Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm

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

Hog Farm

Final (196/10/3); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 17:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

Hog Farm (talk · contribs) – I am delighted to introduce Hog Farm for RfA! The user is a fantastic editor, who has very quickly become one of the best contributors on my radar. A prolific content creator, producer of over 50 Good Articles and several A and FA class articles. A winner of the prestigious Editor of the Week award, adminship seems like the natural progression. However, Hog Farm is not only a great content editor, they have a great contributions history in general, with a history of CSD tagging, and over 30% of edits to the Wikipedia space. I've had the pleasure of working with Hog Farm for over a year now and have never had a bad word to say about them with a great temperament, despite also being willing to pick up difficult jobs. I hope you agree they are very much suited for adminship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Co- nomination

I've known Hog Farm for going on a year now, and have been very impressed by their contributions to date. In addition to a staggering output of Good, A, and Featured articles, they have become a prolific reviewer of content, involved in FAR, and elected as a co-ordinator of the military history project. On the administrative side, Hog Farm has competently !voted in numerous XfD discussions, been involved in CAT:NN cleanup and, more recently, scrutinizing hundreds of geo-stubs. HF has demonstrated that he can work collaboratively, write good content, competently act in a wide range of areas, and shown immense growth since beginning editing. I'm honored to co-nominate him for adminship and I hope you will join me in supporting his request. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination. I have never, and never will, edit for pay. I have no other accounts, although I did IP edit for about two or three months before registering an account. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mainly closing AFDs and keeping Category:Expired proposed deletions maintained. If backlogs arise, I'd also give WP:RFD, WP:AIV, and WP:RFPP some attention, but AFD and PROD would be my primary focuses.

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

A: I'd have to say the two articles I got the four award for: Landis's Missouri Battery and Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment. Landis's Battery was one of the first articles I ever wrote from a redlink, so it was a really good feeling to see it recognized as a Featured Article. Slayback's Regiment is a little more polished though, and Battle of Little Blue River is one of my better overhauls of existing articles - it looked like this before I started work, and is a much more comprehensive and better cited article now. Content creation is just pretty addictive.

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: I haven't had any big stress incidents, although I've had my fair share of little ones. An example from a couple days ago is this discussion, where it was insinuated that I'm not a productive user. Talk:M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)/GA2 is another example of where there was a little bit of minor conflict. The most stressing experience I've ever had onwiki was at [[1]], which was back a little over a year ago.

From my experience, there's three things to keep in mind when having such issues. The first is not to take it personally. Once your blood is up, the quality of discourse really drops off, and it takes intelligent and civil discussion to create quality encyclopedic content. The second is that you shouldn't always reply immediately. The kneejerk response almost always seems suboptimal after further thought. And third, sometimes you just need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Bibeyjj

4. Hi Hog Farm! I've had a look at your general edit trends using XTools. I was just struck that 8.2% of your edits have been reverted or deleted at some point. Do you know why this percentage is so high? Bibeyjj (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A: @Bibeyjj: - While I can't see my deleted contributions to know what they are, I think what those are are from AFD/PROD/CSD tagging. When you nominate an article for AFD/CSD/PROD/RFD, a notice is then placed on the article itself. If the article is then deleted, that contribution is deleted as well when the article goes. If you nominate for AFD or PROD through Twinkle, then Twinkle also adds a notice to the article's talk page, and if the article is deleted, the talk page goes as well. So the vast majority of these I believe are edits nominating pages for deletion where the page was then later deleted. Although I have a fuzzy memory of one edit being revdelled because I put the copyright violation revdel request tag on the article before removing the copyright violations, so since the edit placing the revdel request was to a version containing copyright violations, it also had to be revdelled. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I can confirm that Hog Farm's deleted contributions consist entirely of tagging for prod or xfd with a few round-robin page moves as far as I can see. --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment: Regarding the remark above "I was just struck that 8.2% of your edits have been reverted or deleted at some point.", Correct me if I'm wrong but it is my understanding that particular Xtools stat doesn't register any 'reverts' at all. It only counts edits made to now deleted pages. In most cases this does not indicate anything at all about the validity of any edits made prior to the deletion. --DB1729 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Garnarblarnar

5. As an administrator who wants to be active at AFD, what do you think will change in comparison to your "non-admin closures"? Garnarblarnar (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A: @Garnarblarnar: - As per Q7 below, my interpretation of WP:BADNAC is that non-admins should only be closing AFDs in very rare circumstances, so I've done extremely few non-self withdrawal AFD closes, and the ones I have done are mostly procedural closes of articles that got speedied while at AFD but the AFD wasn't closed. So, there's no real good answer to this, because I don't really have many real AFD closes to compare to, because I have held myself to my interpretation of WP:BADNAC and haven't closed really any at all. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Ritchie333

6. Hi, best of luck in the RfA. Following up on question 3, I had this discussion recently which tangentially relates to the conflict you had on the Michigan Highway article. As you can see, there are two different viewpoints over whether or not having an opinion on a subject, or how a group of articles should be organised, might be considered WP:INVOLVED. What are your thoughts on that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A: @Ritchie333: I personally don't think making a categorical statement about a group of articles makes you involved with a single article automatically. Now, there are times when it does cross that line. To me, there's no clear-cut guideline. Somewhere in the WT:MILHIST archives, I participated in a discussion about the notability of ACW units, and expressed some general statements. That MILHIST discussion wasn't controversial, and I don't think it would disqualify me from participating in an ACW unit AFD that I didn't have a personal connection to the article. However, in a different circumstance, in a controversial discussion, I'd say it would be best to not close, even if you aren't strictly involved. I'm of the opinion that users closing discussions should steer to the side of caution when closing contentious discussions, and avoid closures that could be seen as WP:INVOLVED. If there's any real doubt, it's probably best to let someone else close it. For instance, I've been very heavily involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force, so I wouldn't close any discussions related to that project, even if I have no connection to the specific article. So in short: it depends, but my advice would be to steer on the side of caution. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Barkeep49

7. Your participation at AfD looks great and I was just commenting that we could use another admin or two who would regularly work AfD. Can you give an example of a close you've done where the discussion could be described as contentious? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A: @Barkeep49: - I can't. I interpret the spirit of WP:BADNAC as meaning that any AFDs that are potentially contentious in any way shouldn't be closed by non-admins, so I haven't closed any potentially contentious ones. I know a lot of users probably disagree with my interpretation of BADNAC, but that's how I interpret it, so I have held myself to that standard. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: sorry I wasn't clear in my original question. I wasn't specifically referring to AfD (where I'm glad that you haven't been closing too much). I'm talking anywhere - maybe an RfC or RM for instance. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: - Well, I still have to admit I haven't done much closure. RM and RfC aren't places I haunt much, so if I'm around a RM or RfC, that probably means I'm involved and not closing. I use to do a little RFD closing, but that mostly ended in May 2020 after I made a mistake in ignoring the bartender's close in a RFD discussion I lacked the seasoning to attempt to close here and afterwards decided to not close RFDs much. I've got to confess that if I've seen an uninvolved contentious discussion, I've simply not attempted to close it. Because I lack experience in closing contentious discussions, I think it would be best for me (if I pass this RFA) to start out with only closing simpler discussions and gain seasoning closing discussions before moving on to the heated or otherwise challenging ones. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from SoWhy

8. Since your deletion work has been mentioned, please explain to me the following taggings:

• You tagged Hydraulic signaling in plants as WP:A1 within 7 minutes after the article was created with the edit summary "made title and part of first paragraph", clearly indicating, that the creator is still working on it. Why?
• You tagged a (incorrectly deleted) revision of Yazmin Aziz that started with "Request for retrieving the Deleted article : Yazmin Aziz" and contained a message of the page creator asking why the page was deleted with WP:A7. Why? Did you consider actually talking to this user clearly asking for help?
• This G12 baffles me. Clearly the "source" had copied the content from Wikipedia. Can you elaborate your thinking?
• This A7 raises a question for me: Do you believe that taggers should at least do a basic Google search before tagging for A7 or is it solely the author's responsibility to provide sufficient sources immediately?

A: @SoWhy: - For the first case, that's clearly a mistake of my part. At the time (May 2020) I was going through NPPSchool, and there were quotas of CSD taggings I needed to complete for each assignment, so I was "pushing" to get those quotas. That's not a tag I'd place today. For the second case, that was as recent as last October, but I have no memory of that tag, so I don't remember my rationale on that. In hindsight, what I should have done was left a personalized note on the creator's talk page directing them to discuss the deletion with the deleting admin. That was also a wrong tag, and not something I would do again. #3 is an example of me having a tendency towards what could be termed "copyright paranoia". It was an overeager tag, and I haven't tagged another G12 since then or done any textual copyright-related work since then, because I realized I was making too many errors due to being overeager with tagging there. #4 is an older one from March 2020. It was another instance of me "pushing" to get my NPPSchool CSD quota. It's not a tag I'd make today. In the last couple months, I've definitely swung to the opinion that A7 taggers need to conduct a search to make sure that the subject really is insignificant, not just the subject of a badly-written article. Maybe not quite a full WP:BEFORE, but we should at least be doing some search before we slap an A7 on something. At the time of the Chiozzo tag, I didn't really subscribe to that, but I've changed my mind. I've also developed the opinion over the last couple months that you shouldn't A7 an article where potential coverage would be in a language you can't read. So basically, all four of those are errors. CSD and copyright are my two weakest areas, and I have no intentions of doing CSD deletions or copyright deletions, because I recognize that that's where I'm weak. I don't think admins should be doing admin actions in areas they don't feel completely confident about, so if elected, I won't be doing admin actions with CSD or copyright. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Rschen7754

9. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) you wrote, in part Yes, I'm aware this is likely to be a controversial nomination, as the subject is a GA... Given that this is liable to be a controversial nomination, given the GA status and all, let's please keep this civil and avoid any kneejerk !votes. Would you stand by what you wrote, or do you think this could be poisoning the well?

A: @Rschen7754: - At the time, I was worried the AFD would get a lot of !votes along the lines of "Keep, it's a GA", even though GA generally isn't a judge of notability per se, as a notability check isn't hardcoded into the criteria. I made that comment in complete good faith, and wasn't trying to poison the well. Knowing what I do now, that AFD discussions of GA aren't at a special risk of being derailed by arguments built solely along the GA status (I personally don't think having the little GA icon has any real bearing on an AFD for the article, it's the sources that matter), I wouldn't add that in there today. And yes, I could and should have phrased that much better. Honestly, the more I think about that, the more I think that since GA isn't that relevant to notability, that I shouldn't have included that comment. I wasn't trying to poison the well, but in hindsight I was basically stuffing beans up my nose. So did that comment add anything productive to the discussion: no. I was afraid of the discussion being derailed, and overreacted based on nervousness. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Interstellarity

10. Suppose a Wikipedia user you know in real life gets blocked from editing. That particular user makes an unblock request. Would you unblock them? Why or why not?

A: @Interstellarity: - I would not unblock them, as I would consider that to be a form of COI. What I would do depends on the user, why they were blocked, and if I think they will become a productive user over time. If I think the user has potential to be a productive good faith user, I'd give them advice off-wiki on why the behavior leading to the block was wrong, explaining the relevant policies and how they could become a productive user. If they show interest in returning productively, I'd also give them advice on how to go about the unblock request process. I would not give advice on getting unblocked to a vandal or otherwise bad faith use on to how to get unblocked. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I agree with your answer above. Could you clarify when you say off-wiki, how would you communicate with them? Do you mean emailing them or having a conversation with them in person or both? Thanks for responding to my question. Interstellarity (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: - I'd prefer to talk to them in person if I knew them, although with COVID and geography there would be instances where email would have to suffice. Pretty much, I'd want to sound out why they want to get unblocked in person or over email to make sure its for the right reasons. If so, I'd either email them links to the policy pages or sit down with them at a library somewhere with my laptop, and explain what they were getting wrong. Just sort of some tutoring/mentoring, and them give them advice in the same manner about dos-and-don'ts for unblock requests, but have them produce their own request themselves so its genuine. Does this answer your question? I'd just say some elements of the mentoring process would be more effective done in person or over email if I know them personally so that could allow a little more personal interaction; someone I didn't know I'd communicate on their user talk page. Although, frankly, with my set of friends and coworkers, I don't think this situation is likely to come up. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the response. I was just curious what you would do in a hypothetical situation. It certainly answered my question. Interstellarity (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from History DMZ

11. I can see here that in a period of 14 months you have made 24,000+ edits and gained six user rights, that's quite an accomplishment. These are stats that would be expected from a Senior Editor with 4 YOS. May I ask, what drives and motivates you to put so much time and effort on en.Wikipedia?

A: @History DMZ: - Before answering this question, I will note that I don't put a whole lot of weight into raw edit counts. Quality is greater than quantity, and it's hard to boil quality down into a single number. I also wouldn't say that I "gained" user rights as an accomplishments (with the exception of extended confirmed, which is automatically bestowed), rather I'd describe it as just having a handful of extra tools that I'm trusted to use. With that aside said, I'll answer the actual question now. I'm not entirely sure why wikipedia has been so fun of a hobby for me, but I have an idea why. I have a natural love of knowledge. Offwiki, I often read two or three 250-400 page books a month. That sort of carries through to here, as I often write articles based on what I'm reading about at the time. I also consider enwiki to have the potential to be the single best source of knowledge for the English-speaking world, and I want to do my part at achieving that by expanding and improving our coverage. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Dps04

12. Thank you for your contributions to date. As an admin, if you come across an article which has yet to be tagged but, in your opinion, unquestionably meets one or more of the CSD criteria, would you just go ahead and delete that article under the relevant CSD criteria you consider to be appropriate, or would you prefer placing a csd tag on that article and let a second admin look into the situation?

A: @Dps04: - As in my answer per Q8 above, I don't plan on doing any copyright or CSD-related admin actions anytime soon. So I'll answer your question as if it were a hypothetical situation in a year or so from now, in a world where I've mastered CSD. In that case, I would only delete it myself if it were a completely blatant-clear-cut-no-doubt-in-the-world attack page or copyright violation. Otherwise, I think it would be best to just tag it and have another admin do the deletion. Article deletion should almost always take at least two people. Even with PRODs and WP:NOQUORUM soft deletions, there's still the nominator and the deleting admin both taking a look at the content. Only in situations where definite legal harm comes from keeping the article up (copyright violations and attack pages) should there be one-person deletions, and with copyright violations, it would still often be wise to have another person take a look. I don't plan on doing any CSD deleting or copyright deleting for the forseeable future, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from BrxBrx

13. Hi! I'm really glad to see you've been nominated! I've been aware of your contributions from our previous pleasant interactions, and it delights me to see other people agree that you're a fine editor. I hope this question is novel and hasn't been already touched upon. There are several wp:essays that either promote or discourage certain behaviour, without necessarily having gained obvious consensus. Suppose an administrator begins to block users based on what's touched upon in an essay, but that essay has not necessarily gained full consensus. When challenged, the administrator cites the essay as if were an authoritative policy. How would you handle such a situation, and why?

A: @BrxBrx: - Well, we shouldn't be blocking people based on essays. Some of the behavior discouraged by essays is in fact against policy at various points, so it's worth looking a little deeper, as it may have been a legitimate block, but just poorly stated, in which case starting a discussion with the admin on their talk page is the right thing to do to try to get them to word their block notices better. If it's not a legitimate block, what should not be done is immediately using the admin tools to unblock the user, which violates WP:WHEELWAR. Instead, you should also be discussing with the user first. Hopefully, the issue should resolve itself, and any improperly blocked users unblocked. In the sad case that the situation persists, widespread and continued improper blocking is grounds for an ANI or ARBCOM trip, but discussion should always be the first step in these situations. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Davidelit

14. What is your opinion on the question of whether registered users only should be able to edit Wikipedia?

A: @Davidelit: - I think registration should be optional, although required to create pages or open article deletion discussions (to cut down on disruption). Like I said in my acceptance statement above, I was an IP editor for two or three months before registering an account. Some editors just don't want to register an account for privacy or other reasons, and still contribute productively. While I've seen much vandalism from IPs here, I've also seen a lot of productive edits from IPs, including some very well reasoned AFD and RFD comments. Requiring registration would cut off a lot of very good edits, and remove a good source of new registered editors. Hog Farm _Bacon 12:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from SoyokoAnis

15. Hey! I already supported but I wondering what is the worst edit you've ever made? SoyokoAnis 07:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A: @SoyokoAnis: - I honestly don't know. All of my edits have been made in good faith, so I wouldn't consider any of them to be "bad" edits, just mistakes. I've broken my fair share of template transclusions on accident in my time. Hog Farm _Bacon 12:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional questions from Paul Carpenter

16. An article is bought to AfD for questionable notability, it has sources but none in English. The nominator acknowledges this but says since they aren't in English, he can't verify them. AfD commenters accuse the nominator of bias against [topic] in non English speaking countries, and the conversation becomes heated. What would you say to both the nominator and the commenter?

A: @Paul Carpenter: - I'd remind the nominator that WP:NONENG (part of the verifiability policy) says that Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. The proper thing to do here is to either request translation or to plug bits into Google translate. Some browsers even have the ability to translate a webpage. So there are things that can be done to verify non-English sources without throwing them out offhand. The commenter would need to be reminded that accusing another editor of bias could be construed as a personal attack and that comments should be focused on the content, not the contributor. Hog Farm _Bacon 12:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

17. You've used a phrase "productive user" a couple of times, how would you define that?

A: I would define a productive user as any good-faith user who is attempting to create positive improvements to the encyclopedia, although I recognize that's a bit of a broad definition. Hog Farm _Bacon 12:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from AVSmalnad77

18. Have you edited Wikipedia with another account before creating this? I am asking because looking at your oldest edits, I noticed that you nominated an AfD within one day of creating your account. Right from the start you participated in mutiple AfDs, edited templates and showed good knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Usually it takes some time for new editors to become familiar with Wikipedia.

A: @AVSmalnad77: - See my acceptance statement above. While I've only ever edited from this account, I had two or three months as an IP editor under my belt, so my early edits should essentially be viewed as coming from a two or three month old account, rather than a brand new one. I'd learned how to insert references as an IP editor, for instance. I actually created an account because I didn't think an IP had standing to open an AFD, and at the time I wanted to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Kind of Town (which doesn't show great depth of notability policy knowledge, in my opinion). The AFD being opened really soon after registering an account is from an active IP editor registering an account for the purpose of opening that AFD. Additionally, I'm a very heavy reader, so I got bored one night at college and read a lot of the behavior and all of the notability guidelines (I still have read most of the MOS, though). I just read a lot and got the basics down as an IP editor, which is why looked more knowlegable as a new editor than most, because I wasn't really that new from IP editing. Hog Farm _Bacon 12:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Jeepday

19. It seems like a lot of the posts you have at AFD should be prods, not AFD. Example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraft, Kentucky Can you explain why you think this might be controversial so not a candidate for WP:PROD ? Jeepday (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A: @Jeepday: - I run almost all of the Kentucky ones through AFD and not PROD, and rate limit myself to six open at a time, after the discussion here, although I will note the requesting user hasn't commented on any of the Kentucky place AFDs, since, but I view the Kentucky ones as potentially controversial as a result of this discussion, so not PROD candidates unless it's obvious non-communities like the recently-PRODded Tom Johns Crossing, Kentucky. And these geostub noms have proven controversial in the past - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clem, West Virginia which was kept on the basis of having a post office, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldridge, West Virginia, which was deleted with opposition. So when deciding on AFD vs PROD, it's kinda a judgment call, and it takes a few AFDs to build up precedent that that run of articles will be noncontroversial. For instance, after a handful of AFDs determined that deleting Virginia subdivision stubs would be noncontroversial if there was no historic community besides the modern subdivision, so I've been PRODding those. I've PRODded 187 articles, almost all place stubs, since the start of December, so it's not like I'm taking everything to AFD. My current standard is to PROD obvious non-communities like Eagle, California, Whipsaw Saddle, Idaho, and Gentrys Mill, Kentucky, while taking potentially controversial stuff such as Bonadelle Ranchos Nine, California or completely unidentifiable stuff like Skullhead, Georgia to AFD, although I'm starting to think the latter category should be PRODded as well. In short - historically, some of those place name articles have proven controversial in the past, so if I think it might be controversial, then it goes to AFD, although I did do excess AFDs in November and December, and a few still, like the Skullhead article. It's just a judgment call on if it's potentially controversial, so if in doubt, I tend to lean AFD. The filtering process on the thousands of US geostubs, which is where most of my recent deletion work has been, can be very tricky at times, so its best to be safe if in doubt, IMO. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Paradise Chronicle

20. Given your interest in military history: As an admin, how would you address a dispute brought to you in which editors push a POV of authoritarian regimes and call areas and towns liberated from ISIL as (Kurdish) occupied? ISIL (also known as ISIS) is probably the best known UNO designated terror organization and has probably also the most front-page appearances as a terror organization since Al Qaeda in 2001. It has also a lets say at least questionable women's rights record.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A - @Paradise Chronicle: - I will say that I am not as familiar with international geopolitics as I should be, and I'm afraid I have to admit that I don't understand the full meaning of what "(Kurdish) occupied" means in this context. And I would be extremely reluctant to step in to mediate in a dispute as to where I don't understand the full implications of what everything means because I'd almost certainly do something stupid. That sad, Wikipedia should certainly not be a vehicle for pro-ISIL POV (or any POV pushing for that matter) and such content should be reverted. In the end, I'd just find a more knowledgeable user on the subject who I trust well, and direct the dispute that way. Topics such as international geopolitics, the caste system, ethnic-group related matters, and other such highly complex and difficult topics are things I don't really understand well enough to feel comfortable with helping run dispute resolution in. Stuff I am very familiar with, such as 19th-century American history or the Lord of the Rings, I'd be willing to help with dispute resolution, but if I feel like I don't understand it, I'm going to be very wary of unintentionally causing harm. So in short - I think current affairs in the Middle East is too complex for me to feel comfortable mediating. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hm. In what way do the duties of an admin depend on the admin's knowledge of the topic of the article in question, or aren't there certain criteria (policies, guidelines) that are on a different level? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: - Admins are suppose to know policy pretty thoroughly. But they're allowed to not be experts everywhere - not everybody is great with file licensing or copyright, which are both areas I'm weak. And when you get complex topics, it can be hard to judge policies when you don't necessarily understand the entire problem. I don't think we should be expecting people to know everything, or to be able to adjucate even policy disputes in cases where they don't speak the languages many of the sources will be in. From my experience, there are times when background knowledge of the subject matter is necessary to really be able to properly apply policies, and I'm not going to get involved in situations I don't understand well enough to confidently make decisions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Sdrqaz

21. Would you be open to recall? If so, what would your procedure and criteria be? If not, why?

A: @Sdrqaz: - Yes, as I think it's important to have that layer of accountability for adminstrators. I don't think adminship should be an automatic for-life process, as it should instead be dependent on keeping the trust of the community. If I am elected to adminship, I will list myself as open to recall under the terms of Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process, with one addition - that there should be a three-month period between passing RFA and opening the recall petition. I think it's important to give new admins a chance before recalling, as nobody's gonna be perfect from the get-go. Rather, it's about minimizing the number and significance of making those mistakes through being careful. Also, I think allowing immediate recalling right after the RFA ends creates a dangerous precedent that could be used as an autochallenge against any even slightly controversial RFA in the future. I don't think an immediate recall is something that's gonna happen to me if I pass RFA, but I think the time frame after initial promotion is something that is lacking from the standard procedure - sort of like how there's a minimum stretch of time for a FAR to be made after a successful FAC. So the short answer is that if I pass RFA, I will definitely be listing myself as open to recall. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Nsk92

22. In your answer to Q8 you wrote: "At the time (May 2020) I was going through NPPSchool, and there were quotas of CSD taggings I needed to complete for each assignment, so I was "pushing" to get those quotas." Could you please explain, in as much detail and specificity as possible, what you mean here by the quotas for CSD taggins at the NPPSchool, and comment, if you know, whether the practice of requiring such quotas is currently common there?

A: @Nsk92: - Okay, as background, NPPSchool has a CSD assignment, where the person undergoing it has to demonstrate their understanding of the CSD criteria by providing a certain number of successful CSD tags. Going back through the old assignment, the requirement was 5 G11s, 5 G12s, 5 article or R3 speedies (including at least two A7s), and then 5 additional ones of any criteria other than G11/G12/G13. There is no time requirement for completing this assignment, and this one took me about a month from early March 2020 to early April 2020. The exact phrasing in the instructions was Pls read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and hist diffs and I will check them at your CSD log. So @SoWhy:, evidently that Hydraulic signalling in plants A1 was a bad decision on my part, and was totally unrelated to NPP School. In hindsight, I see "quota" isn't a good word here, as it's rather a test to see if you know the criteria, and there's no expectation to try to find those quickly. I was going rather slowly through the assignment, but felt like I should have been going quicker, so in order to get my five of each, I started tagging articles that were pretty marginal in hopes of getting one through. Now that behavior is in no way the fault of NPPSchool, but rather me. So I hope nobody takes anything said in this RFA and uses that to form a poor judgment on NPPSchool. My practice of tagging marginal ones for that reason is a poor reflection on my judgment and decision making. So, really, the "quotas" didn't exist in practice, and aren't pushed as a quota as far as I know, and based on User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/6#NPP school don't exist beyond my personal knowledge either. In the end, this is a failing of mine that hurt the encyclopedia and would have caused even more damage if some of the marginal nominations of mine hadn't been rejected; it shouldn't reflect on NPPSchool. The one thing I would change about those instructions I quoted above would be striking the word successful. I suspect that seeing 5 taggings of each type, successful or not, would give a better handle on the student's abilities as a more overall picture of their taggings is given. In the end, it just comes down to me not being very good at CSD. If this RFA succeeds, which is possible, then I won't be performing admin actions in the CSD realm. If this RFA fails, which is possible, then my CSD work will be limited to what's been in my CSD log (at User:Hog Farm/CSD log since December - mostly just clear-cut G14s from cleaning up dab pages reduced to one entry through performing round robin moves (I'm an extended mover) and tagging G14 for (disambiguation) redirects to non-dab targets. I'd say its for the best of the encyclopedia that I stay away from most of CSD. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Haleth

23. Hi there. I noticed that many editors on Wikipedia seem to have very divergent opinions on what is and isn't an appropriate rationale for AfD nominations, even amongst experienced and longtime administrators who I'd expect to be very knowledgeable about interpreting Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I will briefly summarize two examples from recent AfD discussions for my question. In one AfD discussion, a participating administrator expressed a view that the rationale behind the nomination is not important or relevant as long as concerns were already raised by the nominator with the article's state of sourcing, though other editors (including myself) have voiced out concerns that the nominator's AfD rationale wasn't properly constructed per WP:NEXIST and that their argument wasn't explicitly advocating for deletion as they specifically implied that it probably should belong in a related list article. In another merge proposal discussion on a particular article's talk page, an editor's argument that the subject topic's notability should have been tested via an AfD as opposed to a merge discussion (which results in a "soft delete") was rebuffed by a participating administrator, who explained that editors should not go to AFD unless their goal is to make a case to delete the page, and that while an AFD outcome may ultimately result in the page's redirection, the admin emphasized that the nominator cannot nominate as "should be redirected". Could we hear your take on these two contrasting scenarios, especially since you have had extensive participation in AfD matters, and you said you intend to work extensively in AfD matters once you've become an administrator? Haleth (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A @Haleth: - An AFD nomination should not be based on the extent of the sourcing already in the article, as the extent of all available reliable, secondary sources is what really matters. I also personally think that an AFD should not be opened when the desired outcome is a really a merger, as that's what merge discussions are for. See [[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fellowship of the Ring]] as an example of where the desired outcome was merge, so there should have just been a merger discussion, and the AFD closed as essentially keep, but discuss merge elsewhere. However, I think AFD should be where editors go for a potentially controversial redirection. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway). Redirect was both the outcome that happened, and the outcome I really desired as nominator, but a WP:BOLD blank-and-redirect would have been very controversial, so where do you go? The only real answer to that question is AFD. So I think AFD is good for proposing potentially controversial redirects, but not merges. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from BeenAroundAWhile

24. Would you be willing to use a more standard message signoff than "Bacon" in order to assist non-English-speakers or confused new Wikipedians in communicating with you? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A @BeenAroundAWhile: - Yes. I thought it was funny and didn't realize the potential confusion factor. Since it would be confusing to the users who don't understand the "pig farm and bacon" joke, I've changed to a more standard one saying Talk. Hog Farm _Talk 15:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question from Vitalis196

25. Hi, I notice that a very large part of your activity in Wikipedia has been in Article deletion - at times deleting several articles a day. I understand that pruning and curating the content on Wikipedia is essential, but I do sometimes worry that editors can be too quick to delete pages.

Back in November 2019 you nominated Myrtle Beach Convention Center for deletion (see:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myrtle_Beach_Convention_Center ). It's a large convention centre which is very clearly notable to anyone who so much as googled it, all the article needed was a clean up. As per the discussion, you withdrew the nomination under WP:HEY because "The article has been completely rewritten and easily meets the standards now. ", despite the fact that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. It's an understandable mistake, but it could have resulted in the deletion of a notable article, or be seen as using an AfD to force improvements on an article. But, you seem to be essentially making the same mistake again right now though, you've nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Texas Multi-Use Facility (also known as the East Texas Treatment Facility), despite the fact that it's a large prison with regional significance and 2,200 inmates, and seems quite clearly notable.

I don't mean to focus on a couple of individual cases, and I've only spent ten minutes looking through your contributions so I can't say whether what I've found is generalisable or if it's just a fluke I've come across. But, as an editor who deletes a large amount of articles from Wikipedia, what do you intend to do to ensure that notable articles aren't swept up in deletion drives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalis196 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A @Vitalis196: - I honestly don't think that Myrtle Beach Convention Center one bears any relevance whatsoever. That AFD is from the first month I had a registered account, and that has no bearing on my editing today. Just because I made a rookie mistake a few weeks after registering my account does not speak to how I handle things today. I was new enough then that I didn't really understand all of the notability guidelines completely, and it was a new user error. As to the more recent one, I still stand that that article fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The claim that sheer size makes it notable runs afoul of WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. As to the search of sources you've provided, I have to agree with Silk Tork, who commented in the discussion. Those sources appear to be brief mentions in news stories, stating that someone there got COVID or such. As a private prison and thus an organization, I believe that subject would be judged under WP:NORG, and those sources all seem to fail WP:ORGDEPTH. So despite having 2200 inmates, it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. And if you need assurance I also work on improving content, after a FA promotion yesterday, I now have three articles that I've written all the way from no content on the encyclopedia to the highest recognition for article quality: Landis's Missouri Battery, Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment, and 1st Missouri Field Battery. While I do nominate many articles for deletion, I also work on improving articles too, so its not like I overemphasize deletion. Hog Farm _Talk 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional questions from 20th anniversary

26. If you become an admin you will gain the power to ban users, how do you plan to use this power? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20th anniversary (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A @20th anniversary: - To start out with, bans are different than blocks. Bans are more severe and are generally handed out by ARBCOM or the wikimedia foundation itself. Blocks are what administrators deal with, rather than bans. I don't plan on doing much blocking, and I'd generally only wade into that if WP:AIV or WP:UAA got incredibly backlogged, and somebody had to deal with that. And even then, I'd only block the most blatant vandal-only accounts and the most inappropriate user names, such as derogatory or offensive names that could not possibly be used in good faith. Blocking should only be done with very good justification, the reasons for the block and how to request unblock should be clearly explained, and I think blocking is not something you should be diving right into. If I'm elected to adminship, my focus is going to be deletion, and I'd extremely rarely work with blocking. And if I were ever to work with AIV, I'd see about undergoing a WP:CVUA tuneup first, as it's been a few months since I regularly did countervandalism work. I have the sort of personality where I'd feel bad blocking someone unless they acted in extremely bad faith, so I plan on doing little work in that admin area if elected. Hog Farm _Talk 00:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

27. What do you think qualifies as the most blatant vandal-only accounts and the most inappropriate user names which you said you will block if you become an admin?

A @20th anniversary: - Blatant vandal-only accounts are those whose sole edit history consists of doing things that can only be construed as vandalism. If an account has six edits, and all of them are to replace the content of an article with the words "poopy diaper", then it's safe to say that's a vandal-only account. Grossly innappropriate usernames would be things such as pretending to be a bot, as that's against the WP:Username policy (such as a hypothetical user named Spelling Correction Bot), usernames that are pretending to be other editors, such as a hypothetical user with the name Hogg Farm, or usernames that consist of clearly disruptive or offensive content, such as usernames that are ethnic slurs or things like "WikipediaCanGoFuckItself". There are just certain usernames that are not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Hog Farm _Talk 17:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Hog Farm: Hog Farm (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Hog Farm 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 as nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Support huge support for a fantastic editor as nom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Lots of interactions, nothing to say but good things. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
5. Strong support, I am very pleased to see this RfA! Hog Farm is a content creator who is well versed in deletion policy, and wants to help out in an administrative capacity. I've seen enough of their contributions at RfD, AfD, and PROD that I am more than confident that they will do an excellent job. I wish you all the best! -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
6. Support, trusted user. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
7. Support. Seen HF around AfD many times, and they clearly have an excellent grasp of deletion policy. No qualms about having them help out in an administrative capacity in that area as well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
8. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
9. Support - I'm familiar with some of their great work. Would be a perfect admin--NØ 17:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
10. Support, excellent content creator but also always level-headed in discussion - Dumelow (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
11. I was considering offering a nomination myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
12. Support precious editor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
13. Support. Having checked talk page entries and past edits, I can see that Hog Farm is a reliable user with a good track record. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
14. Support seen them around, no concerns. Spicy (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
15. Support Don't have to think twice. Le Panini ^[🥪] 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
16. Support- Has a clue. No concerns from me that the candidate would break the project. Good luck.   Aloha27  talk  18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
17. Support I have wondered why they were not an admin yet. I have only seen great work from them. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
18. Support - I have seen Hog Farm's edits pop up a lot in the past year, working hard to clean up hundreds of settlement articles in California. Hog Farm collaborated with several other editors on this clean up, and was very thorough and showed good judgement. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
19. A quality contributor, to be sure. Will make a welcome addition. El_C 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
20. Support Meets my criteria easily.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
21. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
22. Support without hesitation. Chetsford (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
23. Support. Hog Farm is one of only a few non-admins here whose judgement I'd automatically be inclined to trust. Despite him only having been around Wikipedia for less than 2 years, he's been a very good content creator. Based on the nominators' statements, I'd also say he has a good handle on admin fields such as deletion policy. Epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
24. Support rapidly has become a great contributor and has demonstrated the temperament and command of the policies & procedures to make an excellent admin. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
25. Support. It really says something that I thought HF was already among our administrators. Will use the tools sensibly, wisely, and will good judgement; trust completely. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
26. Support The candidate had already made a positive impression on me the few times we met during AfD. Having taken a look at his contributions, I have not doubt they will be a good admin. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
27. Support Knows what they're doing, good enough for me. SK2242 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
28. Support. I've seen Hog Farm around a ton in AfD and PROD patrol and think nothing but good things. Fantastically perseverant work. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
29. Support Hog Farm has done excellent work with our taskforce cleaning up the mess of non-notable places in California, and I appreciate his contributions. He will make a great administrator. Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
30. Support. When I nominated Hog Farm for editor of the week I wrote "HF is clearly an administrator in the making". So this is more of a Hell, yes!. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
31. Support Hell yes! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
32. Support - good mix of content to administrative tasks, and good answers to questions. Erring on the side of not using your admin tools (and, also importantly, not giving the impression you would) is a good stance to take and will stop conflict occuring. I did spot all of the deletions mentioned by SoWhy, but as Hog Farm has admitted fault and resolved to improve himself going forward, I don't see any concerns. Incidentally, to add to your answer to Q8 - make sure you check the creator's account details if they exist. In the case of Hydraulic signaling in plants, your CSD tag was approved by an admin, but the article was created as part of a student course, so you could always give someone like Ian (Wiki Ed) a shout. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
33. Support Admins should be content creators, and Hogfarm is an excellent one. Plus they show an aptitude for AfD, a realm that needs some help. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
34. Support. I'm happy with the answer to my question. Regards SoWhy 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
35. Support - per Ritchie333, and demonstrates incidentally, that a user can qualify for admniship in just over 12 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
36. Support Strong content creators make the best admins. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
37. Support Plainly a competent editor who would make good use of the tools. In regards to question 9, I don't think there is anything wrong with pre-emptively addressing counter-arguments especially when you believe they will be of the kneejerk variety. The wordings could have been improved, but I think Hog Farm's concerns were perfectly valid. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
38. Support Looks good all around. Very solid AfD stats. Possibly (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
39. Support – very active at AfD and URFA from what I've seen, fantastic content creator. No doubts in my mind that they are net positive. Aza24 (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
40. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
41. Support - excellent resource at AfD (including having rightfully AfD'd a handful of my old articles) and elsewhere on the project. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
42. Support - great work on Military articles, good work on AfD (although a bit deletionist for my taste, but that's okay). Bearian (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
43. Support - No concerns and seems to be a very qualified editor. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
44. Support Would make a great admin, very skilled when it comes to AfD and PROD. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
45. Support Appears to have more than sufficient experience and clue. Fully qualified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
46. Support no brainer, adminship is not a big deal and I can't see any significant risk here. Good luck! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
47. Support Full support.--Catlemur (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
48. Support i Don't know this user but i do think they would make a good admin so I "Support" --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
49. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
50. No concerns. Has both content and non-content experience. Good answers to both the tough and silly questions. Thanks for volunteering! Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
51. Support, for some reason I thought this user was already an admin - Astrophobe (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
52. Support: wants the tools, no temperament concerns, very capable and a person who has done much good for the encyclopedia! — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
53. Support The name didn't ring any clear bells (we don't intersect all that much, I guess), but a look at their contributions has turned up lots of positive evidence and no indication they would misuse the tools. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
54. Support good work at AFD and RFD per Astrophobe. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
55. Support Judgement and temperament look good. No concerns. Welcome aboard! Miniapolis 23:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
56. Support ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 00:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
57. Strong support I am very familiar with HF's content work, which has largely been within Milhist's scope. To say that it has been prodigious and of excellent quality is an understatement. So, HF definitely exceeds my content creation expectations for an admin. But where HF really stands out as a potential admin is in their ability to learn quickly, incorporate what they have learned into their editing, and their teachability, willingness to accept advice, and ability to change their mind where the evidence or weight of opinion differ from their own. They have also been uniformly civil in all their interactions I have seen. Their answers above also demonstrate that they are aware of their limitations and will not perform admin actions they are not comfortable with until they have greater experience with them. These are great qualities for an admin. Definitely a safe pair of hands into which to put the mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
58. Support. Tempermanent plus technique. Well qualified. Britishfinance (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
59. Support Tenure is short, but that's no reason not to support, given his contributions. We have to recruit users like HF if we're going to re-establish adminship as no big deal. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
60. Support I'll admit I was going to oppose but I'm sufficiently convinced by Q6 and Q9. --Rschen7754 01:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
61. Support - Although the tenure is short, I trust that they will do a good job with the tools. Interstellarity (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
62. Support Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
63. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
64. Support Excellent answer to my question (13), along with great answers for 9, 10 and 12 which all indicate level-headedness and a propensity for care. History of interaction with this user has been very encouraging, with no apparent cases of wp:bite. Anecdotally, every interaction I've had with this user has been cordial and pleasant. I'm delighted that this editor will likely be a cool-headed and controversy-adverse administrator. I certainly hope this RfA succeeds, and if so, enjoy the mop! BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 04:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
65. Support I don't see any problems. Good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
66. Support. Best of luck. Pamzeis (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
67. Support. The candidate's response to my question (Q12) shows that they are not only knowledgable about the policy, but that they are also able to adopt a sensible approach in dealing with matters especially in areas where they humbly recognize that they may not be fully proficient in. Has the knowledge and temperament of admin, and will be a net positive. Good luck. --Dps04 (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
68. Support. While AfD data struck me as leaning heavily to deletion, my experience with HF (and a spot check of his AfDs) shows he has a good sense of notability standards. Substantial content creation also a huge plus for any admin. Cbl62 (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
69. Support You would fit the position perfectly! SoyokoAnis 07:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
70. Support, no problems here. Graham87 08:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
71. Support Good candidate, thank you User:Lee Vilenski Garnarblarnar (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
72. Support per Eddie891. I have never interacted with the candidate but their recent contributions appears excellent and satisfactory. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
73. Support Why not? -FASTILY 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
74. Support - From what I've seen, the user is friendly, knowledgeable and a clear benefit to the project. A good candidate for admin. Kosack (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
75. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 09:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
76. Support - qualified candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
77. Support, trusted user,,Hamaredha (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
78. Support Have seen around the project, should make a good admin JW 1961 Talk 12:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
79. Support Hope you'll continue your lovely work at FAR. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
80. Support undoubtedly a great candidate. ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 13:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
81. Support, haven't interacted with this user before but answers to questions are all clearly well considered and with a benevolent view towards the project. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
82. Support I haven't come across this editor before, however reviewing their edits, and they way they are answering the questions here, I feel comfortable in giving them the mop. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
83. Support Seems like a good candidate. Editor's contributions and their responses to questions show they can be trusted with the Admin tools. AVSmalnad77 ^talk 13:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
84. Support - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 14:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
85. Support. I've come across their work and never had any issues. They know what they want the tools for, and understands that being an admin is a learning process in itself so won't go in 'all guns blazing' from day one. Very level-headed replies to the questions posed so far. Overall, seems a great candidate. Neiltonks (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
86. Support. experienced and responsible. I have come across Hog Farm several time and have been impressed by the way they handle things. Would be a great addition to the admin community. REDMAN 2019 (talk)
87. Support Great content creator and a clear need for tools. Roller26 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
88. Support - I have observed Hog Farm through his participation in the WikiCup, his content creation is excellent and he always seems to be level-headed in discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
89. Support. per noms. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
90. Support as I think this user can be trusted with the tools. GiggityGiggityGoo! 16:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
91. Support Clearly dedicated to the project and very qualified for the role. —DanCherek (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
92. Support, intuitively, and Thanks! --Westbahnhof (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
93. Support: clear commitment, thoughtful answers. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
94. Support Impressed by the few interactions with them, no red flags, obviously here for the right reasons and willing to put in a bit of graft - why not? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
95. Support 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
96. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
97. Support. While I despise the AfD nomination of a Michigan highway article, this reflects in no way on the quality of the candidate's judgment in editorial or administrative tasks. Every time I've seen them around, it's been them doing wise stuff. Everything they've said in response to the questions is what a wise, thoughtful person who understood the role would say, and there is enough editing experience for that not to be a fluke. Will be nice to have around. jp×g 20:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
98. Support Very impressed by handling of the questions. Slight pause due to recent acknowledged errors and less longevity, but I'm sure they'll be doubly careful when acting with the admin hat on. Suggest gaining more experience before treading into tough areas that are not in your current plan. North8000 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
99. Support "...becoming a sysop is not a big deal"..."The Lord can giveth (RFA) and the Lord can taketh away". SethWhales ^talk 20:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
100. Support What has most impressed me about Hog Farm is not his extensive contributions to top quality articles, nor his willingness to help others, nor how quickly he learns, nor that he anticipates needs and fills in wherever needed. All of that is exemplary, but it is that he listens and adjusts positions as he hears and learns. I hope he will use the tools sparingly, and stay involved in content review processes, where his assistance has become invaluable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
101. Support No major concerns. Intothatdarkness 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
102. Support A great content contributor, and excellent answers to questions. Seems knowledgeable and level-headed. No concerns.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
103. Per this comment by the candidate. Knowing full well that I may oppose, Hog Farm unequivocally took responsibility for their mistake and provided me with further information to help inform my opinion. Now that's integrity if I've ever seen it. Reading the discussion they linked, I'm not even convinced the quota thing is entirely their fault. Absolutely no reservations; give em the tools. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
104. Support — Per Wugapodes, integrity is a very imperative trait an admin should possess. Furthermore I have worked with Hog Farm in AFD related activities and I find their contributions impressive. Lastly, it’s no big deal so please. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
105. Support. I have seen Hog Farm's name around and have a positive impression of them, but what led me to !vote is their comments about the NPPSchool situation mentioned by Wugapodes above and on Barkeep49's talkpage. It is also a good thing to have more admins with a fresher perspective whose accounts are not over a decade old ;) — The Earwig ^talk 02:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
106. Weak Support - Slotsloads2 (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
107. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
108. Support "Prolific content creator" is an understatement. Hog Farm has given impressive answers to their questions as well. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
109. Support committed editor and great contributor. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
110. Support clearly a hard-working, thoughtful and courteous editor. Davidelit (Talk) 03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
111. Not a jerk. Has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
112. Support I've come across his name many times. Seems to be hard working and level headed. Glendoremus (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
113. Support, great to have another competent mopper cleaning the corridors of afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
114. Support I like the way Hog Farm does his GA Reviews. Clear, simple, concise and always upfront. Set a very good example for me to follow. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
115. Support Hog Farm is an excellent editor, and is level headed and sensible in discussions: I think that they'll make a good admin Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
116. Support looks good. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
117. Support Don't know the candidate, but all looks good; i specially like the answer to Q20, if I feel like I don't understand it, I'm not going to be very wary of unintentionally causing harm (though i think there's an extra not in there): Anyone who's concerned about unintentional harm to the project and will therefore be careful gets my support; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC) edited for consistency with the edited answer; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 13:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
118. Sold - I really like his username, and particularly his answer to Q20. We shouldn't expect our admin candidates to know everything on a global scale, well, maybe after a year or so of adminning they should , but I really liked the part wherein he said WP should not be a vehicle for any POV pushing for that matter. Atsme 💬 📧 11:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
119. Support. Generally good contributions. In his answer to question 8, I am happy that Hog Farm has learnt from his mistakes and is unlikely to repeat them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
120. I'm impressed. It's a Yes from me. SilkTork (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
121. Support Net positive; anyone who shows understanding of mistakes and a willingness to learn from them is doing the right thing. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
122. Support From my experience with him as a GA reviewer, concerns about a lack of experience creating content seem unfounded. His eye helped a lot in getting Esopus Creek to GA status. Just because you're not regularly creating content doesn't mean you don't understand what makes it good. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
123. Support — don't see why not! Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
124. Support Is a very productive, active candidate; no reason not to give them sysop. (eggybonk! (contribs)) 18:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
125. Support Pile on. Hog Farm has demonstrated himself to be enormously productive and invariably sensible contributor in the ACW content area, and I am grateful he has joined our community. The candidate seems to have clue, energy and willingness. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
126. Support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
127. Support Hog Farm has always been courteous and competent in all my interactions with them. A content master, which I consider the most important qualification for admins. Looking forward to Hog Farm picking up the mop. Ergo Sum 20:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
128. I have had a think about this, and I'm moving to Weak Support. I still feel the user might be too new for the tools, but is otherwise a good candidate. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
129. Support While I have never interacted with Hog Farm, I frequently come across some of his edits on WP and I remember having been impressed by the quality of his edits on numerous occasions. Having looked at his contributions to date, I feel very confident in supporting Hog Farm's RfA. HouseBlaster^talk 22:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
130. Support. While I had concerns over length of tenure, those concerns were sufficiently allayed by their answers to the questions posed. Administrators need to be able to recognise their shortcomings, mistakes, and when to defer to others more suited to carrying out a duty. I am satisfied that the candidate will be able to do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
131. Support. Clearly thoughtful, willing to admit error, and knows their way around our processes and policies well enough that giving the tools will be a benefit. Fences&Windows 23:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
132. Support Wholeheartedly; every AfD and ANI thread I've seen them in, they've been a voice of reason in their short time here, and will be a great mop guardian. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
133. Sippoert - Yep. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
134. Support, eminently qualified, eminently reasonable, in my humble opinion one of the best editors on this site. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
135. Support Superb, tireless, skilled and well rounded contributor in both content and administrative type areas, especially deletions. An editor who has been a strong contributor from the outset. I have seen Hog Farm make many worthwhile contributions to WikiProject:Military History. The answers are quite good overall. Willing to learn and correct mistakes. Good demeanor. I believe Hog Farm has shown trustworthiness and will be a fine administrator. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
136. Support, thought he already was one. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
137. Support strong consensus candidate. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
138. Support: I believe that Hog Farm will be a net positive to Wikipedia; they may have made some errors with CSD, but everyone makes mistakes (both on Wikipedia and in real life). That doesn't concern me. It is how one learns from their mistakes and adjusts their behaviour that matters, IMO. I believe that HF will take the feedback they have received about CSD on board and adjust accordingly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
139. Support. I find the contributions fine. Why not? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
140. Support -- I have no qualms on my end. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
141. Support. Username reminds of Wiz of Oz and Dorothy walking the fence above the hog pen. Where do you get these names? Anyway, candidate will make a good admin, pigs in a blanket! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
142. Support no concerns. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
143. Support - as some others have said, I'm very surprised that Hog Farm isn't one already. This decision is a no brainer! Spiderone 21:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
144. Support: This candidate will be an alert and responsible administrator whom I, for one (and apparently one of many), will be happy to welcome to the corps. – Athaenara ✉ 22:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
145. Support: Seems unlikely to break anything, and his heart appears to be in the right place. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
146. Support: This candidate seems admirable to me. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 22:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
147. Support From memory, a welcome sight in AfD discussions, and has repeatedly demonstrated (here and otherwise) a great willingness to and capacity for reasoned discussion and self-reflection. That includes the overblown kerfuffle about question 8. No concerns that Hog Farm will not make a good admin. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
148. —Kusma (t·c) 23:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
149. Support, I have seen this editor around and have always found their judgement sound, looking at their contributions here I am impressed, they will do fine work. Cavalryman (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
150. Support I've worked with HF on the geographic deletions, and have always found them amenable to instruction and correction, which is why I'm not disturbed by the answers to Q8. My impression is that theya re quite responsible. Mangoe (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
151. Support A fantastic wikipedian. Nalbarian (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
152. Support Substantial content work, appears to have the appropriate temperament and policy knowledge base to be an administrator. Has had an account for 15 months, which is around the length I was an editor before receiving the mop, and I have no doubt they will learn and grow on the job. Will be an outstanding addition to the corps. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
153. Support No question there. SenatorLEVI 05:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
154. Support — Amkgp 💬 05:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
155. Support No concerns here, glad to see more people stepping up to be admins. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
156. Support. Seems to be a good candidate. Chandan Guha (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
157. Support Can Hog Farm be trusted with the tools? I think so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
158. Support. Not worried about the concerns raised below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

     support. I don't see any problems. Good luck. User:20th anniversary14:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

     I wish Bbb23 was still a CU. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

     Well, I didn't run a check, but the editor is now blocked as a sock of Dexdunkers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

159. Support. Thoughtful editor able to articulate his viewpoints. Mop material. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 20:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
160. Support Personally, I believe that administrators who are able to create quality content are some of the best. Seems to be trustworthy. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 22:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
161. Support Hog Farm has reviewed several of my Good Article nominations. I have over 100 Good Articles and 500 Did You Knows and I can tell you he is the best reviewer Wikipedia has. Outstanding editor that deserves to be an administrator. Hope to see him around often.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
162. Support, I generally feel good about this editor. BD2412 T 23:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
163. Support My first vote at RfA. Looks good to me. Best wishes. Mosesheron (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
164. Support Net positive, A8 not a dealbreaker for me as editor seems to have reflected and learned from it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
165. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 05:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
166. Support per general qualification, and further discussion here which refutes the concerns raised over the quota formulation in A8 (thanks for pointing that out @SandyGeorgia) --LordPeterII (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
167. Support. After seening the editors contibution my i feel i should support him. Peerzada Iflaq (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
168. Support Seems to be a bit of Prod farmer and seems to be reasonably decent at it. The CSD farming seems to progressing but could do with doing at least 4-6 times that many every month, but it is reasonably decent as well. I have never met this editor, but like most people, he/she can do most jobs under the sun and will be good at this. scope_creep^Talk 10:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
169. Support I could have sworn that the candidate was already an administrator. The !oppose votes do not seem quite convincing enough. Scorpions13256 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
170. Support. The opposes raise some valid concerns, but overall I feel the candidate is a net positive. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
171. Support Good contributions, would make good use of the mop, JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 15:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
172. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
173. Strong Support Highly experienced editor who has helped new users while remaining level headed in AfD discussions. Has clear understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. Someone who you would trust having access to the block button.--Kieran207 talk 19:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

     Forgot to mention, User has also led a group of users to help delete almost 500 California non-settlement articles. This number is quickly rising as they work to remove these mass created articles.--Kieran207 talk 19:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

174. Support - I was initially a bit concerned as the candidate argues keep only 5% of the time, which seems unusual for a prolific content creator. However, his arguments are well-reasoned and policy-based, and almost all of his participation is part of a narrow, concerted cleanup effort. There are a few locale deletions which I'm not sure best serve the encyclopedia, but that is an editorial opinion difference, please note that I do agree with the vast majority of them. The candidate's grasp of policy, and his civil manner (I'm impressed with his interaction style exemplified by this and this), and ability to self-reflect inspire confidence that Wikipedia will be better with Hog Farm having the expanded tool set. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
175. Support – Per all above me. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
176. Support I agree with others that the A8 incident is troubling, but the user seems to have reflected on it and learned from it. Other responses likewise seem thoughtful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
177. Support I've worked with Hog Farm on a number of AfDs. I've found him to be thorough in his WP:BEFORE and gracious concerning different opinions. We need more Admins like this! Cxbrx (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
178. Support I've never worked with HogFarm before, but he seems like a great editor and I know he would definitely would make a stellar admin! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
179. Support I read through the opposes and am not convinced of the significance of the issues. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
180. Support Hog farm sounds like he would do a good job as editor! Good Luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue calendar (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
181. Support Very good candidate. Takes part well in AfDs. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
182. Support In the limited dealings I have had with Hog Farm I find them to be a thoughtful and diligent editor. We all have made mistakes and I believe it is admirable that he answered each question and did so in the truest form possible even exposing his past decisions to ridicule and potentially causing harm to his bid for adminship. In short, I believe Hog Farm will make a great admin. I also believe he will make mistakes and it is incumbent upon us, as the community, to allow for that and support him even if we do not support his decisions. I have every confidence in his ability to execute his responsibilities in a fair and just manner as an admin. --ARoseWolf 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
183. Support – Hog Farm is a solid content creator, and he has a solid record at AFD. While A8 clearly shows a mistake, it is a mistake that he has learned from, and that capacity for introspection helps convince me that he may be trusted with the tools. Infallibility isn't a criterion for adminship, but trustworthiness is. That criterion has, in my view, been met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
184. Support seems good enough to me. --IWI (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
185. Seems solid all-around, opposes are not compelling. --JBL (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
186. Leaning support. A bit more deletion-focused than I'm usually comfortable with (even if, yes, someone does have to take out the trash). Nevertheless, has a been a solid content contributor, recognizes and learns from errors, seems to understand policy well as far as I can see, and isn't presenting any behavior red flags. Clearly a net positive to the project (though not necessarily to its total byte count!), and I expect would be a competent XfD and CSD admin, though there's a learning curve to that. My main concern relates to that curve and to Q8, i.e. several deletion-related errors in judgment and fairly recent. A mitigating factor is that the sheer volume of the deletion activity is bound to result in a higher error rate in that sector than would be the case for someone who didn't engage in deletion processes much.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
187. Support. Clears the bar for a prospective admin. Thanks for stepping up to wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
188. Support - valid points raised in the opposes. What pushed me to support was the careful and considered responses to issues raised in this rfa. --Find bruce (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
189. Support - Good work overall. A net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
190. Support The nominee is a solid content creator and a positive contributor behind the scenes who has clearly learned from early errors. We all make mistakes, and this editor has responded by doing better. That's an important trait in a good administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
191. Support Good to see the ranks of admins increased by one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC).
     
192. Support. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
193. Support No objections. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
194. Support. I am slightly troubled by issues highlighted in the oppose section, but on balance I trust the candidate to learn from their mistakes. Good Luck! — sparklism ^hey! 16:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
195. Support The opposition certainly shows a problem, but in this case a few drops of oil does not sour this ocean of good content and great decision making. The record at AfD, while leaning strongly to deletion, is exceptionally strong. I've looked at the nominee's last thousand deleted contributions, dating back to August, 2020. I find nothing problematic, and a whole host of appropriate decisions regarding CSD and prod deletions. I fully embrace this nominee to become an administrator. It is also heartening to see a nominee who joined the project less than two years ago. We have been having a hard time attracting such qualified people to be a nominee. Welcome to your demotion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
196. feminist (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak Oppose - You don't quite pass my criteria. Sorry. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this simply due to the length of tenure for the user, Foxnpichu? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski - Well yeah. That's why it's only a weak oppose. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving to Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Sorry to spoil the party, but I take a stronger view than the questioner about the answers to question 8. Anyone who just a few months ago prioritised pushing to get their quota of speedy deletion nominations over the integrity of the encyclopedia should not become an admin. For the record I do not support Foxnpichu's oppose above, as it seems to be based on arbitrary numbers rather than trust. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

   Putting aside the candidate for a second, I'm actually more concerned that NPP school seems to have quotas for CSD in the first place. Is this systemic or specific to the candidate? If it's common to the NPP school, I'd cut the candidate some slack, but I agree that A8 raises some concerns for me even if not specific to the candidate. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

   Wugapodes - See User_talk:Barkeep49#NPP_school. The failing was entirely with me and not with NPPSchool. I didn't communicate that well in my answer to the question above. Pyschological thing with me, not an assignment flaw, and "quota" probably isn't the best word, as it isn't really time-bound. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose, reluctantly. Candidate meets my minimums and I was going to support with a comment that the zeal in deletions was apparently a miscommunication and a desire to meet established norms. But, what nagged at my mind, if the candidate was fully ready to be an administrator - they should have known that a quota of deletions would be anathema to most editors. Ifnord (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Too eager to remove valuable contributions from Wikipedia. Deletion is sometimes necessary (best example would be copyright violations), but admins should be builders, not breakers.  Mysterymanblue  17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

   I think the reason why many other users chose to support Hog Farm is because of their understanding of the CSD. While admins should be builders, I disagree that they can't be breakers. Sometimes it is better to just get rid of something because it might be just really really bad. This doesn't mean that other users can't recreate the article, though. Not to mention, Hog Farm has created numerous FAs and GAs. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Phil Bridger. I'm troubled by the focus on quotas over notability. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Bridger/Ifnord. There's nothing wrong with painting by numbers, but don't try and pass your Sexton Blake off as a Botticelli at the end of it. Put it another way: quota or no quota, it's the apparent assumption that that's acceptable behavior that's sticky. ——Serial 08:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose. The answer to Question 8 stating that they "pushed" to meet "quotas" of articles to delete was concerning, looking through their AFDs they nominate a huge amount of articles for deletion, and quite often get it wrong. From their answer they made it clear that they contribute to Wikipedia as well as deleting articles too, but it doesn't really allay my concerns that in overzealously nominating articles for deletion that this user isn't at risk of deleting actually notable articles. I feel for administrators there should be a presumption in favour of inclusion until it's been reasonably proved that an article isn't notable, but I get the impression they tend to nominate for deletion first, and ask questions later. Vitalis196 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

   How does he quite often get it wrong? His nominations matched the result of the outcome (the article was deleted or redirected) 85% of the time which is average. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

   The majority of his recent deletions have been minor geographic locations which are all being deleted on roughly the same basis, and rarely if ever are contested. Outside of this there's a little bit of a pattern of overzealous deletion nominations where it seems like he perhaps hasn't gone as far as he ought to in establishing that an article isn't notable. I don't intend this to be an accusation or an exhaustive list, but I've included a few links here to give you an impression of what I'm talking about 1 2 3 4 5 6 Vitalis196 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Many of those nominations you cited were when Hog Farm was fairly new and clearly has learned from those experiences. I've made a number of bad nominations before, especially when I was new. You can't expect someone to be right all the time. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Yeah I understand that, although it's worth noting that none of these examples are any more than a year old and one is only than two months old. I would not expect anyone to be right all the time, but this user makes a very high volume of deletion nominations, and I'm not confident that they take as much care as they perhaps should to avoid deleting notable content. Especially considering their answers to Q.8 and Q.22.

   I did ask Q.25 because I didn't want to vote oppose and to give them a chance to demonstrate what they had learned from their experiences. Although I'll admit it was a bit of a clumsily worded question I found their answer lacking. They focused on the individual example and asserting that they do create as well as delete, rather than answering the question which was actually asking them what they intend to do in the future to avoid sweeping up notable articles in deletion drives. Vitalis196 (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   This !vote seems to be based on hard feelings stemming from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Texas Multi-Use Facility, where the !voter and HogFarm disagreed. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

   Hard feelings? No. My question to Hog_farm was admittedly badly worded but my concern was that I felt like he is overzealous in deleting articles. I don't have any vested interests in that particular East Texas Prison, I just posed it to him as an example of what I felt was an overzealous nomination that I came across while looking him up. Vitalis196 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Per answer to question 8, and follow up in question 22, with a similar rationale to Floquenbeam. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose. Basically for F'ing the Duck. The underlying issue was failure to engage with WikiProject when a set of related articles were up for deletion in order to allow for an orderly constructive consolidation rather than leaving a manure whole. Goes to weak because of some cognition certain characters may have been different. But a pattern of wiping peoples hard earned effort and realising later likely a mistake. Probably a bit harsh of an oppose and would suggest constructively engages in Pig racing.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   I'm trying, and failing, to make any sense of this paragraph. Is it just me? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   There's at least one item in each sentence that entirely derails any interpretation I'm trying to make, so not just you... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

9. Oppose per everyone above and Floquenbeam below. Everything here just feels rushed. Nihlus 05:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Not wishing to badger, Nihlus, but you only ever seem to write "Oppose per everyone else" at RfA. Why not come up with your own original and refreshing rationale instead? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Sometimes its already been put in better words by someone else. Lets not start something here. Panini ^🥪 16:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Ritchie333, surely you have something better to do? Nihlus 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Per Nihlus and Panini, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Funny to see the guy bragging that he moves faster on his own complaining about others rushing things. ;) Reyk _YO! 18:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Is it normal for Oppose votes to be heckled so much? Vitalis196 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, yes. It's one reason I rarely bother to vote anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Just want to clarify that Reyk was making a joke about my username and not heckling me. Nihlus 23:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Oh! Apologies, I didn't get the joke. Vitalis196 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm#Responding to opposes Aza24 (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

10. Oppose. My largest concern is that Hog Farm pressured himself into making fairly serious mistakes only a few months ago (see q 8 and 22). I very much sympathise with perfectionism, but a quota or individual achievements aren't the most useful measure of perfection in a collaborative space whose integrity is important. Relatedly, Hog Farm appears to still be in the learning curve for non-admins (see q 7, 8, 9, 20) with a continuing avoidance of copyright issues which he doesn't seem to yet be comfortable to attempt to resolve, and a mistake they attributed to inexperience being from as recent as December 2020. Hog Farm also wishes to specifically focus on closing AfDs, despite not having sought experience in closing discussions (see q 5, 7). This signals (to me at least) a lack of either consideration on how to gain experience, or a lack of drive to do so. However in saying that, that last point wouldn't make me say oppose on its own, it's just a little extra niggling concern. I am very much convinced that Hog Farm will make an excellent admin, I just prefer if he completes his non-admin learning prior to gaining a higher level of responsibility, and when he is a little less inclined to "push" towards his personal achievements. --Xurizuri (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

    Strong oppose. He has been on Wikipedia for just over a year and is very inexperienced. Plus, Cassiopeia(Hog farm's NPPS trainer) is not an admin. So I see no reason to support this candidate. 223.223.138.81 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

    Struck vote. Apologies, but users must log into registered accounts to support/oppose/neutral in a request for adminship. Useight (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I sure wish there had been more shame and/or embarrassment expressed about rapidly filling "CSD quotas" in A8, beyond agreeing it was a mistake. Like, clearly stating that they understand that's the exact opposite of what we'd want in an admin. Enough that I won't support this RFA. I recognize and respect that they already have more content creation now than I will ever have, ever, and by around 3 orders of magnitude. But the attitude behind CSD quotas feel like a bit of a red flag. Hope I'm wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

   Floquenbeam, I am wondering if you saw Hog Farm's second commentary at User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/6#NPP school on 22:12, 15 January 2021, or if you may have seen only the first response. I see a lot of Hog Farm taking very serious responsibility for this misunderstanding. I would be more concerned about an admin candidate groveling for the mop, for example if Hog Farm had gone any further down the "shame and/or embarrassment" path you seem to be asking for. Just making sure you saw the full response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Also go by neutral. The response to my question raised some doubts, specially as a member of the Women in Red. It is to mention that their work at CfDs is impressive and apparently despite A8 very appreciated, therefore I won't oppose.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
3. My watchlist recommended watching this. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• Bibeyjj I'm obviously not Hog Farm, but as he can't see them I thought I'd weigh in. Looking at their last 1500 deleted edits, which takes me back to 20 February 2020, virtually all are tagging pages for deletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Eddie891, thank you for checking this - that makes more sense now! Bibeyjj (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry I didn't spot this before I commented at the question itself, but I scanned through all of Hog Farm's deleted contributions, and found the same as Eddie891. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• I am not concerned about the G12 criticized by SoWhy above. Frequently with copies form Wikipedia it's obvious that we had it first - it's amazing how many people don't bother to get rid of inline citations. That page also doesn't show up on the the two archive sites I checked which would be another standard piece of work I'd expect when it might be suspected that the text originated from Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• I hope Hog Farm doesn't answer Q15. It is silly and pointless. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333 I don't agree because I see it as someone having curiosity about the editing process, wanting to learn from mistakes or poor process, and so, while it is not directly relevant to admin, this is an opportunity for some discussion on improving editing and an insight into the candidates thinking. Brunswicknic (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It's a bit silly, but not an outright problematic question. It's a fairly big ask for a candidate to refuse to answer any question (it's why I generally feel the onus is on the Community to strike genuinely unacceptable questions, because candidates can end up stuck between asking a question that stuffs them and facing backlash for asking for its removal), and since answering did no great harm, they were right to go ahead. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Similarly, Q20 is soapboxing and not an appropriate question, although Hog Farm's answer is fine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  RosguillThanks for the mention of Q20. I'll prepare better for the next elections, then. I read the Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters page though, and avoided a per nom or so vote. Others bring in specific diffs and ask for an explanation, so I thought I raise a subject in need of admin action. The question was asked in good faith and I hope it helps to solve the issue.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Paradise Chronicle, I'm willing to assume good faith on your part. The posing of the question as it is, without any specific sources or details regarding the claims of "(Kurdish) occupation" that could make this a real test of how the candidate assesses neutrality and due weight, is essentially asking the candidate to sympathize with a political perspective (or profess neutrality) a priori, which makes it an unfair question to the candidate. Irrespective of the candidate's response, the question could also be taken as using the RfA to make political comments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• What question 8 reveals to me is that it may be in the interest of the community to examine what exactly is being preached at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School and perhaps implement some reforms. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • My one personal suggestion for improvement is a small change I've detailed in my answer to Q22. Hog Farm _Talk 00:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

    I have long thought that the CSD process needs careful examination and I still believe a bad speedy can easily result in somebody leaving Wikipedia permanently. However, equally important is how the deleting administrator fields complaints. If they apologise and offer whatever assistance is required, people tend to be reasonable (worked example here) . If they say "Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks <blah> is notable and writes an article here" ... well you all know the drill. I'm pleased that there is well-thought opposition in this RfA that emphasises this point; I don't think there will be enough to tip consensus away from promotion, but enough to ensure that Hog Farm becomes a better admin than would otherwise be the case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

    Reminds me of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_November#Duoyunxuan, for example (regardless of the validity of the A7). This editor had to go through a lot of hoops to get their article through. Perhaps such CSDs, contested in good faith to the deleting admin, should be entitled to a deletion discussion? now at DYK; that editor had a load of bad luck honestly, and had to show a lot more persistence just to write than I think can or should be reasonably expected of a newer participant on a volunteer project. I probably would've given up if something like that was my initial experience, fwiw. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I could go on at some length about the tendency towards setting up these hoop-jumping exercises, but it also seems to me that an editor can hardly be faulted for going along with them, even when they push one towards acts which some consider undesirable. It also seems to me that an unrealistic picture is being painted of the various deletion processes, all of which are at root processes of review. The driving principle is, after all, that identification of problem articles is something that is subject to all kinds of human fallibility, so that it is to be expected that some nominations do not progress smoothly under a pile of "delete" votes. I've made quite a few where deletion discussions turned up sources which I personally had missed. It is the nominator's behavior in the face of this rebuke which concerns me, and my experience with the nominee is that they have taken such cases well, really better than I sometimes do. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• As I indicated on my talk page I would welcome thoughts and perspective from the community. But let's be clear on what NPP School preaches. Every NPP School teacher runs the curriculum that they desire, but I am going to talk about the "standard" curriculum that most teachers use in whole or in part. But I will say that every teacher I've seen, and I do look on occasion, preaches, quality over quantity, a mantra of NPP in general. NPP School assignments are a mixture of generalized "answer this question about this policy/guideline in your own words", theoretical scenarios, and hands-on practice. Speedy deletion work follows this progression. We look at the criteria, with the student answering questions. They then get a set of scenarios, designed to be difficult and explore the hardest situations. Only after completing those two steps do students move on to practicing on live articles. It's in the student's interests to do well here and their work is being monitored closely by an experienced Wikipedian. If they misstep they are going to find out, not just with the decline or acceptance (because truthfully I've had student's speedy deletions accepted that I would judge wrong) but with specific feedback. If they rush through in order to speedily complete an assignment that is not going to reflect well on them and could lead to them ultimately failing the course. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• As the nominator, I don't want to play with the questions, but there is currently a malformed question that needs fixing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think I've fixed it. Zupotachyon (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm#Responding to opposes Aza24 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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