Page extended-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Shushugah 14 19 6 42 Open 18:25, 16 August 2022 6 days, 12 hours no report
DatGuy 86 12 5 88 Open 16:59, 15 August 2022 5 days, 11 hours no report
Current time is 05:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Shushugah 14 19 6 42 Open 18:25, 16 August 2022 6 days, 12 hours no report
DatGuy 86 12 5 88 Open 16:59, 15 August 2022 5 days, 11 hours no report
Current time is 05:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
DanCherek RfA Successful 9 Aug 2022 281 0 2 100
Wugapodes RfB Unsuccessful 16 Jun 2022 136 39 7 78
Lee Vilenski RfB Successful 15 Jun 2022 158 6 2 96

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an account on Wikipedia. However, editing the RfA page is limited to extended confirmed users, so editors without an extended confirmed account may have their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who is. This is due to the community deeming that editors without the requisite experience (500 edits and 30 days of experience) are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll. If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.


To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA, but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters". There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting, or responding to comments, in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[2] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[3] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 05:33:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (14/19/6); Scheduled to end 18:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


Shushugah (talk · contribs) – Inspired by Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DatGuy, I am boldly self-nominating myself, because fundamentally there is a shortage of admins. I intent to focus in areas I am primarily interested in, which like 99.99% of Wikipedia do not require any form of adminship or even registered accounts, namely content creation/collaboration in WP:LABOR, Yiddish periodicals and WP:TEAHOUSE.

I have sporadically edited as an IP address since 2010, and since 2018 edited under this account. I have never edited with any other accounts.

Over the past 4 years, my levels of activity have varied. As we enter our 3rd year of the pandemic, prioritizing consistent activity/mental health is critical. I hope by slowly easing in, I can make it both easier for other admins and reliably sustain my own contributions.

My identity is public (Twitter account is same as my user account). I am a software developer in Berlin and in the context of Wikipedia, my main 'technical' contributions consisted of light weight template/script improvements, however in my opinion, my more meaningful technical contributions have been improving documentation and asking/answering questions in WP:VPT. In a way, the 'slow'/collaborative mode of wiki editing is a fresh break from my professional work; however if useful, I'd be willing to extend my hand in more technical areas.

If there was a pathway for de-bundled/temporary adminship, I think many more people would be willing/able to contribute, however there isn't one yet. I have a clean block-log, despite working in many contentious areas of Wikipedia. It's worth noting here, I'd recuse myself from any administrative areas in WP:PIA and American Politics broadly construed due to my past/current involvement. I am not here for the WP:DRAMA and for that reason have stayed away from WP:ANI. In two cases, I've been due to my WP:COI and or interest/proximity to a topic, dragged, namely Alexa O'Brien (see talk page disclosure) and because of my creation of Apple worker organizations which was heavily edited by User:SquareInARoundHole who was blocked for both sock puppeting and gross undisclosed WP:COI on BLP subjects. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

In the very concrete near future (next 3 months) I imagine being able to assist at WP:TH with responding to WP:REFUND requests, non-controversial technical moves and most importantly, continue contributing to Wikipedia as a content contributor. Those are modest but genuinely what I wish/intend to do. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my proposal. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: The churn rate of admins is growing, which in turn only increases the pressure on new admins. Particularly, the scrutiny candidates face is quite stressful, and I'd like to change that by example. With fewer than 10k edits, and a self nomination, with a light need for the tools, I intend to live the ethos "no big deal".
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My cordial manner at WP:TEAHOUSE has led to other contributors becoming Tea hosts themselves e.g. User:Blaze Wolf. Content wise, I am most proud of Volkswagen worker organization, an article I intend to carry through WP:GA status.
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 most memorable/heated conflict for me was in 2018 while editing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I made a number of bold edits, and was on verge of edit warr'ing. What saved me, was WP:COOLing off, and trusting that whatever content dispute we had, could be resolved later. I found User:Thewolfchild's comments on my talk page quite unwelcoming and I wanted to respond, but cooled off and stayed focused on content. In the end I saw the community intervened.

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 Barkeep49
4 & 5. Listen I would love for RfA to become less stressful and have attempted to run a variety of candidates who push at conventional wisdom in some sort of way in an effort to demonstrate that a wide range of candidates can be successful. So I appreciate your attempt to be the change you want to see. However, for me the whole point of RfA is to see if I can trust the admin. That is the whole ballgame. Your statement and answers to the standard 3 questions don't give me any real idea as to what you will do as an administrator if this is successful. So what would you do as an administrator (vs what you are doing as a candidate)? And what evidence can you give me that you understand English Wikipedia's norms such that your activity as an administrator won't create needless drama/distraction for the community? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
A: @Barkeep49 I empathize here, that a lower edit count gives other editors fewer material to scrutinize. Even users with higher edit count (and seemingly clean block logs) can mislead well intentioned voted in RfA e.g WP:Requests for adminship/Eostrix.
What I do provide with my sparse edit count, is a near 100% edit summary demonstrating my keenness to collaborate with other editors and a track record of friendly candor and collaboration in various WikiProjects, talk pages and the newbie friendly spaces like TH.
My clean block-log despite frequent editing in areas under arbitration enforcement, regular interactions with new users at WP:TH and being the recipient of the WP:PRECIOUS award prove I have good temperament, despite many opportunities for conflict/heated exchanges. I graciously accept feedback (see my OCRP and also recognize when I am in the minority opinion. For example I have argued unsuccessfully for the inherent notability of all diplomatic missions, still I was able to improve a number of the notable diplomatic missions, and find naming conventions for them in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6.
Furthermore, ironically in this case, a more tense RfA process here might give me an opportunity to prove my calm demeanor, focus on policy (and self awareness of my limitations). I will not change my answer regarding the 'need' for tools. My need/usage is marginal at the moment, and if the community thinks that is a deal breaker, so be it. I hold no grudge for a reasonable take. I would much rather however, get my feet wet/explore new areas here, than rush into anything. I do not resent any vote no's, due to low edit count/limited experience. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Red-tailed hawk
6. To what extent do you believe that editors who broadly support the historical actions of repressive government security agencies, such as the Stasi, should be welcome to edit Wikipedia?
A: Red-tailed hawk There are two dimensions to this question, the mindset/conduct of a user, and specifically how should the encyclopedic topic of Stasi be summarized?
Ideally the personal views of any editor is difficult to discern solely from their edit contribution, because the edits themselves are grounded in policy, and an accurate/neutral summary of secondary sources which enables them to achieve consensus and give appropriate due weight to various potentially contradicting/differing sources, without revealing which sources are personally persuasive/reflective of the user's views.
The enwp community has enacted a number of policies to foster this. Whether pro/anti, an accounted named User:StasiHistory is likely violating WP:SPA, WP:ADVOCACY and they probably do not understand the core value of Wikipedia, which is consensus building.
Outside the enwp, the Wikimedia foundation has taken a number of [political] policy positions around freedom of expression, a proposed meta:Universal Code of Conduct which all inadvertently would lead the Wikimedia movement to run afoul in a modern day GDR.
The perception of a user's contributions/neutrality is however not enough. If a user has any conflict of interest, they're strongly encouraged to declare it (mandatory if PAID), and refrain from mainspace edits, even if they think they can neutrally edit a topic.
My personal opinion of the Stasi regime (as an editor living in Berlin too) should be irrelevant. What's relevant is the quality of secondary/reliable sourcing. A consequence of this is what is considered WP:FRINGE can shift. This is also why for medical topics, even more stringent sourcing requirements exist: WP:MEDRS.
A pluricentric (multiple nationalities/contexts) edition of Wikipedia, like enwp and dewp likely incorporate contradicting sourcing, to enrich a user's encyclopedic understanding of a topic. Something Balkan/Croatian Wikipedia, Indonesian Wikipedia/Malay Wikipedia suffer from. Read the interesting conclusions in meta:Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
6.1: Follow-up question from Red-tailed hawk
Suppose that someone publicly identifies as a supporter of the actions of the Stasi on their User page and that they have a userbox that states This user supports the actions of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit in its anti-fascist struggle against the internal enemies of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik. If you were to encounter this in the wild as an administrator, what would be your next steps and why?
A Short answer is probably nothing. The more revealing answer would be for me to explain why. If there was a content violation, I'd open an WP:MfD, the way someone did for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman back in 2009, (similar discussions have surfaced last year as well). Wikipedia in general is consensus driven, not punitive. I do not view editing and specifically adminship as carrying a hammer in search of a nail (nor sickle).
WP:USERPAGES emphasizes that userpages should serve purpose of increasing collaboration around a topic, which a userbox from WP:SOCIALISM would accomplish, a self-aggrandizing userbox arguably fits that collaborative spirit less so. That said, if they haven't made edits in years...who cares what's on their user page? And if they have made recent edits, I might be curious enough to look through them (while avoiding WP:HOUNDing. Given that I expect them to have certain political notions, I might be paying special attention to any kind of WP:POV editing they're making in related areas around communism and or German history. More pragmatically, I think politically polemical userboxes might make it easier to keep track of users who do not understand Wikipedia's purpose, and there are likely more specific conduct related issued to address, before nagging over borderline/pov pushing userboxes. Specific admin considerations, include the optics/appearance of being WP:INVOLVED with a specific user or topic, so I'd generally recuse myself from political matters as an admin anyways, even if there was clear action to take. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from VersaceSpace
7. What do you have to say to editors who may oppose this RfA due to your low edit count in comparison to other candidates? —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
A: VersaceSpace I should have in retrospect addressed low edit-count more proactively, so thank you for the chance. I do not blame anyone who prefers/requires higher edit count in order to make an informed choice. I do think WP:EDITCOUNT is problematic, as it does not transparently reveal time-consuming, but low-edit volume activity like reference verification, research and off-wiki prepared drafts, whereas anti-vandal patrolling can acquire more edits more quickly. Both are immensely valuable to enwp to be clear.
While I think there is a confirmation bias to look solely at how things were done in the past, the summary of Wikipedia:RFA study demonstrates two things. One is that the onboarding of new admins has significantly slowed down, while the need has not necessary decreased. But, more crucially for my RfA here specifically, there's precedence for other successful candidates with less than 10,000 edit counts requesting the mop. Examples include Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon (worth noting they got desysopped after failed disclosure of alternates and failed a second RfA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon 2). I personally resonated/found lot of similarity with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samwalton9. In the Comments section of this RfA, User:Ritchie333 points out Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing. So the situation we have today, is both seemingly more stringent requirements, but also declining numbers. There are other solutions besides relaxing the RfA process, so I respect people who decline my RfA for this reason. My answer to questions 4/5 further contextualize, why despite even low edit count, I would be at worse, a safe/non distracting non-jerk with a modicum of a clue. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Kj cheetham
8. A common question at RfA, what are your thoughts on being open to recall?
A: Personally, I wouldn't want to be holding the mop, let alone editing where I've lost the trust of the community broadly speaking. To be precise regarding the non-binding recall process, I think it's silly. The decent admin/editors will voluntarily recall, while the power hoarders will go back on their commitment to abide by an unenforceable recall. The solution is to either make some standard recall process that admins can voluntarily bind themselves by, or implement time-limited terms so admins can re-opt in, and lastly continue improving the de-sysop process. I personally dislike using individual RfA as a forum to debate these questions as a policy matter, but I do think the question helps reveal the frame of mind of the prospective candidate, so thank you for that opportunity at least.
Optional question from Kj cheetham
9. Which areas have the most significant admin backlogs (i.e. require the admin toolset specifically) which you feel you'd be able to contribute to?
Optional question from VickKiang

10. I am suprised by your fairly light AfD records and the lack of a WP:CSD log. I understand that this is a very common (and easy) question, but should you be a sysop, you said that you would be willing to participate in WP:REFUND, which is linked with CSDs and PRODs. I'd like to ask in what cases would you accept requests to speedy delete pages under G11, A7, and U5; and could you please explain their differences? Many thanks for this RfA! VickKiang (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A: VickKiang I would err on making more CSD/Prod requests as an editor first to familiarize myself with what kind of problematic/prominent content there is and also understand the experience as a user.
  • G11 are articles tagged as unambiguous advertisements. If an article on face of it appears to be spam, I'd first check if there's an older version that is acceptable, even a one line-stub. The spammy history may have to be revdeled. If this is an article that's been deleted several times before under same/similar names, I may apply a salt to prevent automatic creation. If genuinely spammy, I almost never would draftify, nor grant a refund.
  • Something like an A7 is only applicable to 7 topics mentioned. People, bands, corporations, groups, events, websites and animals. Since the topics might be notable, I would do a WP:BEFORE check, and also see if more relevant scope applies, for example all specious are inherently notable, specific types of people like WP:NACADEMIC have exceptions from the standard GNG. I would seek any alternative to speedily deleting under A7, opting instead for draftification, or even AfD to gather more eyes, admin or not.
  • As the prefix U implies, it is related to misuse of User space, while the above scenarios are presumably in mainspace/drafts intended for mainspace. In general, but especially as admins we should be careful not to bite the newbies. In this scenario, say on their User page below their short self-intro, they enclosed a stub/draft of content. Depending how complex/important the edit history is, I would ping their talk page to move the content to a user subpage/draft space or directly move it myself and ping them. Deletion is only a last/necessary resort, so alternate options like WP:BLANKing should be looked into, so that history is preserved if necessary, and older edits aren't lost.
  • G11 is the most malicious/willful misunderstanding of Wikipedia, while the latter two are likely mistakes productive/new editors might make. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Follow-up question from Cryptic
10.1. You list several reasons why you wouldn't accept requests to speedy delete pages under criterion U5. In what cases would you accept such a request? —Cryptic 00:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
A: MediaWiki is awesome software for wide variety of purposes, however Wikipedia, specifically enwp has very specific purposes. So obvious stuff like people using Wikipedia as their online photo album storage (even if freely licensed, that's not what enwp is for). I'll avoid political questions like whether c:Main is a free-hosting solution for ANY freely licensed images/videos. I sometimes observe younger people treating Wikipedia talk pages as social media/gaming platform (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site, which it is not. In all of those situations, would be unambiguous U5. Of course, if a user page contain a smattering of non-encyclopedic raccoon related content (Sign Petition to Feed Them Trash Now!) here/there, I'd be too WP:INVOLVED (and distracted) to delete them, but an admin with more common-sense would be right to delete them. I'd probably also suggest them Fandom, or MediaWiki hosting services to explore their non-encyclopedic hobbies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Follow-up question from VickKiang
10.2. You stated that G11 are articles tagged as unambiguous advertisements, but G11 is the most malicious/willful misunderstanding of Wikipedia, while the latter two are likely mistakes productive/new editors might make. Could you please clarify on the overlap between G11 and U5? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Nosebagbear
11.A number of editors have specifically raised the issue of you accepting GA noms this year and then disappearing, leaving them all requiring someone else to take them on. You can no doubt see why this might cause concerns with admin actions in the offing. What would you say with regard to this?
A: Nosebagbear Most of the opposes are friendly opposes along the lines of "not yet", however this is one of the cases where my judgment, specifically on time-management and accountable availability is sincerely taken up to task. I completed approximately 30 Good Article Reviews in January 2022 period, the vast majority successfully, with 4 remaining dormant (Talk:OpenVMS/GA1, Talk:Adam Naruszewicz/GA1, Talk:Hasan ibn Ali/GA1, and Talk:Guido Imbens/GA1) throughout February-March. During the January period, I picked up some complex GA reviews, for example taking over the abandoned Talk:Palestinian enclaves/GA2 review over a 3 week period.  ::In retrospect, I should have scoped my availability, either by completing fewer GARs, or failing them sooner after the customary period of one or even two weeks. For example Talk:OpenVMS/GA1 was addressed 1 month later after my initial review. When I was back on Wikipedia in April, the first thing I did was thank User:BlueMoonset and User:Jenhawk777 who cleaned up after my mess, and I completed any remaining reviews I could, namely Talk:Adam Naruszewicz/GA1. During the June 2022 GA backlog, I committed and completed a much more humble 5 GARs, in response to my over commitment in Jan/February. This is something I would keep in mind for any sysop activity, which is again why I am making lowkey commitments on what I'd do if entrusted with the mop. I would be extremely cautious of any activity that might require speedy responses from users, and if I do partake in such activity, I'd commit to keeping my talk page updated with a {{Busy}} tag when appropriate, as well as alternate contact info. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was thanked, but the credit for the review still went to Shushuga. I had asked that he remove himself as the reviewer, allowing me replace him since I had already done the work, but he never did. Perhaps this would be a good place to address that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


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

  1. Looks like a good candidate, why not? Rlink2 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  2. no immediate red flags visible, so why not? Adminship is not a big deal anyways. Adminship has a learning curve, and I believe Shushugah would learn the ropes along the way in the area they get involved in. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  3. Some users might oppose due to a low edit count, but again, WP:NOBIGDEAL applies. Clearly a very productive and helpful user. —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  4. Worth a shot Volten001 20:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  5. Calm temperament, which is essential. His articles are nice, tight, and on essential subjects. His low edit count doesn't bother me a bit because they are quality edits.Central and Adams (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  6. Has clue, not a jerk, no big dealTheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  7. Support Strongly support this nomination. Their articles are well done and in my view on important topics. In my experiences with Shushugah they have shown a good positive attitude and would make a great admin. A good example of this was when I nominated one of their articles for deletion and they handled it professionally and politely. Afterwards I wrote them a thank you note on their talk page.

    "I really appreciate the way you handled the Microsoft and Unions article discussion. You handled everything in a professional and kind way and this meant a lot to me as a new page reviewer. For some reason I just didn't think to rename the article which in hindsight is pretty silly of me. You've done a lot of impressive work and I hope to I run across more of your articles in the future."

    Dr vulpes (💬📝) 21:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  8. Support per TNT above. and Dennis Brown in general comments.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    DeepfriedLadyFinger and not me? :-( —usernamekiran (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    and usernamekiran, of course. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    What, we are syaing NBD again? How quaint. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    all right. all of the supporters! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    hehehe —usernamekiran (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  9. Support—I know it's kind of an antiquated viewpoint to hold onto in this day and age, but I still believe that adminship is no big deal. Kurtis (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  10. Support: good grief, what the hell is the point in establishing substantive community consensus in 2021 that "No need for the tools" is a poor reason to oppose and then a 61-person strong unanimous decision to change Q1 in accordance with this if when it comes to one of the few RfAs of 2022, suddenly everyone reveals that they actually do believe it's a good reason to oppose?
    The candidate's edit count and tenure is plenty. When someone can show me an actual edit they have made (you've got several thousand to choose from) that indicates that they are generally untrustworthy in one of the following areas, ping me and I'll reconsider: common sense; good temperament; reading policy and entering new areas with caution until they have mastered the basics.
    Thank you for standing, Shushugah. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  11. Support Thank you for choosing to be a candidate. Severestorm28 22:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  12. Support - Fully qualified candidate with the right demeanor. Dennis Brown - 23:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  13. Support per Bilorv. To everyone who wrote lots of words to state that no need for the tools is a poor reason to oppose, this is your moment to put your money where your mouth is. I trust Shushugah to be accountable for his actions. In any event, Arbcom has shown itself to be more than capable to remove the tools for ADMINACCT issues. HouseBlastertalk 23:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  14. I usually don't vote if I don't have a preëxisting impression of the candidate, but this is one of those RfXs that strikes me as a potential turning-point moment. 13 opposes and no one's identified something the candidate's actually done wrong. My only concern with electing less-experienced admins is that our community, bafflingly, still lacks a community-based desysop method. But I buy the answer to Question 8, so I'm willing to take a chance on someone who seems to make up for in chutzpah what he lacks in edit count. I'll sit on this side of the fence unless someone can give me a reason to oppose that's based on the candidate's edits so far. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed. Somewhat random, abstract and rarefied me thinks, and not IMHO, metrics reflective of actual suitability. A cookie cutter approach to qualities not readily measurable.. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. Oppose – I appreciate your willingness to help out, but don't feel that you're ready for adminship at this time. Your statement seems to suggest you don't have much of a use case for the tools now but that in 3 or so months you would like to process requests at RFU and RM/TR, however with 6 and 9 edits to those pages respectively, and no CSD log (relevant to the former), I don't feel as if you have the necessary experience to participate administratively in those areas in the near future. Your activity levels are also significantly below what I would expect of someone running for adminship, with your last 50 edits going back to late June. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Strike: will leave this up to the other Wikipedia scrutinizers. Do not feel he has the experience required for an admin yet. (not experienced with RfA so unsure if it's necessary to give a detailed explanation so I won't for now)PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    "not experienced with RfA" You said it. You really should read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters and User:Kudpung/RfA criteria. I'm sorry to have to say that, while I'm sure this was said in good faith, what you've written is functionally equivalent to trolling. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Your comment strikes me as a bit below standard. Why not just refer them to the linked articles without the comments or use language like "if you have questions about how to respond in RFAs, see X"? A veiled accusation of trolling isn't especially useful here. Intothatdarkness 20:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Will strike my oppose since I don't think I was fully aware of the amount of scrutiny at RfAs, and it's feeling a bit too stressful for me (why I generally stay away from them in the first place). But if anyone was curious, my reasons for opposing was not the edit count, but the following: lack of quality article improvement (no GAs/FAs and a failed GA), Wikipedia is all about creating content, all the other processes are just facilitations for those, so I don't like seeing the essentials not really there; a quarter of their mainspace pages are deleted; but the main one is lack of experience in processes I feel a to-be admin should have used to gain experience gauging consensus in, e.g. AfD (good track record but not a whole of participation). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    @PerfectSoundWhatever for what it's worth, the deletions are intentional, because they're technical moves (switching a current title to an existing redirect), something I cannot do on my own, but an admin would have to do for me after making a request at WP:RMT, one of my explicitly stated uses for the mop, helping out with non-controversial technical moves ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Bureaucrat note: to appease the counting modules this withdrawn entry was slightly refactored, and moved to the second comment. — xaosflux Talk 21:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux could these comments be moved to General Comments - they're really confusing in their current position Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    @PerfectSoundWhatever: ok with you? (There is a bit of a bug when the first oppose is striken) — xaosflux Talk 23:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: Yes, sounds good. Moving to general comments with a note seems the best. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I might yet change my mind, but it's not clear to me what they want the admin toolset for, and it seems like they need to build up some other experience more first. For instance they mention wanting to help with non-controversial technical moves but haven't even applied for the page movers perm. Overall the level of activity is lower than I'd expect for an admin. Assisting at TH and content creation aren't a reason for being an admin. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Assisting at [..] content creation aren't a reason for being an admin: Isn't content creation what we are here for? 0xDeadbeef 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I appreciate the nominee's work but largely agree with what Giraffer writes. I also believe that in most cases would-be admins ought to have added Good or Featured content to the encyclopaedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Thank you for stepping up, I wish more people would. That being said, I cannot support this candidacy. I am quite concerned about your varying levels of activity. In February and March of this year, you made a total of 9 edits. Just last month, you only had 12! I also recall you took upon a number of GA reviews in January, and then abruptly disappeared, leaving them all requiring a second reviewer. I am aware of WP:VOLUNTEER, but I find this kind of behavior inconsistent with what I'd expect from an admin. The primary article you mention in your nomination statement, Volkswagen worker organizations, failed its first GAN because you disappeared. Try again after having six months of consistent activity and I'd be open to supporting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - I do not see a need for the tools or a convincing reason to give it to them. If the candidate has done great work without the mop I suggest they continue doing so. An WP:ORFA thread would've been benefitial here as this self-nomination seems rushed. I will follow the thread with great interest and am open to being convinced to change my vote. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 22:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Per Giraffer and Trainsandotherthings. There's little experience or effort to learn the areas they say they would like to work as admins, and activity levels are low. I especially don't like leaving the GA reviews hanging. ADMINACCT requires admins to respond to questions about their actions, and it can be demonstrated in last roughly 6-8 months that this editor involves themselves in community processes and then disappears. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  7. No real answer has been provided to Barkeep49's question So what would you do as an administrator (vs what you are doing as a candidate)? * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I'm sorry to do this, but I think you've shot yourself in the foot here a bit. I do remember the ORCP, where I suggested some more substantial content work might improve your chances at RfA (and hopefully persuade you that writing quality content is fun, motivating you to do some more). Unfortunately, you then abandoned the GA work you started, which required other people to try and contact you and spend time working around this. I appreciate there might have been reasons for your absence, but you can only imagine how much worse this scenario would be if, say, it had been over a block you'd made as an administrator, instead of a GA review. Like Pppery, I think the answer to Barkeep's question just doesn't fill me the confidence you'd be able to effectively resolve disputes and defuse difficult situations. The principal difference between GoldenRing's RfA, and this one, is that GoldenRing gave brilliant answers to questions, such as explaining that blocking longstanding content contributors might create more problems than they solve when the "pitchfork brigade" turn up, which a significant number of longtime editors thought was insightful and thought-provoking.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Ritchie333: I don't know what you're seeing in Shushugah's answers in particular, because I'm finding it to be a very patient response to what is not a very strong collection of questions. References in the answers indicate knowledge of the history of Wikipedia and that they are keeping up-to-date with current community feeling (including a thoroughly well-considered position on recall), more than I expected given how the opposers are painting the candidate's "inexperience". There's also a pun that I very much enjoyed: ... I do not view editing and specifically adminship as carrying a hammer in search of a nail (nor sickle).Bilorv (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Wikipedia has enough admins. Admins are not the solution, admins are the problem. FourPaws (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what your intentions were in making this comment, but from my perspective it's functionally indistinguishable from trolling. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    It's my opinion. There is nothing in the guidelines that says I have to be strictly unopinionated. If I am wrong then please cite what I have missed. It is dangerous to label opinions you disagree with as trolling, blasphemy, or defamation without trekking a slippery slope of censorship. FourPaws (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters#Voting 'Oppose' "Too many admins: If you don't like the Wikipedia system of adminship, RfA is not the place to get the system changed, so don't use RfA as a political platform; your vote will not be counted and you'll only make yourself look silly." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    I call a spade a spade, and a pointless comment bordering on trolling a pointless comment bordering on trolling. See also Ritchie's reply. You doth protest too much. Nobody is censoring you, we're just telling you that you made a dumb comment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, common, y'all. Lay off. The crats will decide the dumb/smartness of the rationale. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I commend you for being bold and strongly encourage you to keep up the good work at the Teahouse and Help Desk. I also want to say, I fully understand that real life gets in the way sometimes, and nobody is expected to commit hours to Wikipedia every day. However, I'm concerned by sudden gaps in activity that result in unanswered talk page messages and unfinished commitments. For instance, this thread on unfinished GA reviews (March 2022) and this unfulfilled (AFAICT) request for help regarding an article you sent to AfD (May 2022) both beg the question as to what might (or might not) happen in cases concerning potentially controversial admin actions – per WP:ADMINACCT. I'd be happy to support a future RfA if I can be assured that this won't be an issue, and you show dedicated and/or long-term activity in an area that demonstrates a clearer need for the tools. Complex/Rational 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    @ComplexRational I try to refrain from responding to votes since this is the community's job. But I do wish to note regarding the May 2022 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhushita Ahuja (2nd nomination), given that it was a 2nd AfD in a short period of time, and that I also received private messages over Twitter from the creator over what seemed like a blatant hoax, I was not inclined to respond to them anywhere outside of an AfD page context, which they were aware of. In retrospect, I should have tagged the page as WP:G3 or {{Db-person}}, but I was confident AfD would have fulfilled the purpose in case of doubt, which it did. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for clarification. I'm willing to look past one specific case, though also keep in mind Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors – namely that Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account (i.e., on-wiki discussion is preferred when possible). I'm unaware of specific details regarding this AfD, so cannot comment further, though any admin wishing to examine the deleted article may do so. Complex/Rational 01:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I think it's a big plus to have someone whose substantive interest in the project is in a different and important field. But I have a hard time getting past the rationale being "we don't have enough admins", citing backlogs in areas where the candidate has minimal involvement. This isn't a matter of "no need for the tools" it's more of thinking that this nomination falls under the category of

    Larry Kroger?
    Yeah, we need the dues.
    Good. Larry Kroger is now pledged to Delta Tau Chi.

    Banks Irk (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per above. Concerns with experience, activity levels, and no demonstrated need for the tools. -FASTILY 00:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - I do think the editor doesn't have enough demonstrable experience in areas that would give us an idea of how they would handle the administrative tools and while "we need more administrators" is perhaps a reason to nominate candidates, it is not a reason to give the tools to any single candidate. The edit count is not something I take issue with; I'd rather an editor make 50 edits creating a fully fleshed out article ready for GAN than an editor making 5,000 edits adding or tweaking categories on articles. The issue is that with those edits I don't really see much in areas that can give someone an idea of how this person handles consensus, the implementation of policies and guidelines, speedy deletion/AfD, or anything like that. This is certainly not a "no never" vote, but is a "not yet" one. - Aoidh (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  14. Regretful Oppose My interactions with Shushugah have thankfully been positive. I think he has the right temperament, but I don't think he has the relevant experience just yet for adminship. Seven thousand edits is certainly nothing to scoff at, but I expect at least ten to twelve thousand before I expect support. GoldenRing and Colin M are the exceptions, because the former had outstanding answers to questions and the latter had a great temperament and content creation. But after four years on the project, I would've expected at least ten thousand edits and one good article. Creating non-stub articles is fine, but I expect at least one good article coming from a coordinator of the June 2022 Backlog drive. The answer to Barkeep's question also does not inspire much confidence. Helping clear out the backlog is honorable, but I don't see much recent admin-esque experience in a given area such as requested moves, new page patrol, or countervandalism. As always, there are exceptions to my criteria, but these shortcomings unfortunately make your adminship a possible shot in the dark. My suggestion is that you have at least twelve months of constant activity, showing us that you will be there for the community and not abandoning your GA reviews as other !voters have mentioned. Accountability is key, so please be willing to show when you have been wrong. Maybe make something similar to my mistake list? It certainly helps me learn from when I've made major mistakes. Don't give up just yet! Come back in a year when you can show us what you're made of! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Well under the 20,000 edit count I believe is de rigeur these days for an admin candidate, especially a self-nom. No real need for the tools. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Softlavender: I just wanted to point out that 20,000 edits for an editor whose been around 4 years would mean an approximated average of 416 edits a month every month during that time. Clovermoss (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Three of the four candidates who passed without any opposes this year had less than 20,000 edits when they passed. That suggests it's hardly de rigeur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  16. Sorry, but the stalled GA reviews are an issue for me, since those were from this year. --Rschen7754 02:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  17. Oppose; the GA reviews are an issue for me as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  18. OpposeWhile NOBIGDEAL might be an Argument, this argument could apply to many editors and I feel that an editor should first become useful in an area where the "need for the tools" is experienced before considering an RFA. Per answer to Barkeep49 their need for the tools is marginal at the moment.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. I'm going to temporarily oppose now. WP needs more admins, and this editor is clearly a hard-working net positive. But I have several concerns- first is the low, inconsistent edit count. With only less than 10 edits in Feb 2022 and March 2022, then only 143 and 12 edits in the last two months, this is concerning IMHO. This alone isn't a problem at all, but the lack of any GA or FA content creation is IMO strange for a sysop. Third, the slowness of the GA reviewing for this editor could also be a concern for others (though I don't think it's that much of a problem). Finally, a larger issue is that the answers to the questions are also middling. In Q1, Shushugah stated that [particularly], the scrutiny candidates face is quite stressful, and I'd like to change that by example and so on, but doesn't mention any admin tasks of interest. The editor is also fairly slow to answer Q9, which should be quite obvious IMHO. The question I asked (Q10) was also answered decently, but confusingly, with Shushugah stating that G11 are articles tagged as unambiguous advertisements. If an article on face of it appears to be spam, then stating that I almost never would draftify; but how about drafts or other namespaces tagged under G11? The lack of mentioning here is contradicative to the latter reply, while the above scenarios are presumably in mainspace/drafts intended for mainspace when commenting on U5. I'm also still waiting on the response on the overlap between G11 and U5, if this is well answered I might move to neutral. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. Neutral – The right person can learn all the necessary skills to be an effective admin. However, learning all the necessary skills does not make you the right person to have admin role. That's being said, I think that the nominator should have more experience working at admin places to gain experience. Though having low edit count is a ridiculous thing to oppose an RfA on, having little experience can be. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  2. Neutral – First off, I wanted to say that I admire your courage in the self-nomination and in the courage to link to your real-life identity. It can be hard to go against the grain. I admire people who try to be the change they want to see! I've seen you do good work in the Teahouse and Help Desk [1][2][3]. Honestly, I'm leaning towards supporting, especially given what Bilorv has stated. I do share some of the concerns shared by Trainsandotherthings about GA reviews and accountability. I think that, in general, you're on a good path and I'd be more comfortable to support you in the future, even if I'm reluctant to do so right now. Clovermoss (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Editing experience of this user make me not able to support but not able to oppose either. I think he is not WP:NOTNOW, because he still has some editing experience but he doesn't intend to work in admin areas, so I wouldn't support. Shushugah, you should gain some experience after 6-12 months, and I may support you. Thingofme (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Thingofme: I think the page you intended to link may have been Wikipedia:Not quite yet and not WP:NOTNOW? Clovermoss (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, this is not WP:NOTNOW. Thingofme (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, lean Oppose I am not impressed by the readiness of this candidate for adminship or even this RfA, and they have not answered Barkeep's query about what they intend to do with the mop. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, lean Support. I wanted to support but I think adminship can be a distraction from content creation, which I believe the candidate needs to work on more. 0xDeadbeef 03:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I thank the candidate for standing for adminship (No big deal, right?) and a willingness to help. However, even though the candidate seems to have learned from opening 20 GA reviews at once (which they indicate they didn't have the capacity to do), I'm still a bit concerned about the wikibreak because I'd like assurances that it wouldn't happen as an admin. I'd prefer to see either several months of either consistent activity or responding to queries on their talk page (even if it's just a "sorry, busy, ..."). I have experience reservations, too. They also don't have the greatest grasp on CSD, though that doesn't concern me because they said they'd request CSD more before filling CSD requests. That said, I think the candidate would resign if the community has lost faith in them and I do think they are a generally competent editor. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 04:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
General comments
  • For those considering opposing on a low edit count, consider this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Basalisk/Elahrairah was voted in a couple years ago with a similar count, and he's done fine. Dennis Brown - 21:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    I understand how time compresses the longer we stay on Wikipedia but I'm not sure I'd say nearly 10 years ago is a couple years ago. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but the point is 6500 edits can be enough, or might not be enough, depending on the quality of the edits, not the count. Dennis Brown - 22:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed. If any of the longer-term editors want to feel super old, I was 10 years old when that RfA was running. Clovermoss (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • For those considering supporting despite a low edit count, consider this. —Cryptic 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (86/12/5); Scheduled to end 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


DatGuy (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone. I'd like to nominate myself for adminship, because, well, I think I could help out. A bit about me: I run User:DatBot, who has six active tasks and I'm sure any admins who patrol 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)

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:AIV, WP:RFPP, and 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 my block in July 2016. I misused rollback, didn't look at the talk page, and went against many different guidelines. Funnily enough, those same guidelines I went against are now ones I very much adhere to and promote to others, especially edit-warring which I occasionally see in a page history and think to myself 'what are these people thinking?' An essay I like and took to heart in particular would be 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:NSPORTS with especially substantial changes to WP:NOLY, how would you close an AFD for an article for someone who does not, per the sources provided, pass WP:GNG and has not been demonstrated to pass the new WP:NOLY but did previously pass WP:NOLY, and there is a comment pointing out WP:BEFORE might not have been properly followed? TartarTorte 19:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 certain sources, village pump proposals that pass, notability clauses being modified (as also referred to in Q7). How do I spot them? The admin's newsletter I see on talk pages is one. Seeing an edit on my watchlist replacing a reference and then I dig a bit deeper and see the consensus about a certain 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).


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

  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)
  2. Support LGTM. --Victor Trevor (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  5. Strongest possible support — I've known DatGuy for quite a while now, and they've been on my RfA list since I created it. They are a thoughtful editor with wide-ranging experience, and perfectly suited to being an administrator. The point on consistent contribution is certainly valid, but many hands make light work, any help is still help and the positives certainly outweigh a touch of inactivity — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  6. Support per above Andre🚐 17:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 17:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  8. Support LGTM -- lomrjyo talk 17:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  9. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
    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)
  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)
  12. Support Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  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. >>>; 18:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
    @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)
  15. Support 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  18. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  20. Support low activity levels are unusual but I don’t have any concerns about them. Mccapra (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  21. Support Top bloke. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 20:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  23. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  26. Support Fully qualified. As we have never used consistent activity as a metric for determining suitability, I find the opposes unconvincing. Dennis Brown - 23:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Dennis Brown: I also supported the candidate, but I wanted to say that I think saying as we have never used consistent activity as a metric for determinining suitability would be incorrect. If you browse through threads in the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll, such as this one [4] advice given to potential RfA candidates is that being considered inactive is enough to make an RfA doomed, don't even try. 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)
    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 - 23:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  27. Support I have no concerns with the activity. They clearly exceed what was overwhelmingly defined to be the minimum activity requirement for admins earlier this year. I understand that there is a difference between gaining and losing the tools, but that feels a little bit too much like a 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)
  28. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  29. Support Productive user, and it isn't wrong to self-nominate. NytharT.C 00:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  30. Support Seems to be a reasonably decent candidate. scope_creepTalk 00:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  31. Suppport a dose of AGF + recommendations above. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  35. Support for a clear net positive. Miniapolis 02:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  37. Support They seem competent and not evil. StaniStani 03:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  39. Support solid candidate and net positive. W42 04:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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. J947edits 04:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  41. Support Trusted user in identifying and reverting vandalism, also created good articles. Thingofme (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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 • {CX}) 05:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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 TSB had turned out. I must concur with Newyorkbrad regarding the opposes and echo very strong—and unwavering—support for this nomination. I wish you the best of luck, DatGuy, and sincerely hope this succeeds and that I can welcome you to the admin corps (and maybe WP:TSB? Face-smile.svg). --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  47. Support Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  57. Support I am not at all worried about the inactivity at times. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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! — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! — Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  59. Support with similar reasoning as per 0xDeadbeef--Jahaza (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  61. Support: Sporadic inactivity shouldn't be a major problem. ToThAc (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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 Pichpich (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  69. Support per above. Best regards, Vukky TalkGuestbook 18:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  73. Support@mdash;Insert lame "get DatGuy a mop" pun here. Kurtis (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  75. Support You deserve to be an admin for all the hard work you've done, most recently anti-vandalism. Severestorm28 22:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  76. Support, per low participation in the Wikipedia talk namespace. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    @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)
    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)
  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)
  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)
  79. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  83. Support, seems cromulent. -- Visviva (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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. –MJLTalk 04:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  1. Oppose. I hate to be that guy, but I'm concerned about the candidate's inconsistent activity levels. According to xtools:ec/, 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)
    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)
    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)
    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 this proposal as a possible alleviation towards the backlogs at AIV that the candidate mentioned. Since there are less candidates running, creative solutions are in dire need of implementation. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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 [5], 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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  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 Fastily's, but the opposes of Softlavender and Hammersoft and others have reminded me of 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)
    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)
  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. NotReallySoroka (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    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)
    Thanks, Giraffer. I retracted my second reasoning, and changed my oppose to a "weak oppose". Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    You only struck the word oppose, NotReallySoroka.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    I think the bolded text at the end of their reply is their new !vote. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 14:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes. "Weak oppose" is my current opinion towards this RfA. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: As far as content creation goes, Drogba is a bit of a stretch.* The amount of work put in comprises [6]: 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)
    Could you elaborate on your last sentence? 0xDeadbeef 16:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Ciao is an Italian word meaning bye. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    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)
    They are better at it tahn I can hope to be. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
    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)
  11. Oppose Wikipedia has enough admins. Admins are not the solution, admins are the problem. FourPaws (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
  12. Hardly any recent edits to the three places he plans to initially administrate in. —Cryptic 22:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  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 (talkcontribs) 21:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  5. 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)
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)
  • 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"" [7] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
    TBH, I almost opposed, and then remembered my own checkered edit X-tools -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    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)
    Sometimes people are busy with works so may stop editing for a while, I think it's ok indeed. Thingofme (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    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)
    She did have nine months very solid editing before she ran. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    That was a ton of fun. ☺ Valereee (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)

  • 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. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 09:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    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 (talkcontribs) 09:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)

About RfB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages


  1. ^ Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Extended confirmed?
  2. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  3. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.