Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DatGuy

DatGuy

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (6/0/1); Scheduled to end 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

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. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 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)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support 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)

Neutral

1. Neutral Looks like a good contributor but the activity levels are far too low. With only a few hundred edits this year, and no significant activity since 2017, I don't feel that I can support. You state you want to work at WP:AIV and WP:RPP, but you haven't made a single edit to RPP in more than a year and only six edits to AIV this year. I'd be happy to support after a few months of consistent activity, though. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:46, 8 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)
  • I think the last successful one was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JJMC89, way back in December 2018 (!). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:34, 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"" [1] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)