPP). There hasn't been much activity in those areas this year, but what activity there is were correct. That's a plus. I don't doubt DatGuy's intentions. I do see a lack of participation in the Wikipedia talk namespace [2], with 50 edits in that name space taking us all the way back to 2016. This concerns me, as activity in such areas shows an understanding of the role of an administrator and a knowledge base that is keeping up with the times. We have recently seen some administrators lose their bit because they were using there admin tools in ways that were no longer in keeping with community standards. This had me neutral, leaning oppose. Fastily's comment brought to light another concern; administrators don't have the luxury of taking an admin action and then disappearing. Administrators are
    required to be accountable. It wouldn't do for DatGuy to take an administrator action and then unexpectedly leave for weeks at a time. A consistency of editing would alleviate such concerns, but I don't see it here. DatGuy, I think your intentions are in the right direction, and I think you're capable of being an administrator, but barring activity levels that can support being accountable and activity levels in Wikipedia talk areas that show a consistency of knowledge in how the project is managed, I just can't support at this time. It would be ill advised for you to use the tools if you get them without increasing your activity levels and being consistently present. Given your track record here, as others have noted in the support section, I think it very likely this RfA will pass. Please, even if only to prevent yourself being embroiled in administrator missteps, be extremely careful in using the tools and absolutely do not use them if you're not going to be around for a few days. Regardless of the outcome here, please keep up the good work! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Oppose The low and infrequent level of editing do not demonstrate to me a need for the tools. The inconsistent editing does not reassure me that this editor will be up to date with current practice and policy or be readily accountable to the community. DatGuy fails the expectation for RfA candidates to generally be active, regular, and long-term Wikipedia editors. I also do not think that it is possible for an editor to have gained the general trust of the community with such intermittent editing activity even with AGF. This is not to disparage this editor or their work at all but there is a high bar with a for-life appointment. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Per low activity in the Wikipedia talk namespace and per Fastily's concern about activity. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Candidate regularly disappears for between 3 and 12 months at a time. He virtually disappeared for an entire year between July 2021 and July 2022, only showing up for regular steady activity again on July 15, 2022, 3.5 weeks before filing this self-nomination. Hmmm. I'm not going to support any admin candidate who has so little interest in Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It strikes me as unfair to the candidate to assume that they have very little interest in Wikipedia based on activity levels; activity != interest in wikipedia. Perhaps real life got in the way for a bit. Perhaps they don't have the "time and energy" to edit all the time (quoting Valereee above). —Danre98(talk^contribs) 01:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    During the year-long period over which the candidate supposedly "virtually disappeared," he had about 250 edits from his main account during the year, plus an additional 6,000 edits from his bot account during just the last month of "disappearance" (June 14-July 14, 2022), at which point I stopped counting. That's during a less-active period of the candidate's tenure, which overall includes more than 31,000 edits from the main account and 775,000 from the bot account. I can't dismiss concerns about DatGuy's varied activity level as entirely frivolous, though I disagree with them, but to describe him as having "little interest in Wikipedia" is unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot edits are irrelevant to the user's personal activity, although I agree the very fact they run a bot proves they have a strong interest in wikipedia.Polyamorph (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. (Moved from Neutral) I'm really sorry that I can't bring myself to support, it's extremely rare that I oppose an RfA of a candidate who has done nothing wrong. However, my concerns are not only the same as
    WP:ADMINACCT which I hadn't thought of mentioning. Taking on the responsibility of adminship means having an impact on areas that need the skill and discretion of the role and being around when required, but already only a fraction of the 1,000+ admins are doing that. The very low and inconsistent editing for 5 years doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools. I'm fully aware that we need more admins, but we need truly active ones, and that's mainly the problem. I'm convinced that this is not hat collecting and that there is a genuine desire to help and if there were 12 consecutive months of solid participation, I would support in a flash. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oppose the user simply isn't around enough to have any need for the tools. I have concerns that their main activity here was 5-6 years ago and hence much of their policy knowledge will be out of date, especially at AFD and CSD which they've expressed interest working in. I think they would be an asset at AIV or RFPP but they should really demonstrate much more recent activity in these areas before re-nominating themselves. Polyamorph (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I oppose this bid for adminship for the following reasons:
    • Wikipedia is
      not compulsory
      , not even for admins. However, I doubt that this user would be constant up to date with our community. I understand that this user edited some pages immediately before this RfA, but I don't think that's enough for me to convince me to see their nomination as more than procedural.
    • I have nothing against self-nominations. However, I don't think this user has perused the rules enough, since they forgot to declare that they never edited for pay. Granted, I can't expect everyone to know every policy out there, but I (and other editors) don't like UPEs, so the user not declaring on their own accord is quite the no-go for me.
    Thank you.
    talk) 09:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Honestly, I can't really see where you're coming from with your second point. Looking at past RfAs, any alternate accounts/paid edits/old accounts disclosures are generally made in the RfA nomination acceptance, e.g. in these recent ones, and by nature of self-nominating this candidate isn't going to use that section. Two (Pbsouthwood and Sro23) of the three most recent successful self-noms also didn't answer the disclosure until prompted by a question, so self-nominated candidates merely forgetting to disclose their activities themselves is not uncommon at all. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 11:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks,
    talk) 13:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You only struck the word oppose,
    NotReallySoroka.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think the bolded text at the end of their reply is their new !vote. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 14:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. "Weak oppose" is my current opinion towards this RfA.
    talk) 14:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Oppose: As far as content creation goes, Drogba is a bit of a stretch.* The amount of work put in comprises [3]: no particularly big edits, no particular reason to suppose they understand the necessity of content creation, especially when 87% of their edits are automated. (*It wasn't their own claim, but they have edited plenty and freely since, in which time the assertion could have been corrected but didn't. Compare the before and after versions). Regardless of how interested the candidate is in Wikipedia, they increasingly appear more as an editor who is interested in bots and others doing their editing for them. Ciao, SN54129 16:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on your last sentence? 0xDeadbeef 16:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ciao is an Italian word meaning bye. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had also noted the 2.3% of content written by DatGuy at the Drogba
    GA, but have you seen the percentages of the content they are responsible for at other GAs, like 62%, 58.8%, 57.8%, 53%, 48.7%, 46.9%, 46.6%? Sure, there are many better content creators on this project, but taken together, these GAs more than prove adequate skill and interest in content creation. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    They are better at it tahn I can hope to be. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Reluctant oppose I like the self nom, and also the "I'm here because I'm willing and suitable to help" type approach. (Rather than "I need the tools" or "I want the tools".) The variable activity and presence levels are some cause for concern reinforced by several asking questions about it. IMHO despite that established concern I see sort of IMHO flippant answers and not really attempting a sincere direct answer. In addition to this not assuaging concerns, for me it is a possible example on their approach to dialogs which are essential to the role. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. If someone is disappearing for many months or a year at a time, then how do we know they're keeping up with policy shifts or updates on what is going on? It's a non-issue if you're an editor, where you can do things whenever, but as an admin you have to be able to adapt as the environment changes. If someone isn't here for long stretches, then how do we know they're up to date? It's the same reason that activity requirements have finally been gaining traction in adminship of late. Regardless of the reason, it comes down to trust, and how can I trust someone that isn't actually around, especially since based on the activity levels throughout the tenure this isn't going to change? Wizardman 22:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, Wizardman, you did follow your own advice here when you resigned in 2019 not for any fault of character, but of activity, but some of your ex-colleagues in the bureaucrat department need to hear this advice much more than a candidate who has been able to respond to talk page comments during periods of low activity (e.g. 1, 2). — Bilorv (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Wikipedia has enough admins. Admins are not the solution, admins are the problem. because I do not believe this user will properly understand my concerns on Wikipedia and whose interests will not align with mine. Note: edited because a people got really butthurt about my opinion not being in the right spot. Please God forgive me! FourPaws (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have voted oppose on three consecutive RfAs now (Shushugah and DanCherek). It seems like you are just trolling at this point. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't share it, "we should not have any more admins" is a position that someone could reasonably take, and could reasonably act upon by voting against all RFAs as they come up. I don't think that qualifies as trolling. -- Visviva (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My first vote was Neutral and it was for a different rationale. Get your facts straight before calling people trolling. FourPaws (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems unfair to oppose someone for this reason. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been indeffed for trolling. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cryptic 22:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Oppose' Personally I don't see a problem with periods of inactivity and it would be very hypocritical of me to oppose on these grounds. What I find alarming, and surprising that the supporters do not find problematic is the lack of experience in the areas that DatGuy plans to work in. As Cryptic's link shows, in the last 2 years, they have made only 32 edits to AIV, ITN and RFPP. More generally, due to the high level of automated edits, they have only made 1,877 manual edits which is shockingly low. There is a big difference between having lots of experience but being inactive for months and never having been active in areas in which they state they want to work in. I also find the comment about CSDs and AFDs in the nom alarming, because the usual standard is that editors need to demonstrate their competency in a wide range of administrative areas before gaining the bit, not just to say that they will make sure they learn the rules when they feel like contributing to those areas. SmartSE (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I just said over at another nomination, in my opinion if you can write quality content you can walk up to AIV with no experience and start blocking vandals. Indeed, I seem to recall I had zero, or next to zero edits to AIV when I passed RfA. It's not really a problem in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I recall, I had about 200 AIV reports for mine. But people all have their own criteria, and what it is is what it is. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. A few years back, I brought up an issue with a bot controlled by the nominee. That discussion is now at
    talk) 02:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This seems like a grudge rather than substantive evidence of misconduct. DatGuy responded to your comments initially—volunteers are expected to give justification for their actions, not to reply to every message when someone disagrees with their actions. There was a proper BRFA here, but I don't see why DatGuy is being held accountable specifically for edit filter 579, as the fact that I can't see it or edit it indicates to me that they can't either. Was this a case of a filter being wrongly tagged as username-related, rather than that no edit filter should ever lead to bot reports at UAA? I've no idea how you wanted DatGuy to help. — Bilorv (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at the discussion from three years ago. Firstly, it's possible that DatGuy missed the ping, secondly Xaosflux appeared to have fixed the issue, and thirdly no message was left on DatGuy's talk page saying this was a problem (there is this notification about
    WP:ADMINACCT levels; as DatGuy was somewhat inactive for a few weeks in June 2019, it's possible by the time he came to the discussion, he thought it was no longer an issue and thought there was no point reigniting the discussion, particularly as Beeblebrox had ended it with "Hopefully that's the end of it." on 16 June, . Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is more of an edit filter issue than a bot issue. The bot simply reports logged actions to UAA. There is
    WP:EFN and perhaps there would be a "fixed it to catch more obvious usernames" or edit filter managers/helpers would "agree that this isn't helpful to be reported to UAA". 0xDeadbeef 15:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. Oppose - Few if any edits to the three administrative areas – AIV, RfPP, ITN – the candidate is seeking to tools for in the past year, even two years, combined. Less than 50 edits across all wikispace in that same period total - omitting the edits to this RfA. That, put simply, mean that you don't need the tools, and that the administrative areas in question will not significantly benefit from you having them. Even presuming en.wiki is desperate for more admins, it certainly isn't in need of more inactive or semi-active ones. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A year ago we determined that "no need for the tools" is a poor reason to oppose. I guess the argument is fine for some now? the administrative areas in question will not significantly benefit from you having them: This is a non-sequitur. Lacking a need for the tools cannot imply that administrative areas do not need a specific admin. Even presuming en.wiki is desperate for more admins, it certainly isn't in need of more inactive or semi-active ones. This sentence does not make any sense. If the community wants more admins, it just wants more admins. There should be a reason for why we would only want very active admins in your argument. 0xDeadbeef 15:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is weak sauce for a response. Neither statement in the 'non-sequitur' sentence is contingent upon the other. They are separate statements joined grammatically by a conjunction. Further, both are derived from the set of facts presented in the preceding sentence. You've butchered it to mean 'x doesn't need the tools, therefore y admin area doesn't need an admin'. That's a nonsense reading you've manufactured. The word 'and' does not mean 'therefore'. You also struggled to derive meaning from the last sentence, even though you quoted the argument for it moments prior: admin areas do not significantly benefit from inactive admins. It was a curious choice to add the word 'very' into that statement, as it is not part of anything I wrote.
    I have no idea where [a] year ago we determined that "no need for the tools" is a poor reason to oppose comes from, but unless 'we' is a policy, it's irrelevant. The views of
    dogs on the internet do not concern, nor interest, me. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    If the community wants more admins, it just wants more admins - This is, of course, bullshit. If admins are wanted, it's because they are needed to fill a role, not just to wear a hat. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFA2021. It was determined by consensus. Other than nit-picking my response, there was no reason for why "y admin area does not benefit from x admin who is (semi-)inactive and inexperienced in y admin area." How is it different from "Wikipedia does not benefit from x user who is (semi-)inactive and inexperienced in editing Wikipedia"? I would also like to know how to interpret your last sentence as not a personal attack. 0xDeadbeef 04:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Only responding because PA has been invoked. I assume you mean the last sentence of the first comment. 'Nobody knows you're a dog on the internet' is a well-known adage. I am using it to make the point that I have no reason to alter my views because somebody or some people whom I don't even know disagree(s) with them. I don't buy the 'no big deal' view espoused by one cohort of editors. Consequently, I pay no mind to their opinion. They are free to reciprocate. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Since extended periods of inactivity are grounds for de-sysoping, why would we give a person who already has a history of a pattern of inactivity the tools in the first place? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether this would sway your opinion, but none of DatGuy's periods of inactivity come close to anything that someone would be desysopped for (defined at
    WP:INACTIVITY). Girth Summit (blether) 08:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Oppose per Hammersoft. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral, I see no real concerns about the candidate's ability to undertake admin tasks, though i'd have preferred to see some more regular commitment to the project as noted by Fastily. With that said, I don't think it's necessarily a reason to oppose the candidacy, as an effective part-timer in a volunteer project is still a net benefit. I don't think our paths have crossed before, which is probably unsurprising given the not-so-significant levels of activity. Kudos for the self-nom though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral'. (edit conflict) I'm really sorry that I can't bring myself to support. Unlike Fastily, I won't oppose, but my concerns are the same. Very low and inconsistent editing for 5 years. This doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools. I'm fully aware that we need more admins, but we need active ones, and that's mainly the problem. I'm convinced that this is not hat collecting and that there is a genuine desire to help and if there were 12 consecutive months of solid participation, I would support in a flash. I claim to be a semi-retired editor and compared to my previous participation, I am, but I'm still more active than the candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I just wanted to comment on Hammersoft's concern about hit-and-run adminning, which to a certain extent, I share. We've had a number of arbcom cases this year where admins got whacked because they were unresponsive to questions. Don't be that guy. I'm fine with a part-time admin, just make sure you're not so out of the loop that questions go unanswered. Make sure you've got email set up (if that's not a requirement for an admin, it should be) and then go into Preferences/Notifications and tick the boxes for "Notify me about these events ... Edit to my user talk page" and "... Mention". So, even if you're away from the wiki for a while, you'll know when somebody is looking for you. And if you're not able to respond in a substantive way right now, at least drop a quick note, "I saw your ping, but I'm sailing around the world right now, I'll get back to you in xxx amount of time". Everybody understands that IRL trumps wiki and sometimes delays are inevitable. It's when you go dark that people get freaked out. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I am concerned by the low editing numbers. Not enough to oppose but sufficiently to not support. 07:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Gusfriend (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral (moved from oppose) I do still have concerns the user simply isn't around enough to have any need for the tools and that their main activity here was 5-6 years ago and hence much of their policy knowledge will be out of date, especially at AFD and CSD which they've expressed interest working in. Nevertheless, I think they would be an asset at AIV or RFPP which is their main stated area of interest and have decided to move to neutral.Polyamorph (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    moved to Support Neutral per Bungle and others. Candidate seems trustworthy enough, but the low activity is a problem imo. Not enough reason to oppose, so a net neutral. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I'm roughly in line with Bungle. They seem competent enough and that they're open to emails would mitigate contacts falling short (that is - no-one has raised diffs indicating communications failures to date. Thus I've no great reason to think they'd do so in the future). A greater concern is that they'd stay in line with PAG changes in their fields of interest. AIV is not the most changeable of areas but some of their other aspects do change. Their edit levels in the last two months would allow for a decent part-time admin being a net-benefit. If they'd carried on for two more months, not the ten more suggested by some, I'd be more willing. 'Crats may consider this is a "leaning towards weak support" Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, while he meets my content creation criteria, I need to look at this deeper based on the opposes and neutral votes. I've decided to abstain. GregJackP Boomer! 04:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It's not quite enough for me to oppose, but I do have concerns about their long gaps in activity and how that might impact on ADMINACCT. I'm not sure that a response time of "a few days" as mentioned by the candidate in Q11 would be acceptable as an admin.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I do prefer this candidate over the environmentally-minded one that is also in the running, but the lower number of edits and the block worry me. Edit wars easy to start and getting into a heated argument can lead to going down a path we'll regret later on (personal experience on other websites). I do encourage them to continue contributing here as low-volume quality contribution is better than tons of fluff; I'm of no fixed opinion otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • A self-nomination! It's been years since there's been one, right? I don't think I've ever seen one. Clovermoss (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anyone concerned about the edit-warring block I issued to DatGuy in 2016, I would note that the following year, I said "I placed the block, primarily to show you that our edit-warring policies apply to you too - and it's done the trick as I think you've improved greatly as an editor since then ... I personally won't hold the block against you. In general, I think a minor EW block from a couple of years ago is excusable as having "a bad day"" [4] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief, y'all. Don't pile on Fastily, please. I liked the way he rebutted my counter argument when he posted.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TBH, I almost opposed, and then remembered my own checkered edit X-tools -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, people have a life outside Wikipedia. And become better admins for it. Sitting in here 24/7 burns you out. Take sabbaticals, people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes people are busy with works so may stop editing for a while, I think it's ok indeed.
    talk) 04:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I recall putting forward a candidate who had large gaps of inactivity over many years. That didn't stop them getting well over 200 supports. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She did have nine months very solid editing before she ran. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a ton of fun. ☺ Valereee (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to second Deepfriedokra. I have asked the candidate a question relevant to some of the opposers' rationales. To anyone thinking of opposing, please consider asking a question of your own. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • tl;dr: Having sporadically active admin is better than not having an admin. All I hope is they dont do anything which requires answer before they take a break. Other than that, I am not sure what other major enogh problem is there to oppose. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the candidate ends up passing, I would strongly urge them to consider changing their username due to the many accounts that begin with "DatGuy-" (see Question 8, above). It will otherwise lead to misunderstandings at some point. —
    WP:FINANCE! 09:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Although, as he was the original one, if anyone should change, it should be one of the imposters(!) I guess if this DatGuy had a suffix then it may be a fairer consideration, though it isn't that ambiguous to be an issue. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a rename will be necessary. There are quite a few editors with similar names, e.g. Dweller and Doug Weller, but generally I would only think someone was the same individual if it was explicitly known that they were. A note on their user page might be helpful but otherwise I think it's fine for DatGuy to remain DatGuy.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly urge the candidate to keep their username. Admins changing their name is confusing. The usernames with extra numbers are easy to tell apart from this one. —Kusma (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand, General Notability renamed after RfA. On the other, in the fullness of time, a deepfriedokra 2 arrived. I put a note on my user page stating the difference. I say, "leave it be." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the inactivity ADMINACCT concern, I had a ca three year hiatus. I had my notifications set to email me if anyone posted to my talk page. So that should suffice on that score. (In the end, it was the email notifications that dragged me back in.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the first person to look sideways at legacy admins who make an edit a year to keep their hat or come back in after a ten-year hiatus and start doing eyerolling stuff. This is not that. This is an editor who doesn't make WP their life but has made ~1500 edits in each of the past few years. I do not understand the objections. WTF, we're worried the editor won't do enough? Like we're overrun with candidates who will do more and only have the budget for one? We should not be requiring from a candidate more editing than is needed to keep up to date with policy. We should be requiring the admin moves they do make be competent. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to this. There is no evidence that DayGuy has even ever been unresponsive to people's concerns even during periods of inactivity, so I'm not seeing the issue here. –
    ☖ 15:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @DatGuy: To maintain a greater feel for adminy thins, you ight want to subscribe to the Admin news letter.Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many hands make light work; qualified candidate i.e. not a jerk, has a clue etc. While understandable, I think concerns over
    WP:ADMINACCT are overstated. No matter how consistently active, anyone of us may go quiet at any time for reasons we do not ourselves anticipate. This has always been the case and our procedures are capable of functioning nonetheless. I think in the long-run Wikipedia is more sustainable for most people in doses anyway. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/DatGuy&oldid=1118942629"