Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) at 10:53, 17 December 2024 (→Support: +1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hog Farm

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been automatically placed on hold pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (126/9/6); Scheduled to end 02:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC); Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Hog Farm (talk · contribs) – Well, I'm Hog Farm, or HF as I'll usually section FAC reviews. I passed a prior RFA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm) in January 2021, and was an administrator until I resigned in September 2023 during a rough stretch IRL. Things have sorted out for me since then, and having seen the continued admin drain, I think it's time to get back in the saddle. I will note that for the forseeable future, I expect to pretty much always have lower activity levels in the summer/fall due to how my work schedule operates.

For full disclosure - I've got a few things from my editing history that'll probably come up so I'll go ahead and explain these things from the get-go. In the prior RFA, there were some concerns about overeager CSD tagging from 2020 during my NPP training. Aside from some vague memories of doing some non-controversial CSD deletions as an admin, and a few things at my CSD log, I've mostly stayed away from this area since. I've kept my nose clean with that, and I don't intend to do significant NPP work.

Additionally, some elements of how I handled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) is not my proudest moment, as well as elements of Wikipedia:Featured article review/M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)/archive1, particularly this edit summary. I still hold that an article that can be sourced only to maps is not notable and should be redirected to a list and/or deleted, and I still believe that there were original research issues with parts of the FAR article in the state it was in when the FAR was opened, but I got a bit riled up at let it show to much. I made an informal pledge somewhere (I don't remember when/where) to stay away from that topic matter, and I don't recall any significant editing or discussion participation in that realm since then. If this RFA passes, I do not intend to perform any administrative actions related to US Roads subject matter. Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: It's twofold - we've had a bit of a drain administrative manpower lately, and I really think it's important to have content-focused admins represented as well. The last several years of my editing history have mainly focused on content, and while we've got a good number of skillsets represented in the admin corps, I think we really need to have content-focused administrators, since that's what the whole point of the encyclopedia is. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My user page lists 142 articles that I've brought to GA, and 33 to FA (these lists overlap). Landis's Missouri Battery is my weakest FA; I'm about equally proud of the rest of them. On the GA side, my first two are the worst (Batted ball and Battle of Wilson's Creek); I actually self-GAR'd the baseball one awhile back and I keep intending to rewrite Wilson's Creek. Battle of Poison Spring might be the best one overall, as that covers the most controversial topic matter. Marmaduke–Walker duel, Stonewall Jackson's arm, and Daniel Sickles's leg were the most fun to write. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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: See the final paragraph of the self-nomination statement for where things didn't go well. I think successfully bringing 33 articles through the FAC process shows a good ability to "play nice with the other kids" as some of my teacher relatives would say. The one significant involvement with an arbcom case was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 in which I was simply one of the primary witnesses to another editor's problematic behavior. I've stayed off of the drama boards (ANI, AN, etc.). Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Pppery

4. Why did you start a new RfA rather than just asking for the tools back at BN?
A: It just didn't feel right to me to ask for that. I frankly kinda expected the resignation to be permanent when I resigned, so it felt to me like that chapter had already been closed. Also, I understand why there's the option to request the tools back at BN, but that feels to back-doorsy to me. Hog Farm Talk 03:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Red-tailed hawk

5. Have you read "On the backrooms"? If so, what are your thoughts on it?
A: I have not read this before. I'll read this sometime this afternoon when I get back from church and then post some thoughts. Hog Farm Talk 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, having read this whole thing I'll post some thoughts on this now. There's a little bit of an answer below in Q7 but I don't have anything to add to that part. The idea of social capital affecting how community processes work is a double-edged sword. In an ideal world, users with significant social capital are going to be the ones making the tough calls that need to be made. Just like how in the US, a decision by the Supreme Court is going to carry more weight than a local municipal traffic court. But things in this world just don't work as they should, and you'll get instances where a few who have gained social capital will use it in negative ways. I think the community has done a better job of standing up to the bullies since I first started editing in 2019, but of course things are not perfect. Any organization is going to have structural issues, and this is one of ours. There's a good side to social capital, and an ugly one. There's a balancing act, and all we can do is to watch our own actions and behaviors and to try to use what influence we do have individually in positive ways. Hog Farm Talk 21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Bugghost

6. Does the current 48-0 support-oppose ratio give you enough confidence to just go to BN and nip this in the bud? Do you have a support threshold in mind that, if reached, you would end the RFA early - or do you intend to run this for the full week?
A: I can see arguments for both sides of this. I'm also seeing that there are mixed thoughts within the community for this, including some support for this. This hasn't gotten to the point where the BN waiting threshold would have ended anyway, so it would seem premature to do that on this front, and I need to get a chance to answer Question 5 properly. I'm concerned that withdrawing this early would create a chilling effect for administrators voluntarily taking this route - I think we can all agree that in some cases that it's clearly better for an administrator to go through this route than to take the BN route. If the 'crats are telling me to have this closed and then take this to BN, then that would sufficient cause to withdraw this. Hog Farm Talk 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from George Ho

7. Someone who opposed your re-nom a short while ago took it as a display of "arrogance" more than "humility". Is this your intent as determined by an opposer?
A: No. Not at all. I've made it halfway through the backrooms essay linked above, and I really think this is another example of that - a medium-sized circle unsure of how much social capital they have, so they take the more conservative route towards something. You then get a very large, functionary-shaped circle throwing around accusations that this was done in bad faith, when if a small circle (aka a new user) had made those same accusations they likely would not have been allowed to stick. This is espeically amplified when you get individuals with personal experiences somewhat different than the norm on here (Tamzin as a transgender individual, or say myself as a semi-Calvinist Ozarks hick). I understand opposing because you genuinely believe this to be a waste of community time, which I'm sure is the case for Tony's vote, but I think we could have lived without the accusations of arrogance and ego. Hog Farm Talk 20:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Andrew D.

8. Your account name, Hog Farm, is distinctive but I don't quite understand it. Is it anything to do with Hog Farm, for example? Please explain.
A: I spent most of my adolescence on a family farm. My family had formerly raised pigs, but those had all been sold off by the time I entered the picture. You could still tell that the pigs had use to be there - the jimsonweed would grow where the pigs had been, and sometimes you'd find old trimmed-off boar tusks in the topsoil. I thought this name sounded better than "Bean Farmer" or some of the various other equivalent crop-related alternatives. I was unaware of the commune that we have an article about until somebody made a joke on-wiki about that after I had started editing. Hog Farm Talk 21:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Smallbones

9. In your first RfA you stated "I have never, and never will, edit for pay." Just checking if you still stand by this statement.
A: I still never have, and I still never will. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Smallbones(smalltalk) Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
  1. I swear to God I was just about to encourage you to ask for the bits back. charlotte 👸🎄 02:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I fully agree with Kline re this being a "timesink". I'd support mandatory re-RfAs after a certain period of time, but alas... charlotte 👸🎄 03:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First![citation needed] HOO HOO HOO! LONG LIVE HOG FARM! Panini! • 🥪 02:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support—At first I was a bit confused. I thought to myself, "Wait, wasn't Hog Farm already an administrator?" Well, yes. In fact, I supported his original RfA. This is essentially a reconfirmation. Could he have just posted at the bureaucrats' noticeboard? Sure, he could've. But if it's "too back-doorsy" for his liking (to directly quote his answer to Q4), I have no problem reaffirming my support for him being trusted with adminship. Nothing I've seen from him has ever convinced me that it was misplaced. Kurtis (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, of course, but like Barkeep I'm not a huge fan of making RfAs like this standard practice. —Ingenuity (t • c) 03:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (ec) As per established community consensus, I don't think we need to be back here. That being said, as HF has indicated their hesitancy to use the BN channel, and they do not appear to have left under a cloud, I feel like supporting here is the best way to reaffirm the earlier consensus that was their first RFA.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. To anyone saying that "this is a waste of time": is it really? No one is forced or expected to participate in an RfA. The fact that Hog Farm has made this RfA in the first place is a great way to get community consensus on their standing and not to "backdoor" (his words, not mine) his way back to admin tools. His answer to Q4 is a great answer and I'm very glad to support a former admin who went out of their way to ask again. Kline • talk • contribs 03:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To anyone saying that "this is a waste of time" is either a straw man (no one has said it's a waste of time as of this comment) or a mis-characterization of my position. I said this RfA is a demand of a lot of the community's time. Hog Farm is asking for lots of people - most likely above 200 - to weigh in on his fitness for RfA. That is a lot of editor time. No editor is wasting their time by participating here. We are all volunteers. But Hog Farm could have respected the community consensus about this - admin can ask for it back by right - rather than saying "I want hundreds of people to weigh in". Editor time is incredibly valuable and should be respected. I think Hog Farm is a good admin who we'd be lucky to have as an admin again. But we're now at a second RfA that is ignoring community consensus that asks for lots of editor time in response and that is, for me, a bad thing for our community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The support is not intended to be aiming at anyone in particular, hopefully I didn't cause any bad blood to happen, it's just a general resentment I have from the previous RfA that happened under this pretense (WTT). I do recall that there were comments under the "this is a waste of time" idea, and to be saying that Hog Farm is "demanding" everyone's time by taking ~5 minutes out of someone's day, maybe even less or perhaps more depending on how wordy you wanna get, is a bit absurd, and like I said before, no one is required to weigh in. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point of "[it] is ignoring community consensus" but his last RfA was back in 2021, and there was no such thing as recall until just about now. Wouldn't hurt to get another consensus to make sure you are fit for the position.. I would imagine. Cheers, Kline • talk • contribs 03:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, and also strongly approve going for a new RfA rather than just asking for the tools back – a good way to see if community trust is still present, and reaffirming trust in someone about to get an important toolset is not a waste of time in my opinion. Also linking to Wikipedia:Consensus can change for an argument in favor of this RfA being a positive thing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hog Farm, you were the first person I ever supported for adminship. I am thrilled to do so again; welcome back. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No concerns since last RfA; trusted. JJPMaster (she/they) 03:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Same as they ever were. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I honestly thought you were already a admin, have seen them around, clearly qualified per the participation in FAC. Sohom (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per this. Epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming my support, but at this point I wonder if the re-RFA drama could be avoided if the community were to establish a clearer set of guidelines on re-RFAs. After all, we already require re-RFAs for admins who lose the tools for cause/inactivity. Why not have a formal discussion on whether we should also allow former admins in good standing to do this (as opposed to forcing them to go through BN)? – Epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Thought they were still and admin. Look forward to them returning to the ranks. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I appreciate that Hog Farm is assuring they still have the support of the community rather than treating adminship like an entitlement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. after answer to Q4 ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 04:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support glad to see this. Enjoyed reviewing their work at FAC. Full confidence in them as an administrator. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Thanks for volunteering! – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support ofcourse! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Hogfarm does great work over at MILHIST and I have no doubts that they will be a net positive on their return to the admin position - Dumelow (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support hoping things have been better for you; welcome back! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Volten001 ☎ 05:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Chetsford (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support The fact that you brought your own GA to GAR is what sold me then I read the rest of the things you wrote. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support No doubts. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support on the merits but can we not make these a habit please. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support but should have just asked for the tools back instead of an RfA- consensus is not gonna change on the median admin in just three years. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Obvious support The AP (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support because I did before and have no reason not to again. Daniel Case (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support No significant issues that I can see. Anyone who claims this "wastes" community time always has the option of not participating in this discussion. We are however, approaching the limit where discussions on "Does this waste community time" is wasting more time than the reconfirmations themselves. Soni (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. They are already experienced as an admin, we do indeed need content-focused admins, and although the crat door would have been non-problematic the answer to Q4 confirms my confidence in their integrity. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Excellent candidate. There were no issues last time they were an admin, and there is nothing to suggest there will be any in future. Even though they could have reclaimed their tools by request, going for reconfirmation is a mark of integrity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support very happily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - What do you mean you aren't one already?--NØ 09:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - We need reliable sensible people like HF in the admin corps, and the content chops are also a boon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good luck! I love Pasta!Polygnotus (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, Good candidate. ~🌀 Ampil 「💬 / 📝」 09:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support; I see some self-reflection here that is definitely welcome in a sysop. :) Hijérovīt | þⰁč 11:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. No issues, deserves the tools back. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, and kudos for an open and honest laying-out of past mistakes -- none of which give me any hesitation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, and I believe this is a good use of our time. Kablammo (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  45. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support- Absolutely. Welcome back to the mop department.   Aloha27  talk  12:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 13:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - no concerns. arcticocean ■ 14:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Nomination? We don't need no stinkin' nomination. Go for it! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support LGTM. RfA issues should be discussed somewhere else and IMO no meta-issue should ever cause an RfA to fail.--A09|(talk) 14:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I see some people taking issue with this being a waste of community time. Perhaps so, but this is my time to waste and I'm happy to waste it supporting HF's request for remopification. If this is the worst waste of time I experience today, it'll be a good day. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Whoop, best Wikipedia news I have had this year. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Welcome back. —Kusma (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I was slightly disappointed to see that the new RfA on my watchlist was "only" an avoidable reconfirmation, the disappointment quickly turned to joy that Hog Farm is back. To avoid this disappointment, we should have more fresh RfAs, not complain about (ex)-admins interested in community feedback. —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 14:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Trusted once, trusted twice. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support—I wasn’t engaged in community processes at the times of their first RFA, but see nothing here to create concern, and an impressive content experience. While I understand the concerns about re-nomination to some extent, I much prefer this approach personally; it bespeaks more respect for community voice and instills more confidence among editors in our admin corps. Perhaps re-rfas can just be labeled as such on the page and in the notification? — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support – Clearly qualified. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support — Administrators who actually create and edit articles are invaluable. Also, very impressed with the nominee for for using this platform to determine community trust after their previous adminship when they could have used the backdoor.CultureCouture (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. In this new era of WP:RECALL it makes sense to me that a returning admin would want the consent of the community rather than the bureaucrats. I'm happy to take the time to support. Welcome back. – bradv 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support for fellow content creators. Spending couple minutes of my precious time to vote. I agree with SchroCat and Epicgenius, this shows that the candidate is interested in the community's opinion, which should be praised in my view. I don't think this problem is solvable, as in to make everyone happy. You either make an alternative that everyone ignores (so it will be useless) or one that also "wastes community's time". Personally, I prefer the latter. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support having seen plenty of HF's work in the FAC/FAR realm, I think he has the temperament for wielding the admin tools here. I generally agree with Barkeep that the time-saving community-supported BN process is best in these cases, but (as Barkeep has also recently pointed out) our processes don't leave much room for personal feedback, so I can sympathize with the desire to get a frank assessment at RfA. Ajpolino (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support because I supported Hog Farm in 2021 and I see no misconduct since. To those editors complaining that this RfA is a "waste of time" or "ridiculous", please read WP:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools which says Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process. To the candidate, I think that it is admirable that you took some time off to address family and work issues, and now wish to have your tools restored with the support of (most of) those commenting here. Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support: Thanks for returning! I wish that SNOW passes were permitted for returners after a given period. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support thanks for standing again. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support – I thought I supported the first time, but I didn't actually have a chance to. But I believed you to be a good admin during your tenure and you haven't lost my trust. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oink. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Was a good admin before and will be again. The complaints about their choice of route to regaining the tools are unfair imo: the relevant policy explicitly allows RfA as an option. There may be arguments about whether this should be the case but for the moment, it is. Neiltonks (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - he's already shown that he's competent and trustworthy. Maproom (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. If the question is whether the candidate still has my trust to be an admin, my answer is yes. Like what looks like a lot of other editors, I don't think this was necessary. That's not going to stop me from registering a support, but I want to suggest that we not make this into any more of a trend. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, glad to see you back! Toadspike [Talk] 19:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Alexeyevitch(talk) 20:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  78. I'm sure I've disagreed with Risker, Barkeep, and Tony before, but I'm also sure it's never been at the same time. But I don't find their arguments that this is a selfish timesink persuasive. I think they should leave the unnecessary crankiness to me, where it belongs. I can think of roughly 18,277 things that waste the community's time more than this; when we get rid of those, then let's revisit re-RFAs. I actually respect the idea of another RFA (I guess I would, wouldn't I?). Sure, Hog Farm, if going thru this re-RFA helps you in some way, then I'm in. Welcome back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - No red flags. Experienced enduser. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC) P.S. Not a waste of time at all. If you personally don't have time for it, that's okay. Wikipedia will survive.[reply]
  81. Support - Hog Farm is a trusted user and will make an excellent admin.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. PhilKnight (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. No reservations about Hog Farm's previous performance as admin. I think a reconfirmation RfA is fine. Nobody is required to participate, if they consider it a waste of their time. Schazjmd (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  85. I also dislike voluntary reconfirmation RfAs and would prefer not to see any from candidates who resigned the tools within a four– or five-year time window. That said, I also disfavour RfA opposes based on some philo­sophical objection not directly related to the candidate's suit­ability, so I'm here in the supports. Any grower of sacred psycho­active plants (see jimsonweed in A8) is ok by me. 😉
    A gentle trouting to theleekycauldron for Special:Diff/1263288022, removing Tony's !vote in entirety instead of merely striking— or, even better, no action. I note additionally that the text of the original oppose has not been moved to the talkpage, leaving readers without context until a diff hunt is undertaken. I hope she's not as aggressive in Arb cases, where tempers can flare.
    I see no policy violation in Tony's personal characterisation of voluntary reconfirmation RfAs in the general case. I also disagree with it: everyone needs external validation sometimes, and asking for it doesn't necessarily imply arrogance.
    Anyone who sees an AGF vio in the removed oppose may be minded to review that guideline. AGF does not mean assume no one ever has any motives to do anything apart from pure service to the encyclopaedia, nor does it mean assume everyone is telling the whole truth about everything at all times.
    Personally, I take Hog Farm at his word that the primary motivation here is transparency (apologies if that's a mischaracterisation); I additionally presume the validation is not unwanted. Folly Mox (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support this time, as I did the first. Miniapolis 00:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support 🐷 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. I supported last time and I'll support again as I see no reason not to, although it's a shame that legitimate oppose votes have been censored - I'm sure that's not why RfA monitoring was introduced, so another trout for theleekycauldron's over-enthusiastic monitoring. The voluntary reconfirmation is a noble gesture but a simple request at BN would have been fine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - absolutely love encountering Hog Farm around here, and the example of his work has inspired me to expand our content in ways I wouldn't have thought of myself jengod (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support – welcome back. Schwede66 01:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support For the actual point of this RfA, I think the community would absolutely benefit from resysopping Hog Farm. As to the other points being discussed, I think we should be approving as a community of someone trying to do something the right way. If we add a method that takes less community time then great, but though this might prompt one we don't have one right now, so kudos to Hog Farm for his honesty in doing this. I'm disappointed by Tony's comment because I think it misses a good deal of nuance in the situation, but it didn't need to be removed either. Also, what everyone said above. Perfect4th (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support My problematic take is that re-RFAing for any reason is fine Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support – This editor has a history of great work within administrative and content-related areas, and would make a great administrator again. Glad to see you coming back. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 05:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - nice to see you back! Keres🌕Luna edits! 05:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Welcome back man! Glad to see you again! Galaxybeing (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support No concerns. Rzuwig► 08:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  97. "Waste of community time," I waste my own time on this site instead of doing what I should be doing. There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to make sure they have community support instead of what feels like skipping ahead IMO. Support No concerns. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 13:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Jeez if you personally think this RFA is a time sink then maybe you just don't participate? Good luck 🐷! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support, but does not seem necessary. Malinaccier (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support seems like a self-evidently good idea. --AntiDionysius (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Hog Farm was a good admin previously and will be good admin again. They should be applauded for choosing to voluntarily seek a new mandate from the community when they did not have to. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Hog Farm, as an individual contributor, is positive and would be beneficial to the project to continue to be an admin. More broadly, though not currently required, this voluntary renomination reads the room that being an admin is no longer necesarilly a lifetime appointment. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  103. I personally think that this re-RFA was not a good idea, and Hog Farm should have just gone to BN and requested the tools back, but since we're already here I support them having the tools. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support this user even though I know nothing about them outside of this RfA because my limited understanding of these processes is that if they could have just simply requested to have the tools back, but they chose to come here and see if the community agrees or disagrees with that first, then I'm fully on board with them being an admin because I think it is not a time sink to get community feedback and all of our participation is evidence of that. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 17:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Given that the candidate proactively raised potential concerns they wanted the community to review, I think they've made a solid case as to why they picked a re-RfA over a BN request. As for the merits of the request, what I've seen of the candidate convinces me that they're clueful, collegial, and willing to hold themselves accountable for any issues that may arise. They've done this job well before and I'd be happy to see them do it again. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Experienced with good judgement. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  107. 𝚂𝚞𝚙𝚙𝚘𝚛𝚝:- I checked you contributions ,awards and reason to be an sysop again & it looks like...
    I'm your Air-conditioner literally. Velthorion (Alarm!) 17:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support trusted user, and I also support this cultural baby step away from lifetime appointments. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Not the biggest fan of voluntary RRFA's, but that's not a reason to oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I believe a more general discussion of voluntary reconfirmation RFAs is better suited to the pending RfC rather than here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support One extra note. I've worked them on some FA rescues and have immense respect for their expertise, preciseness and thoroughness. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  112. zoglophie•talk• 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, and once again the opposers are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support, because I trust HF with the tools. And while I recognize that the people most likely to Re-RFA are the ones who don't need to, I don't think that in itself is enough to say it isn't a useful practice. There are several current administrators that I consider good administrators on the whole but who would benefit from this sort of exercise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support because candidate will be a fine admin. Enough words have already been spilled on the ironically time-wasting diversion about this being a waste of time, so nothing further needs to be said there. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support HF was one of the first experienced editors I interacted with when I first started editing Wikipedia properly three years ago. Always helpful and respectful. A welcome return to the mop. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Easy done. SportingFlyer T·C 02:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support, I still do not see any reason for Hog Farm not to be an admin. I was initially going to be neutral, but moving to support in explicit repudiation of the erroneous oppose from LilianaUwU (though I still wish people would not do this, and would just ask for the tools back if they're eligible to). It is quite correct that anything "sourceable" only to maps is not notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support, no reason why not.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I don't see any reason to oppose and believe that Hog Farm rejoining the corps would be a net-positive. However, I, too, echo the concerns of Barkeep49 about this RfA even happening (and being the second of its type) when BN would've been the most appropriate route by policy. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. No concerns about the candidate and as to process, I don’t see why the option to simply dismiss the notice and go on their way is unsatisfactory for those who don’t see a reconfirmation RfA as a good use of their time. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support weighing purely the merits of the candidate, who I find to be level-headed and possess good judgment. As for the process of re-nomination, I defer to policy and find the "waste of community time" arguments overblown. — GhostRiver 06:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support The old "waste of community time" whinge doesn't quite catch with me, sorry. You fellas down there ever notice that little link at the end of your watchlist notification, the one that says "dismiss" on it? Ever tried clicking it? Me personally, when I see an ex-admin run through the process again instead of just dropping a line at BN, it certainly does nothing to diminish my opinion of them. Should it be mandatory? Well, that's a different conversation – but I do like this trend. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support No reason not to re-affirm based on previous record, and some of the most ill-considered opposes I've ever seen in an RFA. "Oppose because candidate takes community mandate too seriously" - oy gevalt. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support happy to re-confirm on past work and no issues of concern have been presented in the oppose/neutral sections. As such, reviewing those took more time and caused the waste of time many are complaining about. Without them I probbaly would have just noted it was a reconfirmation and with no known issues and just ignored. Hopefully those that do feel these are not appropriate start a discussion in suitabel place to gain a consunsus rather than just using votes to make a point about the process rather than the candidate. KylieTastic (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support How could I not? I appreciate any administrator who actively seeks feedback from the community, I've seen good things from Hog Farm in the past and so he has my support. Regarding those opposes who complain about costly use of community time - this process is not optimal, but we currently have nothing else. WormTT(talk) 10:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. [original comment removed] TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d originally written a comment that was shorter because I didn’t want this to be a huge back and forth or to make it a blistering oppose that would hurt feelings, but that was removed for not AGFing, which I disagree with, so I’ll explain the rationale in more words than I wanted to:
    I’ve always considered voluntary re-RFAs to be fairly arrogant. The person is making themselves the center of community discussion for a week, its broadcast on every watchlist, and they usually pass by wide margins, and the only real opposition is usually based on it being a waste of time. It’s not about the person, but what the impact of the process is. I get and understand that Hog Farm probably did not view it that way when they started this, but that doesn’t really change any of the other factors that lead me to characterize re-RfAs that way. It’s not an action taken out of humility even if the person genuinely means the best from it. While it’s certainly allowed, respect for community norms is also a key part of adminship, and the community norm in cases like this would have been going to BN. I don’t remember HF as being controversial during their time as an admin, so I doubt they’d be controversial this time around, but I also think doing it this way has created more community drama and back and forth on this and other pages that would have been avoided if we just went the BN route. I think that’s bad judgement, and if someone made a recent bad judgment call during a normal RfA, normally you’d get opposition. Since we’re being asked to regrant it via RfA, I think we should apply the same standards as other RfAs, which is why I land here.
    HF — I’m sorry that this is longer than I think it should be, but I wanted to be crystal clear as to it not being an assumption of bad faith, but a difference in views on what it means to follow community consensus in a humble way so it doesn’t get removed again. Based on what you’ve said, I’m sure you didn’t intend it as a way of putting yourself at the center of community attention for a week, but that’s what an RfA more or less does, and I don’t think that’s a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose While I don't necessarily agree with what TonyBallioni said, I find myself uncomfortable with Hog Farm's response to criticism or opposition, even if badly worded. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose While this will (obviously) be successful, these stupid re-RfAs have wasted community time and to me show that some (re)RfA candidates don't value community time, our most precious resource; if an RfA candidate thinks that it's appropriate to waste our time when they can take it to BN instead, I don't think they should be an admin (although my opinion likely doesn't matter here, as the vast majority are in the support column). EF5 14:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - There's no need to involve a few hundred people in this exercise. Be an admin or don't. It's not a big deal. You had the mop for two years and did less than 1k actions. Most of us don't know you as an admin, and nobody is going to notice if you just request the right and go off to do CSD or AIV or something. GMGtalk 14:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose an ambuscade of community time when we have other means to get re-RFA'd. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I'm don't like this RFA theatre that wastes a significant amount of time for a quite a lot of folk. This is not a suitable admin corps candidate who seems unable to coral their own permissions effectively, particularly since they have barely done any real work. This frippery seems to be becoming more and more common for some reason and its something you wouldn't see in a commercial environment. Its entirely unprofessional. scope_creepTalk 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    barely done any real work what in the world are you talking about? HF has written dozens of featured articles and performed hundreds of deletions as an admin. What sort of "real work" are you expecting? Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1
    “frippery”?? Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_admin_tools opens with the words “Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process”. So you (and others) are opposing on the basis of something enshrined in policy? And you think it is an act of “frippery”? I’m sure the ‘crats (and anyone else who doesn’t like reconfirmation) will take note that you are going against policy with your vote. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We only tend to care about (or notice) these sorts of things if the RfA actually gets to a 'crat chat, provided the comment itself is not violating a behavioural policy. Primefac (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Scope_creep, your comment is much more unprofessional than the candidate's decision to re-RFA. Perhaps you could take this unpleasant 'get off my lawn' energy elsewhere rather than wasting our time with your grumpiness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right, I don't like it and that is reason I !voted oppose and I'm not changing it. It is complete of waste of time and effectively theatre. The editor could have asked for the permission back and they would got them. But there is problem of stability. The one thing an admin needs is stabilty. If they that don't have stabilty then they don't make a good candidate. This flipping in and out makes it a game. Its not. It needs a professional stable service that works. There is other admin candidates on Wikipedia i'm sure. Lastly, I checked the editors contributions. They are an truly excellent editor but have barely done any admin work. scope_creepTalk 06:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read TonyBallioni's comments there. I wondering if it is that, it seems closer to the truth here but could be simple expediency. It could be but either way, we just can't be simple unthinking footsoldiers or unthinking devotees. scope_creepTalk 06:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, I still hold that an article that can be sourced only to maps is not notable and should be redirected to a list and/or deleted tells me all I need to know. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU, isn't that precisely what WP:NGEO says? A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps – bradv 00:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever you say. Still not changing my mind. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I value Hog Farm's many contributions over the years but I find myself in moral oppose for most of the reasons discussed above and per my !vote on the WTT RfA. (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I completely agree with TonyBallioni. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Sorry to be a downer, but are these unnecessary re-RFAs a good use of community time? I would personally rather these not become common. Seems inefficient. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I feel strongly this is not good use of community time. I also don't think it's an efficient way to get feedback. Emailing or messages other people in the areas you've been active as anadmin is more likely to give you actionable feedback. Only positive opinions of HF fwiw. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Just ask for the tools back at BN. I don't like this new trend. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral only because I feel this is just a time sink. I was a bit elated on seeing the RfA notification on the watchlist only to find it as a very obvious pass. Agree with Novem Linguae on this one. Nothing to oppose here, but again nothing to support here either. They were absolute best as a sysop and this should have been just a request at BN. — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree with Benison. I was excited to see a new RfA pop up on my watchlist, only to find out it was another former admin who could've posted at BN. Please make this the last; they are a waste of time. C F A 20:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral as Novem Linguae and Benison say it. Let's not waste the time of community. Regards, Aafi (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. I can't oppose, because I think Hog Farm is a good admin and there's no reason they shouldn't have the tools back, but I wish people wouldn't do this. If you are able to just ask for the tools back, well, then just do that. Editor time is our most valuable resource, and wasting it raises at least some questions as to judgment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • As is becoming routine, I've signed up to be this RfA's monitor :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saluting face emoji charlotte 👸🎄 03:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Headed to bed for the night :) everything looks pretty okay for now, but I hope this RfA doesn't turn into an RfC on the practice of voluntary reconfirmation in general. I think it's better for us to discuss that at policy-oriented venues. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened a topic on Village Pump ideas lab to discuss voluntary reconfirmations and possible improvements. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @theleekycauldron: Is it too late to volunteer to assist? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: not at all – sign-up's at the top and pay's still zero, so enjoy :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool! Just to note, I ctrl+f'd my name to find this comment, and in doing so learned that I'm mentioned briefly in A7; I would of course recuse from any monitor action even vaguely related to that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not "back doorsey" to follow policy and procedure that a consensus of the community supports and yet another "I demand a lot of time of the community to do something the community has said is mine by right" RfA is not a pattern I want. I really like Hog, just as I liked Worm, but I seriously considered leaving this in Oppose for clearly failing to respect project consensus and doing so in a way that spends a lot of time of the community's. At least Worm made it a promise when handing in the tools. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny, I see it as a sign of integrity from the candidate and something to be praised. No-one has to !vote or comment here, so those not wanting to !vote at a re-confirmation can just save the 30 seconds editing time and click away from the page. If you think it's a actual problem somehow, then an RfC on the question is an open pathway I guess. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I don't get how this is a waste of time. It really doesn't take that long to review an RfA. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 13:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with SchroCat. It shows a level of accountability to the community that's desirable. No-one is forcing you to pay any attention to this RfA. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concurring with Cremastra and SchroCat here; I think admins should seek to go above and beyond the baseline levels of accountability to the community. It takes maybe a couple minutes out of the average editor's time to vote at an RFA, and that's assuming a particularly thought out reply. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly, I do not understand concerns that this re-RfA is somehow "ignoring community consensus" whatsoever. Hog Farm literally said that he understand[s] why there's the option to request the tools back at BN, meaning that he acknowledges that that is an option, but have chosen by his own volition not to use it. Is it somehow against consensus to do something that is permitted by consensus, but not the default? Is it against consensus for an administrator to want to ensure that they have the continued approval of the community before unilaterally deciding that they're going to be admins again? If anything, this decision might be more aligned with the well-established consensus of WP:ADMINACCT than simply re-requesting at BN. There is no consensus that prohibits what is being done here. No policies or procedures are being violated here. If anyone wants to change that, there's always a way. JJPMaster (she/they) 03:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin isn't unilaterally deciding they get to be an admin again. They ask the CRATS. The crats then follow a procedure, endorsed and regularly refined by the community, to make sure that person still has consensus to be an administrator. But even setting that aside, imagine an admin who regularly finds new articles about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The admin decides "I want to get community consensus to have accountability and so I will nominate for deletion rather than speedy delete"; the AfDs then overwhelmingly endorse the deletion. If this happens a couple times people would shrug and say "how quirky". But if it became a pattern people would start to suggest the admin either delete them as A7 or tag them so some other admin could consider it. By the nature of RfA no single admin can get to that pattern but as a community that same thing can happen. Editor time is incredibly valuable and to a small degree it's elastic - if not for this ridiculous RfA I would not be spending time on wiki right now - but it's not completely elastic. And so individuals thinking carefully about what demands for community time they make is one I would like to see editors think about before embarking on high profile asks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "if not for this ridiculous RfA I would not be spending time on wiki right now": that's your decision, no-one else's. You could have ignored it, or spent five minutes starting a centralised RfC on the question, but it's down to you if you want to argue needlessly on something that's going ahead anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood the sentiment of the quote you selected. I am agreeing with you that I made a choice and in this case that choice meant more editor time spent on Wikipedia. But not all the editor time here is between "time spent outside of Wikipedia" and "time spent on Wikipedia" (the choice I made last night and to a lesser extent am making now). For some editors the time spent on this RfA is less time doing something else on Wikipedia. Losing that editor time is just a loss when compared to a low drama process at BN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a very bad practice. I was unhappy with WTT when he did it, and I am even more unhappy to see this. I don't think the candidate would be a bad admin, generally speaking, but I am sorely tempted to oppose just based on the fact that they have chosen to ignore longstanding, community-developed processes so that the community doesn't have to waste its time with these re-RFAs of candidates who only need to ask for the bits back at the BN. This should be nipped in the bud. Risker (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually entirely understood and respected WTT for doing it. They explicitly said when they resigned the tools they only wanted them to be granted back if they went through RfA again. I felt it was a sign of integrity to follow that word instead of simply requesting the tools back. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, anyone starting a "this is demanding of the community's time" discussion is demanding an even larger amount of community time. I am now demanding community time by making this comment. And as I see it, all of these amounts of time are negligible. I've spent far more time responding to Village Pump discussions that never had any chance of going anywhere, among other examples. Given how many admins there are who definitely would not get promoted if their RfA were today, I have trouble getting worked up about the rare admin who wants to confirm that they still meet the community's standards. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for admin feedback being a real part of enwiki culture but it's not like RFA is the only way for that to happen and the people you would want to do it are probably also ones less likely to do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've mentioned on Barkeep49's talk page in response to the candidate, I genuinely believe that a person seeking readminship within our current standards at the Bureaucrat Noticeboard would receive very useful feedback, particularly if they disclosed why there may be concerns, as Hog Farm has done in this RFA. Many people who have no concern about Hog Farm getting the bits back now feel obligated to actively support them, and those who don't know much about them have to invest a non-negligible amount of time researching them in order to give a useful opinion. It is possible that going to BN first would result in a 'crat decision to send to re-RFA, but that would only mean a day or two's delay, which is insignificant. Risker (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're not allowed to talk about the problem without being a part of it? There has to be some logical fallacy that describes that argument. Those of us talking about it are doing so since we do not want it to become a pattern, which will save the community time in the long run. This RfA is an indication that we didn't talk about it loudly enough last time. Sdkb talk 06:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to refrain from commenting on this issue, but I have to agree. If it's a waste of community time because the candidate is obviously qualified, the best thing for people to do is to leave a very short support !vote and then go back to whatever it is that they were doing. If the candidate were unqualified, on the other hand, then it wouldn't have been a waste of community time to leave some feedback. Writing long comments about how a re-RFA is wasting community time, ironically, constitutes wasting even more time—in fact, I'm arguably wasting two minutes of additional community time by typing this out. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I have deep respect for Hog Farm's work at FAC and have no problem with him becoming an admin again. But I absolutely concur with Barkeep, Risker et. al. that it is deeply disappointing to see another RfA of this form. Copying the rest of my comment from WTT's RfA (with slight adjustments): To the extent that !voting "support" would be an endorsement of the decision to run a reconfirmation RfA, I do not wish to cast such a !vote (nor do I wish to !vote neutral, implying that his qualifications are borderline). As with recalls, a reconfirmation system only works effectively when it's in some way mandatory, not just an opt-in thing for those (like Hog Farm) who can clearly pass. So I don't think this sets any sort of useful precedent, as anyone who might be affected by it (i.e. at risk of not passing) just won't follow it. Voluntary reconfirmations like this use up a lot of community time compared to a post at BN. At best they provide some feedback to the candidate and at worst they're an excuse to seek validation. I don't think either goal justifies the ask of the community. I do not wish to encourage others to behave similarly, so I arrive at the decision to abstain. Sdkb talk 06:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I work in Japan I stop jaywalking and cross the street only when the lights show the walk signal. Funnily enough (</sarcasm>), when context changes, we generally change our behaviour. To me, admins whose actions demonstrate wider accountability and self-reflection are to be celebrated, not pilloried; it's a small way of improving the culture and validating collaboration. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the compromise general rule should be that redundant RfA's should not be posted to everyone's watchlists by default? --Joy (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that is that, if there were legitimate reasons to oppose candidates, then it may not get the appropriate views or discussion it needs. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But how do we quantify if it's redundant? The way I'm reading it, Hog Farm wasn't sure whether or not his would be, which was why he elected for RfA rather than BN in the first place. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing wrong or broken either way, the path to adminship should be the candidate's choice. Assuming good faith in that choice seems the way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools seems to clearly treat both this and the crat route as legitimate options, and doesn’t state a preferred route as I read it. Different editors seem to have different preferences, divided pretty evenly. Personally, I find this more respectful of the community will, and I think these nice re-RFAs could also contribute to bringing down the tone of RFAs overall. I think we should have an RFC about this if it is both controversial and a continuing trend. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hog Farm, i have nothing but respect for you; i supported in your previous RfA, and would do so again, but similarly to Sdkb i want to unask the question here: Of course HF should be remopped, but this process started a little poorly (BN would really have been better) and has gone downhill with a couple of people's actions around the first oppose; far be it from me to criticise two with such social capital, but i really feel neither has helped (though both are acting from the best of motivations). This question of RRfAs is apparently something that raises hackles within the community, on both sides of the question. I truly hope that this is the last one we see for a long while ~ LindsayHello 14:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved from neutral :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Don't get me wrong, Hog Farm is a good guy from what I've heard of him. However, he forgot that a notification happens on the watchlist page every time a RfA gets opened and this is simply a waste of community time (time that I would rather spend working on RfD and reviewing articles) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one forced you to vote. You could have hit "dismiss" and moved on. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But then we can't waste time by frivolously accusing other people of wasting time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If future WTT/Hog Farms go "not worth the hassle, I'll just ask at BN" then the people who helped create that sense will not have wasted time. In fact if just one such person does so that will more than equal the time I've spent here. And I'm gueessing you feel "if just one more person lets me cast my support the time I will have been well spent." So maybe no one is being frivolous here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't "frivolously accusing other people of wasting time", I was bringing up the same points that the people in Neutral were User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be mentioned somewhere on here that public feedback is a valuable resource in which a now massive industry has recognized is worth investing big bucks into and those who are whining it is a "time sink" just to get attention might refer back to the essay linked in Q5 regarding "social capital" to see if they can find any correlation to the value public feedback might hold as "social capital" in addition to the value it already holds as a commercial commodity. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 19:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I live near this road, do I have a COI? charlotte 👸♥📱 04:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question, when was the "oppose votes need an explanation" policy set into place? Although it doesn't matter, I see numerous "support" votes with zero explanation, yet I have to give a detailed explanation about why they shouldn't be an admin, something I find a bit arbitrary. EF5 21:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Header says to "please explain" any vote (since 2007, stronger wording before that), advises that detailed votes are better than "yep" or "no way" (since 2009), and notes that this expectation has been held to apply less to supports than opposes (since 2016). But no, there is no strict rule that you must give an explanation based in the candidate's suitability, which is why this was just a request, and I do thank you for obliging it. If GMG and TIG choose not to change their comments, that's within their rights. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to think I explained it fairly well. Go get the mop and clean the floors. There is no need for this. GMGtalk 01:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hog_Farm_2&oldid=1263566398"