Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2


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

Harrias 2
Final (110/9/40); ended 21:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)  Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination
– I've been an admin now for just over five years, and submit myself for a reconfirmation RfA (I had intended to do this on the actual five-year anniversary, but life happens.)

Although I've never advertised that I am open to recall or similar, I strongly believe in accountability to the community. As such, I present myself here for your re-approval (or not). I remain first and foremost a content creator, rather than administrative user. Over the past five years, a lot has changed, both in terms of how Wikipedia works and what the community expects, and in terms of my own life. Personally, over that period I have seen two beautiful children come into the world, and as a result my time on the encyclopaedia has been curtailed at times, sometimes for long periods. In 2012, at the time of my original nomination, I had "121 DYKs, 22 Featured Lists, 2 Featured Articles, 24 Good Articles"; that has now increased to 208 DYKs, 45 Featured Lists, 5 Featured Articles and 61 Good Articles. But numbers and stars are far from everything.

As an administrator, I originally did a lot of work with the DYK process, helping to promote prepared queues into the templates for the main page, and then make corrections for DYK and other main page features as they came up at WP:ERRORS. However, I found that this pulled me away from the joy of writing articles, and over time I did less and less of it. I occasionally go through PROD nominations, though again, not for a while. The majority of my admin actions have been pretty straightforward tasks that had I not done them, someone would have stepped in shortly after; I was just moving things along a bit quicker. Though with the main page issues, timeliness was sometimes important.

There have been a few times that I have courted controversy; chief among them my closure of the discussion about User:Neelix, here. Looking back at that close, I think I gave my personal opinion too much weight rather than basing the decision on the community consensus. More recently, my protection of User:The Rambling Man drew some criticism here. At times I feel that I have got into bad habits dealing out longer than recommended blocks to IP vandals, but otherwise I think I've had a pretty quiet stint as an admin. At some point, it was also pointed out to me that the user who nominated me for my original RfA is now indefinitely banned, which has led to my own credentials being questioned. Harrias talk 21:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: As you can see above, I've stuck my head in a few different areas over the last five years. In general I don't really intend to take part in any specific administrative work; I will probably pop by PROD again at times, and as and when I come across vandalism or personal attacks, I'll deal with them. But by-and-large, I don't.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Any of my Featured articles, but probably Sieges of Taunton out of them. It was a step away from my normal area of work (cricket) and involved a lot of research, not just to write the article, but to actually understand the topic. Otherwise, I'm proud of the vast majority of the articles I've written, although some of the older stuff is a bit dated now!


 * 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: Unlike in 2012, yes! Generally my answer remains the same as to how I deal with it; I try to take a break, come back to it, and deal with it calmly. Sometimes I'll even chat things through with my wife, to gauge whether I'm being unreasonable.

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 Hhhhhkohhhhh
 * 4. What do you think this AfD Articles for deletion/Sanjeev Dua now?
 * A: I'm on the fence. On the issue of SNG v GNG, there remain many contradictions in WP:N and WP:NSPORTS that mean you can argue for either position with the guidelines to back you up. In recent discussions about players, I have switched back to favouring SNGs (Articles for deletion/CE Holkar and Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake), so in all probability I would do similar for this now. All that said, I don't regret my vote at that AfD. It's a hot topic right now within the Cricket WP in particular, and one that doesn't seem to be getting much closer to resolution. I would certainly not close any of these discussions myself, only offer my opinion as a !vote. Harrias  talk 21:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Joshualouie711
 * 5. As far as I am aware, it's not customary for admins to submit themselves to recall RfAs like this one. Given how toxic RfAs can sometimes be, is there any particular reason that you decided to "re-run" for reconfirmation as admin?
 * A: Because five years ago, the community made a decision based on how they thought I would be as an admin. Now they can make a decision based on how I have been as an admin. I believe the community deserves the chance to review their decision based on facts, rather than conjecture. Harrias  talk 22:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Beyond My Ken
 * 6. Why did you start your reconfirmation RfA on Christmas Eve, so that it would run in the week between Christmas and New Years, a time when participation on Wikipedia drops considerably?
 * A: Simply because it's the first time in a long time that I've had a chance to sit down and do it. As I said above, I'd planned to do this on the actual anniversary of my original RfA, 4 December I think, but due to issues at home, I couldn't. The specific timing now, which I grant is probably a little awkward, was given no thought. Harrias  talk 22:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I ask if you would consider asking the 'crats to put it on hold, to start up again after the holidays, when more people would be likely to participate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, Beyond My Ken. The other RfA that’s currently running is getting a healthy rate of response. It’s slower here not because the time of year but because many editors will not consider a reconfirmation something of importance.  Schwede 66  07:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the volume on the other RfA is irrelevant, as it started 3 days ago, and had already garnered 128 supports (out of the current 139), 2 opposes (out of 3) and a neutral (since withdrawn) - so 131 !votes altogether -- before this RfA was filed. Since then the other RfA has gotten 11 supports and 1 oppose, which is a little under what this RfA has received (15 supports and 5 neutrals).  So my point still holds, this is a very quiet time because of the holidays, not the ideal time to get a good read of the community's feelings, and the RfA would be better held after the holidays are over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a project that operates 24/7/365 and includes editors of every single religion or none. As a Jew, I do not complain when people conduct encyclopedia business during Passover or the Days of Awe. I consider it completely inappropriate to claim that we cannot make decisions at Christmas time, or during Ramadan or Holi, for that matter. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  11:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which was not my claim. I was speaking strictly about volume.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While I'm sympathetic to the suggestion, given the volume so far, I'm not convinced it is required; it is already on course to exceed the number of participants in my first RfA. Harrias  talk 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm Catholic and I'm here editing, commenting, supporting, and so on. Actually, most of the people in the Southern Hemisphere are on holidays or are about to start them.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Tryptofish
 * 7. My question comes from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Have you ever edited here for pay?
 * A: No. The closest I have got is occasionally tailoring my editing to take part in things such as the WP:WikiCup, which have financial prizes. Harrias  talk 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from George Ho
 * 8. Which areas do you want to stay away from and why?
 * A: As I suggest in my opening answers, I don't have any real intention of specifically setting out to do much in the what of admin work, as I prefer to spend my time writing and reviewing articles. In essence, mostly anything that is time-consuming is something I'd likely stay away from. If I've got time and energy enough to be spending a while on something, I'd rather be writing. Places like Category:Proposed deletion, I can pop in when I've got bits and pieces of time and just work through a backlog. Harrias  talk 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9. Why not proposing to revive the now-inactive Administrator review?
 * A: I wasn't aware of that at all. Looking at it, it looks like the reviews in general had a pretty low response. Seeing a lot of the comments below, I can understand why that is! I can agree that reviving that would probably be more preferential to the community that further reconfirmation RfAs such as this, but the difficulty would be in how to drive the traffic there to take part. Harrias  talk 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Harry Mitchell:
 * 10. I notice that you haven't relinquished your admin bit. In the (probably unlikely) event that this RfA reached a negative conclusion, would you resign?
 * A: Yes. Harrias  talk 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 11. I commend you for sticking your head above the parapet and asking for feedback. How would you rate your performance as an admin on a scale of 1 to 10? Perhaps you could tell us a bit more about how you see yourself as an admin—has it been what you expected; has your focus been what you thought it would be in your first RfA? What have been your biggest successes and your biggest cock-ups?
 * A: I'd probably give myself something like a 5. That's based primarily on the fact that I don't admin much. Since the Neelix closure, I have largely stayed away from closing anything based on a community consensus; be that an AfD, another discussion at ANI, or an RfC. In many ways it is this uncertainty in myself that led me to resubmit here; to a point, I've lost confidence in my own ability to make decisions. My focus was initially what I expected; working with DYK to promote queues and monitor quality control. Now, I barely use the tools, except where I come across things through my editing or watchlist, which certainly isn't something I would have expected. Due to this low-key nature of admin-ing, it is tough to point to a success or cock-up as I rarely take part in anything so controversial. Harrias  talk 10:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Vanamonde93
 * 12. How do you think issues administrators face have changed in your five years?
 * A: A lot of tasks and procedures have become more formalised and simpler to enact through that time, and backlogs have generally come down, so there is less pressure on a lot of those tasks, freeing admins up to either complete other admin work, or regular editing. Of late, paid editing has appeared as one of the most significant issues that the Wikipedia community, and administrators in particular, have to deal with. But again, as I am not the most active administrator, it is hard for me to judge completely. Harrias  talk 10:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Vanamonde93
 * 13. Would you support the creation of a mandatory recall/review process for administrators? (Support in principle, I mean: the specifics are always messy).
 * A: Although it doesn't look a popular opinion reading the comments below, yes I would. As I mentioned elsewhere, when we go through an initial RfA, a decision is based on how the community *thinks* we will be as an admin. I think there is value to a review process to analyse how an admin *has been*. This might only be necessary once, a year into adminship or something similar, but it is definitely something I would support. I appreciate the comments below, and specifically regarding 's comments about WP:DESYSOP, I take the point, but don't completely agree. While an obviously rogue admin will always be dealt with, I'm not convinced that an admin that consistently shows slightly poor judgement will. But overall that admin will still probably be a net-loss to the encyclopaedia. So, yes, while I don't think it is going to get me much support, I would support such a process. Harrias  talk 10:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Hhhhhkohhhhh
 * 14. You are already an admin, why you start RFA again? Note that this is not RFB. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A: As stated above in my self-nomination, and in response to some other questions, it is intended as a reconfirmation RfA; to confirm whether I maintain the trust of the community. Harrias  talk 21:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from MattLongCT
 * 15. What Wikipedia essay/policy is best suited for users looking to become more efficient editors *in your view?
 * A:

Discussion

 * Links for Harrias 2:
 * Edit summary usage for Harrias can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Support. I do not see the necessity of an appointed admin requesting confirmation, but they do. So, here's mine. Ifnord (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support 45 Featured Lists, 5 Featured Articles and 61 Good Articles plus 5 years of admin experience - and that's all the controversy he's been involved in. We ought to be considering him for sainthood, instead of reconfirmation, --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Not sure why he needs a reconfirmation though. I mean, he isn't an enough of controversial admin to be de-sysoped. — usernamekiran (talk)  21:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as default position on reconfirmation RfAs. Unless someone can present a legitimate reason why he should not retain adminship, I see no reason to desysop. --Joshualouie711talk 21:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support don't believe I've ever participated in one of these before, but I'll also default to support unless and until convincing reasons are presented for me to oppose. I commend Harrias for voluntarily doing this and I'll reiterate that I believe we should have some kind of community recall procedure. We have the power to grant these lifetime appointments, so why shouldn't we be allowed to take them away? Lepricavark (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) I think this is the first time at RfA where I've thought, "thought they were one already..." only to be right! Regarding controversies, given the confrontational nature of many of the issues that require an administrator to deal with, I think it's inevitable for an administrator of 5 years to have experienced some occasional controversy, so that isn't a negative at all in my view. Additionally, while the nominator does play a role in RfAs, the true source of legitimacy from RfA (as well as pretty much everything else we do here) comes from community consensus, not the nominator, so it doesn't matter that your nominator was later banned. All in all, while I appreciate why Harrias chose to do this, I don't think it's necessary. Just keep on keeping on. Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Never heard of them, again. There does not appear to be any reasons to oppose, however. Have fun with your 'second term'. ! dave  22:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Qualified Support I have no reason at all to question this admin's competency. However, while I applaud the motive behind this ReRFA, I would prefer that this does not become normative. There are just far too many admins to be re-certifying them all. It would be a huge time sink at best, and a cluster-bleep at worst. I can also see where this could attract trolls or those with a grudge/axe to grind which is all but guaranteed to devolve into a giant drama fest. My bottom line is that this sort of thing should probably be reserved for situations where multiple respected editors have questioned an admin's general competency. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Never run across him, but seems good. Everyone makes the odd mistake or error in judgement. If that's the worst that is on offer in 5 years, well done. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I have to agree with Mz7, when I first saw this RfA and clicked on it (before reading) I was confused when admin highlighter went off on both the nominee & nominator (same person I know, talking of at first glance). After being an administrator for a period of 5 years, you are most likely bound to be involved in some occasional controversy. I believe there to be little weight to the fact that your original nominator is now indefinitely blocked and do not consider it a matter of concern. I do not believe that this reconfirmation was necessary, but I do appreciate why you are doing this. I have a feeling that this RfA will either be sparsely attended or gain a lot of activity due to its unusual nature, but only time will tell. Regardless of what happens, I hope you stay an editor on the site. Merry Christmas! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - while I understand the concerns of some who have suggested that a reconfirmatioon RfA is a waste of time, it is a perfectly legitimate excercise and should be accorded good faith rather than criticism. An excellent content contributor - there are people who suggest that such editors  should be automatically accorded the bit, not that I agree. An excellent run in his first RfA in the days when 100+ supports was something to be proud of, and whoever the nominator was is of no consequesnce here. It takes a bit of courage to  do a voluntary rerun (If I recall correctly, I believe some Wikipedias require it every 2 years or something like it -  not that I agree with that either). I supported the first RfA and I'm doing so now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per Ifnord. Double sharp (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per Mz7 - don't worry about the nominator, ultimately it's you that the discussion was about. ansh 666 05:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Support- this is an unnecessary exercise, but whatever. Reyk  YO!  08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per Josualouie711. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per Rob13 and Kudpung.Excellent sysop. Winged Blades Godric 09:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 17) Support damned if you do, damned if you don't. No reason Harrias shouldn't request a reconfirmation, "controversial" is often in the eye of the beholder.  No problems with Harrias' admin actions at all.  Here's to another five years and happy Christmas.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18) Support per Kudpung.  Y intan  10:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, do not see any reason not to.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 20) Support per kudpung. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 21) Support My thoughts are similar to Kudpung's. If this administrator wants a reaffirmation from the community of their status as an administrator, recognizing that standards may have changed, then that is admirable evidence of humility and self reflection. I consider those to be excellent attributes of an administrator, and I am happy to tell Harrias that I consider their contributions to be excellent. Keep up the good work! Cullen328  Let's discuss it  11:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 22) Support this reconfirmation but oppose the principle of optional recall/reconfirmation as it will lead to a two-tier cohort of admins, those who can be pressured because of an impending vote and those who can't. Reconfirmation for all, or for none, but not a halfway which encourages admin-shopping. Cabayi (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd think it would be the opposite way round, to be honest. With a voluntary RFA, the admin is only under such pressure for the week of the RFA, or once a voluntary recall has been triggered (because nobody would know it was impending before then). But reconfirmation for all would put admins under pressure when reconfirmation time was getting close (which everyone could see), so surely that is the case that would most create a "two-tier" problem? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I strongly support a community procedure for dealing with admins when some suspicion of loss of trust has arisen (though that is clearly not the case here), and a compulsory reconfirmation every so many years has been suggested more than once (and there are pros and cons, which this is not the place to examine). I admire an admin who always planned to run a reconfirmation and who actually goes through with it, and I'm happy to offer my full support to Harrias who is an excellent content producer and and excellent admin (which is a rare combination). Oh, and this is only taking up the time of those who choose to take part - if you think it's a waste of your time, shouldn't you just ignore it and do something else? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I recall having had the pleasure of reviewing your article on Harry Fox, which I subsequently promoted as a GA. I can understand why you want a community review of your adminship, due to the earlier nomination by a banned editor. But like others, I'd say that this is unnecessary. Nevertheless, you're a great asset to the project. Christmas wishes to you and your family.  Lourdes  13:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: so far as I can ascertain, Harrias appears to be a very productive, reasonable and helpful editor whose submission of a voluntary reconfirmation RfA shows a principled moral stance (something I think is nothing for others to complain about). I don't give a toss who nominated them in their previous RfA, about the minor controversies mentioned or the date of choice for starting this RfA. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Kudpung. Jianhui67T ★ C 17:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) —Kusma (t·c) 18:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Greatly appreciate the commitment to admin accountability to the community. Thanks for setting such a good example. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. No qualms with their service. bd2412  T 18:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support trustworthy admins should not be needing to stand for reconfirmation. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. No compelling reasons not to, and besides, you already have a track record of community trust. I really appreciate your FA's and GA's, and especially your help reviewing one of my Good Article nominations. (I guess this is more of a Keep, which would place this on the border of "support" and "neutral".) epicgenius (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I take this as a chance to thank you for your work. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Not on my list of feared administrators.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Support as a per all above supports. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Support- Absolutely trustworthy IMO   Aloha27   talk  21:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. No issues here.  I appreciate the motive, but I think it's unnecessary for admins to do this unless they have promised to do so in their original RfA or at least one editor in good standing has criticized their use of the tools. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Keep (per Epicgenius) mainly per Mz7 and Kudpung; I would support a reconfirmation every 3 or 5 years. The neutrals are utterly procedural and should not be counted as such in my opinion.  J  947  (c · m)  23:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral votes have no effect on RfA counts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that but if I was a 'crat I would take into account the neutrals no matter what (and for that matter if there is a high amount of neutrals I would definitely take those into account) . Also, see here  (ugh it specifically includes RfA as an exception but current consensus differs)   but I'm guessing that it wasn't your intent with that comment knowing you.  J  947  (c · m)  21:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support no issues here.  JTP (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - per Cullen & Boing. Banedon (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. While I dislike the idea of reconfirmation RfAs (and I agree with many of the neutrals), this user obviously passes. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk ) </b> 03:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I gave Harrias my emphatic support five years ago and am happy to do so again. He has done a fantastic job and will continue to be an asset for years to come. Kurtis (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - unneccessary RFA but whatever. Tis the season. GiantSnowman 10:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support excellent editor, no concerns. I don't really find the reconfirmation needed, but if they feel so, so be it. And I don't think we should treat this skeptically. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - while I'm against the idea of mandatory reconfirmation of admins, we might as well take this kind of self-reconfirmation seriously. Happy to support based on their contributions! The Land (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - although I am generally of the opinion of Ivanvector and SerialNumber54129, you are a good admin and if the tools were removed it would be a net loss for Wikipedia.  However, if this becomes a trend I may go to neutral or oppose on future "re-confirmations" where the admin is uncontroversial, as my perhaps-more-principled fellow editors have done below.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I supported their first RfA, and see no reason not to do so now.  Mini  apolis  15:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - No issues here, FWIW I do have to agree that a reconfirmation isn't really needed but whatever it's Christmas :). – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - To help cancel out the oppose !votes. GABgab 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - There is no disruption caused. Many have wanted to trial reconfirmation RfAs and I'm happy to see someone doing it.  This is something the community has toyed with before and it's not disruptive to try it.  Outside of that, you've stayed off my radar and that's good enough for a support.--v/r - TP 17:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per Kudpung. Keep on moppin' ;) –FlyingAce✈hello 20:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Support – this user has done a lot for the Wikipedia community and fully support their contribution as admin. Congrats, will be excited for you to take up the mop.  CookieMonster755  ✉    20:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, and thank you for the reply to my question. The way that I am evaluating this RfA is by asking myself whether I would want a recall, and I definitely do not (nor do I see any merit to the oppose or neutral comments that basically amount to hissy-fits over having this RfA). I want to say more about the issue of this reconfirmation RfA. I can see a potential problem if users with grudges start demanding reconfirmation when there is no substantive basis for recall, and I wouldn't want that to start to happen. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with this, and it actually reflects very well on Harrias. It's an honest sign of respect for community opinion. I'd like to see more, not less, of this. As for those editors who say that it would become a time-waste if these RfAs become more common, if you feel that your time is being wasted, then don't participate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - 100% per along with this aside: I am befuddled that Requests for adminship/Tryptofish remains a red link.--John Cline (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not everyone wants to the janitor/security guard job. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Seeking feedback in this way is an interesting and respectable initiative. The candidate's general behaviour and admin actions seem fine.  I reviewed their blocks and deletions and made a spot check on one of them — benevolence in islam.  That sounded like a promising subject but I find that it's not that easy and so I don't much mind that they deleted it when it was prodded. Andrew D. (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (Currently exists at Draft:Benevolence in Islam.) 50.0.205.154 (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, testing to ensure you still have community support is a respectable action. No problems here with your conduct in either the editing or administrative spaces.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC).
 * 2) Support, per lack of a history of abuse (or even negligent misuse) of the tools, so far as I can see. I explicitly support the idea of re-confirming adminship. Not only should it be mandatory after some span of time (yes, we should do an RfC on that), the idea expressed by some oppose/neutral comments below that there's something "disruptive" about this is patently nonsensical.  Probably the no. 1 way to decrease the perception that adminship is a  deal (and thus to get us more admins) is to make it less likely for the position to be "for life unless you screw up so badly a bunch of us drag you to ArbCom, and ArbCom that season happens to not be stacked with admins who go out of their way to protect other admins".  So, just F that noise.  Holding a confidence vote is a great idea, and all admins should be doing it (even if, yes, we do not want them all doing it every 6 months).  If we were doing this regularly, we'd be rid of a handful of admins who need to go to RFARB, less RFARBs would ever need to be filed for a desysopping, and the community sense of renewed control over adminship would go a long way to defusing RfA tension and terror.  There are probably 100+ potential great admins active right now who won't come anywhere near RfA because of the last decade or so's sharp increase in treating it like a Top Secret security clearance combined with a knighthood, instead of like hiring a janitor with some security guard duties.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reconfirmation is an awkward thing. If  as a busy admin  you've  deleted 10,000 pages and legitimately  blocked a few users for 3rr or other clear infringeements, and left  a few standard user warnings, that's already more than 10,000 potential  oppose votes -  for  just  having  done your  job  and stayed out  of trouble. Such  people  can really  be malicious,  as you  and I  both  know only  too  well.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet it's not happening here, and 'crats and other !voters would not take seriously "They deleted my precious article!" if it clearly qualified for CSD. Whining of this sort might actually increase support with the admin clearly doing their job. >;-)   Regardless, I have no qualms about adjusting the RfA process a little more to deal with that problem should it arise.  Also, there's no reason in the world we can't have reconfirmations done at an RfA subpage or some new process that uses the same scripting, so people can ignore reconfirmations if, like the naysayers below, they have some kind of wikipolitical soapbox against them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) suport user has taken their brave pill, and I support them. I know reconfs aren't require and for some would just open up a guttersniping contest, but i would urge any admins who thinsk they might fail a reconf (either because the opposes would be greater than %35 or some other reason) to think about their actions and perhaps bring them inline with community expectations.L3X1 (distænt write)  05:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Good admin, good editor. Re-standing for adminship is indicative of the openness and honesty of this individual. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I had no issues with Harrias (who I've seen around the place, particularly at DYK) before this RFA; and I have no issues with their answers to my questions. I don't see the "wasting the community's time" argument, truly I don't. Even if you are an RFA regular and so feel compelled to open this page, ten seconds is enough to ascertain that this is a reconfirmation RFA, and to close the tab if you are uninterested in such. Harrias is to be commended for asking whether they still have the community's trust. The fact that admins who really should have such a reconfirmation are probably not going to, is not something to be held against Harrias. Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - My only interactions with Harrias as an admin or elsewhere have been positive, and I am unaware of any reasons why he should not continue as an administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support In my view this should really only be needed if an admin is under a cloud or has had minimal participation in the project for a long period of time, but if Harrias feels the need for a reconfirmation I'm happy to provide it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: Done a good job so far, I see no reason why Harrias shouldn't stay as an admin. He's make a lot of constructive contributions in many areas. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: Good experience overall on wikipedia. --Spasage (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support: I appreciate both your willingness to put yourself up for voluntary reconfirmation and the fact that you kept your promise from your original RFA. I do not consider this a waste of the community’s time, and honestly would hope that more admins would do the same. While I agree that the ones who might fail recomfirmation are the ones who would likely not choose to do so, it does not render this one invalid or frivolous. Happy to vote to reconfirm.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Great content creation record and I do not see the discussions linked in the nomination as examples of poor judgment. (As an aside, congratulations on the birth of your children!) Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Seems to be doing fine. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per SMcCandlish. Reconfirmation RfAs have the very real potential to bring adminship back to its original WP:DEAL moorings. Adminship should be easy come, easy go. And in the case of this admin, I see no reason not to reconfirm. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Support per SmCCandlish and agree with Mendaliv re WP:DEAL. As for the !votes raising the issue of WP:POINT and especially obstruction - that's a bunch of stuff and nonsense. There's absolutely no disruption.  Electrons are not in particularly short supply and if your time is better spent doing something other than participating in this RfA, please spend your time doing that better thing. David in DC (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I join with those who question the value of this exercise, but it is well-intended, and we are here. Putting the background/policy discussion aside, the question we are actually !voting on is whether Harrias should continue as an administrator, and the answer to that is yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Keep up the good work – both direct content and as admin, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Support: I have no concerns with Harrias continuing as an admin. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 16) Sure, now please take the collective community's time spent on this quite uncontroversial request, multiply it by the number of admins of more than 5 years' standing, and realize that routine reconfirmations in the absence of a triggering issue are a complete waste of time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 17) feminist (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Harrias as being prepared to stand up and be counted for sticking to a principle that I agree with. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 19) Support principled and skillful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 20) Support no problems that I've seen Atlantic306 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Will support this one, but please note that, as far as I can see it, the ongoing process is intended to seek consensus to become an administrator and not to reconfirm the tools.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 22) Support.  To be honest, I don't know anything about the candidate.  But, I'm offering my support as a protest against the silliness of User:Beyond My Ken's question regarding the timing of this proposal.  I rarely participate in RfA's, mostly because they're a stupid hazing ritual which largely serves to scare off potential high-quality applicants.  This is a perfect example.  The original question was a little nitpicky, but after he got a reasonable answer, the issue should have been dropped.  Continuing to badger the candidate about it is just plain absurd.  If anything, this is a good demonstration of how the candidate remains calm when being goaded, which is an important quality for an admin.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, RoySmith, you thought it was a good idea to misrepresent my actions (one question, a followup, and a discussion with other editors does not "badgering the candidate" make), and insult me, and you wanted to make sure that I saw it, so you pinged me, and rather then putting the whole thing in the "General Comments" section at the bottom, you used  my  behavior as the basis for a "support" !vote for  another editor entirely , thus displaying your personal disdain for the RfA process. (I guess things were different back in 2005, when all of 33 people (27/6) made you an admin. .) All-in-all, a series of pretty bizarre choices for an administrator, I'd say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend for this to be a personal attack, but I didn't phrase my point well and can see how it could be taken that way. I'll just strike my comment and apologize.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was very decent of you. Apology accepted, and I in turn apologize for any snark in my reply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. While I can see the 'precedent' issue outlined by the oppose !votes, I don't see this as disruptive or as making a point. Rather, this appears to be a good faith attempt to re-evaluate their admin-ness and that's the way I think it should be treated. No obvious reason to take away the admin bits, so support. --regentspark (comment) 00:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support: I don't edit as much as I used to, and that is for a variety of reasons. However, reading the neutral section to this RFA is a good reminder of what drives me absolutely crazy about the Wikipedia Community. For goodness sake, someone who has been administrator for 5 years wanted to give the community an opportunity to weigh in on whether he should continue in that role. It's not like he is insecure and is doing this all of the time... It's been 5 years! It's not like he's doing this under a cloud or to try to claim a new mandate from the community to do something. If we truly believe that being an administrator should not be a huge deal, and, frankly, especially if we believe that it should be, then we should applaud the efforts of Administrators like this one who give the community an opportunity to revisit administrator appointments. You can disagree with reconfirmation as a matter of principle if you want, but the idea that such disagreement would preclude you from weighing the merits of this particular administrator is far more disruption to make a point than submitting oneself to a new RFA. For what it's worth, I believe that this candidate has been and will continue to be a strong positive for our community.  Go  Phightins  !  01:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Like I said below, I hold little horse in this race, but I don't see anything in particular wrong with the admin from my limited point of view, and more importantly, this whole idea that the reconfirmation is a bad thing is completely ridiculous. I think User:Go Phightins! put it very well just above me.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 01:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) People have been whining about inadequate admin accountability for as long as I can remember. I don't want to hear anything about this being "disruptive" or a "waste of time." –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Per User:Mz7, Insertcleverphrasehere, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Tryptofish, Vanamonde and User:Go Phightins!. Positive administrator; no worries about a few correctable actions and not giving full time to administration. Any well-considered help by a proven administrator is well worth it. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Your adminship has been noncontroversial, though I do agree that this exercise is a borderline waste of time. All of us here could be out improving articles right now. It would be better to request advice and criticism in an appropriate location, like administrators noticeboard, in a similar style as inactive WP:ADRV. While there would be less participation, it doesn't really take 200 users to provide a noncontroversial administrator performance review. Mamyles (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, no reason to think the tools will be abused. See also Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. :-) SarekOfVulcan (talk)  16:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Not everyone goes through life, fully confident in all that they do. I suspect it would be the overconfident admins that would never consider taking this step. You are to be commended for doing so, and it can only serve to show the editing community at large that admins can be re-assessed and judged by what they have done, not just by what they might do in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support The idea of a compulsory reconfirmation every X years is one of those great ideas that keeps getting shot down, but voluntary reconfirmation is allowed, and I encourage admins who have been around for many years to do this. In the case of Harrias, I have looked over his record, and he is a good, solid administrator who I trust to continue doing good work, so I fully support his reconfirmation. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Has repeatedly shown good judgement. I admire the courage to request re-approval. Poltair (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Support: I don't believe that mandatory reconfirmation is the solution to the admin accountability issues; what is really needed is a viable community-based desysopping procedure.  However, voluntary reconfirmation can be useful, if only the right admins would use it.  Harrias has not been engaged in actions where reconfirmation was necessary, and I see no reasons to remove his tools / mop, so supporting makes sense.  That the method Harrias is advocating is not one I believe will work does not make his efforts POINTy or disruptive, and if this reRfA helps to crystallise views that a different approach is preferable then it will not have been a waste of time.  What enWP definitely does not need is more admins who stand opposed to a functioning mechanism for community-controlled admin accountability, so thank you Harrias for standing up for an important principle.  EdChem (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Support both the candidate and the process. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. It would be hypocritical of me to oppose the process. Personally, I take my hat off to you for being willing to run the gauntlet again to see that you still have the community's trust, though it would mean more if you'd resigned your bit first. As to the candidate ... you've mostly been an uncontroversial admin, and you certainly haven't done anything to cause the community to lose its confidence in you when your whole track record is taken into account. The one observation I would make is that drama is often caused when admins who don't do something very often decide to try their hand on something big and controversial. There's always plenty of work to do, but I would suggest gaining experience with the small stuff to keep yourself up to date with practice and policy at the coalface before tackling the big and controversial things. As an analogy, we would normally advise a relative newcomer to FAC to start by nominating something relatively obscure, and save the rewrite of Cricket (to pick a random example!) until they have the MoS burnt into the back of their eyelids. But in general, keep doing what you're doing. Happy new year! <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 02:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Has done well in the past, which is the best predictor for doiing well in the future.  DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Support There is no reason to think otherwise. Wish you all the best. Chandan Guha (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Now that I've been an admin for almost a full day, I feel fully qualified in determining who should and should not be an admin. You are a good one, and should remain one. Even though this process of reconfirming you isn't necessary, it's a testament to your admin skills and judgment that you're willing to solicit this feedback. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 17) Support the candidate and the principle. Rentier (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. I think that asking for reconfirmation shows the right spirit. (I'm in general strongly in favour of term limits for all positions that confer any form of power.) --Lambiam 20:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 19) Support -- Carry on! K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 20) Moral Support - while Harrias is very brave to seek re-daminship, there should be some more formal and different proccess for admins who are open to recall (something aline to the now inactive WP:Editor review). Anyway it is not this admin's fault that such a proccess does not exists at the moment and this request was made in good faith so I hope the editor continues as an administrator. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 21) Support with appreciation for seeking this confidence test Chetsford (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong support. First, he meets my criteria. Second, he understands that admins are not demigods, and should not have a lifetime appointment. GregJackP   Boomer!   08:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 23) Support -- I agree totally with GregJackP. Seth Whales   talk  11:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - An experience editor! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - Appreciate the idea behind the reconfirmation. Felixvr (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - I think a five year review interval is appropriate and not unduly burdensome. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Commending Harrias for their openness and the willingness to reconfirm the community's trust. They might not be using the tools as much as most other active admins, but they do have a need for them and there's nothing to suggest they aren't making a good use of them. – Uanfala (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 28) Support – Commendable to seek reconfirmation (something that should be a convention, if not policy), and no problem with their work. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 19:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 29) Support regardless of how unnecessary the resubmission is. WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 30) Support because clearly nobody has a problem with as an admin. From the Oppose and Neutral sections below, the only opposition that has been generated until now has purely been based on the absolute galling hubris of the candidate in wasting all of our times with this. :) While, in general, I oppose the concept of gratuitous re-confirmations, I commend the candidate to sticking to his principles on this issue, despite my disagreeing with the necessity.--Aervanath (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 31) Support It's a good thing for admin's to have content creation experience. It shouldn't matter too much who nominated you, as long as your own record checks out. I appreciate your contributions to DYK, that's always an interesting area. Confirmation (or reconfirmation, as many are pointing out) for this bid seems fine. Scriblerian1 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) - Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Yeah, five year terms are an excellent idea... Start an RFC. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) - Oppose per Carrite.  I'm sure you are a fine admin, but this is unnecessary.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These "opposes" are a bit concerning; if enough users share this sentiment, Harrias could wind up turning in his bit over something that has nothing to do with his conduct as an administrator, but rather a good-faith, if ill-advised, attempt to see if he retains the community's confidence. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, since the reasons aren't to do with his conduct, the crats will close as success unless the percentage goes below 65% (and possibly even if it goes below that, as it is only generally fail below 65%) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I get it, and I realize it's quite unlikely. I'm just a bit concerned that what was clearly a good-faith endeavor is being treated as disruption, to the extent of invoking WP:POINT. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) - Oppose. I do not think you have all the skills yet. CLCStudent (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Harrias is already an admin... GABgab 18:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no horse in the race, but as someone who's merely happened upon this discussion it's entirely valid for someone to believe that someone has shown they do not yet posses the skills after a certain amount of time in the position. For a quick and easy analogy, many people do not believe Donald Trump has all the skills required to be a president of the United States. That said, the user provided no arguments towards his point and so his stance is unsupported either way.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 00:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) - Oppose. Self indulgent and disruptive  Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!}  (Whisper...) 18:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * would you mind clarifying what are you referring to (the candidate or the reconfirmation) and possibly explaining it a bit?--Kostas20142 (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer to imagine admins doing their duties while sitting in icebaths in darkened rooms in solitary confinement - then I can feel assured that they're not doing anything that proper people might consider self-indulgent. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Brookie is opposing for the same reason everyone below voted neutral. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that must be why they voted oppose rather than neutral. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'll look into a reconfirmation RFA for any "admin" who claims this action of Harrias to be "self-indulgent" and/or "disruptive". Perhaps they have no real idea about the current feeling for a large number of admins around here.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought "Self indulgent and disruptive" was quite ironic, given the very long and difficult-to-read sig that followed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An astute observation. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of a song. Ifnord (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I was planning on making that observation... -_- Kurtis (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you choose to clarify your position on the reason as to why you think the user is disruptive, the term here is generally reserved for vandals. Also, @BlueMoonset, while I understand your jest, it's generally better to try to understand the reason behind it in the first place - but I don't mean to preach, you have your opinions. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 愛  ☃️  海 ) 17:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to take another look at WP:Disruptive editing, which is a bit more nuanced than you appear to think. For instance: "Disruptive editing is not vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm against self-nominations. I don't agree with the nom's !votes at AfD and Wikipedi a demonstrably benefits from Harrias's content work more than his infrequent admin edits. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per . And since WP:BOOMERANG has been historically maligned, I'll further that process by invoking it here. --IHTS (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Opposethis user has not made many administrative actions since becoming an admin five years ago, which leaves me to believe that he does not need these tools to be a constructive editor. Also, this self-initiated review is somehow concerning me.  Nik ol ai ho ☎️📖 03:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per the candidate's statement: "In general I don't really intend to take part in any specific administrative work; .... by-and-large, I don't." Moreover, unnecessary, self-nominated RfA "re-confirmations" such as this do not demonstrate the kind of thoughtful, knowledgeable, policy-based decision-making expected of administrators. Better to resign the mop (due to disinterest and administrative inactivity) and avoid this timesink; one can always re-run if one wants to use administrative tools. Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose If the user is not going to take part in administrative work very often, then there is no point in having the tools. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 09:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Strong neutral - will not support because I see the possibility of setting a precedent not supported by the community, but neither do I see any reason to oppose. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the strength in your neutrality. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral essentially per Ivanvector and me betting that I'm reading their mind correctly. Steel1943  (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I don't have a problem with the candidate. In fact, that is part of the reason why I am neutral. Why submit yourself to another Rfa if you are not a controversial admin? I hope this does not become a new precedent for this venue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I have no concerns about the candidate, but he shouldn't need another RfA unless there is community consensus that admins must be re-confirmed. Jc86035 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. I was tempted to oppose on principle. Voluntary reconfirmation RfAs are a waste of the community's time. The admins who we need to remove the tools from would never submit one. The admins who do submit voluntary reconfirmations are usually excellent (which is true here). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go on record and say I will oppose any future reconfirmation RfAs unless in response to very specific community requests to undergo scrutiny. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You said in your first comment that those admins who do submit voluntary reconfirmations are usually excellent. Now you are saying you would support removing the tools from any such excellent admin who files a reconfirmation RfA in the future, unless the community had requested that the admin do so. I believe that your 'waste of time' argument is misguided as nobody is forcing anyone to participate here. You intend to use that misguided argument to support removing the tools from excellent admins. I respectfully submit that you should reconsider your position. Lepricavark (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I wouldn't be. Reconfirmation RfAs are informal and non-binding. The supports, neutrals, and opposes here mean nothing. Even if the admin were to resign after a reconfirmation RfA, they could request the mop again at any time if they didn't do so under a cloud. I see nothing in the relevant policies to suggest having an unsuccessful reconfirmation RfA not tied to any abuse of tools or behavioral issues would represent a cloud. I will make clear my reasons for opposing on any reconfirmation RfA, and the admin who started the discussion can weigh that as they wish when deciding whether to hand in the mop. That decision will ultimately be theirs and theirs alone. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've gotten it wrong. If in a reconfirmation RfA an admin fails to garner community support, he will be desysopped (presumably?), I think the fact that reconfirms have been treated as a farce by crats, is w.r.t the fact that they maintain status quo. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 愛  ☃️  海 ) 17:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple solution: If Harrias fails to garner community support, instead of simply resigning he declares himself as resigning under a cloud. It hasn't happened yet, but this could also be an option for an administrator who did something that he knows would get him desysopped but which nobody has found out about. P_erhaps he knows that he is about to be discovered. In such a case he could declare himself as resigning under a cloud without saying what he did. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That would have about as much impact as screaming that you declare bankruptcy. Reconfirmation RfAs are not policy-based. They have no real impact. If the admin failed a reconfirmation and then chose not to turn in the mop, then they get to keep it. Bureaucrats have said they would not remove it in that case. It's entirely voluntary. If I choose to oppose the whole exercise in futility, it has zero impact. The only thing that has impact is whether the admin chooses to voluntarily resign (and stay resigned!) at the end of the "reconfirmation". ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've gotten your point. You're correct; I was more trying to say, it should be so. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 桜  ❄  伴 ) 07:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per Ivanvector (re. inadvisability and / or unnecessity of creating precedent, as well as further administative minutiae which builds not the encyclopaedia), and per BU Rob13 that whilst there are doubtless some / many admins who should be gently relieved of their tools like a child holding a penknife, this is not going to help towards that. Having said that, I appreciate that Hariass probably should have done this since he promised others that he would- and of course admins making promises they do not keep might be an issue of its own :) Is their any necessity for this to stay open the full 168 hours, btw?   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 11:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any pressing reason not to? Any backlog needing to be worried about?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Plenty. If you're looking for one to help out with, might I suggest moving files to Commons, closing CfD discussions, or closing discussions. All three areas can be worked by non-admins. There are real opportunity costs to such a pointless endeavor as a voluntary reconfirmation RfA no-one asked for. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per Ivanvector too. There is no pressing reason to have reconfirmation if there is no "cloud" over the admin. It is great that the content creation has continued alongside admin duties. Green Giant 13:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I take this to be a good faith request for confirmation, from someone, for the best of possible reasons (his young kids), is no longer able to 'put in the hours'. There is actually no need for confirmation, nor for him to feel bad about his lower rate of input. You probably aren't going to read this till after Xmas, but best wishes to you and your family. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per Ivanvector. I do not see any reason to have this discussion, and suggest a speedy close <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 18:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Procedural neutral per the above (no need to confirm). FWIW I would support a regular reconfirmation process to reduce the hysteresis in the admin corps HR management (it is hard to desysop, hence only the really worst ones get the mop taken away, and hence RfA is really hard because the community wants to avoid screw-ups; as a result it is infinitely more easy to keep the tools than to get them). However (1) it should apply to all admins, or at the very least all newly-confirmed admins (2) it should be more light-weight than an RfA. Above all, (3) it does not exist yet and hence does not apply here. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 18:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral This RfA is an exercise in futility. I'm quite sure that Harrias filed this with the best of intentions, and he rates praise for his circumspect conduct, but Rob hits the nail on the head here: the administrators for whom the community would get the most benefit from a robust reexamination are not going to put their infallibility on the line merely to follow a fine example. All administrators should be required to be reconfirmed every several years or so, but that sadly doesn't seem to be in the cards at any point in the near future. In the meanwhile, the potential benefit to the project from sporadic and isolated voluntary compliance seems minimal at best, and nonexistent-to-negative at worst (and here I'm talking about Sarek of Vulcan's re-RfA, in which case the 'crats simply put their rubber stamp on an RfA that had clearly failed, making a mockery of the concept in the process). Joefromrandb (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Meteorological note: Reports are in that Hell just froze over. I agree with Joefromrandb that all admins should be required to reconfirmed after a set number of years, with the bar for reconfirmation set pretty low, to allow for grudges etc.  (Although I don't know anyone on en.Wiki who carries a grudge, it's still best to prepare for the possibility.)I still have not decided about this recon RfA, waiting for more responses to the questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Having apparently received a proactive commutation from his eternal comeuppance, Jimbo will no doubt sleep mellifluously at night forthwith. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He will sleep musically? Does that mean his snoring is tuned?  Perhaps it sounds something like Tibetan throat singing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not "musically", "mellifluously". Mellifluous: "sweet, smooth, pleasing". One man's mellifluous is another's infernal racket. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * mel·lif·lu·ous (adjective) - (of a voice or words) sweet or musical; pleasant to hear. "the voice was mellifluous and smooth"synonyms: sweet-sounding, dulcet, honeyed, mellow, soft, liquid, silvery, soothing, rich, smooth, euphonious, harmonious, tuneful, musical. "mellifluous dinner music""To Joe, the R&B singer was mellifluous, sweet music to his ears, while Ayesha preferred the stentorian quality of Wagnerian opera singing." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hence musiclike sleep, or wine, or a boat ride, or sexual congressmay be mellifluous or it may be harsh (or somewhere between the two). I was opining that his sleep would be sweet, or smoothly flowing, not that he would sleep "musically". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Ivanvector, BU_Rob13, and others. The candidate should consider how much of the community's time he just burned. If you think you are a bad admin in some area, then stop using the tools in that area. Glrx (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake! The candidate hasn't "burned" any of the community's time. His intentions were admirable and, if nothing else, we're at least having a much-needed discussion about a topic in which opinions are many and varied. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) As said above, this is completely unnecessary. If an admin wants feedback about their conduct they can simply ask people - maybe put a section on their talk page, or request feedback from specific people. I've always supported community-initiated desysop procedures, but voluntary confirmations are completely useless in that regard. The "good" admins are the only ones that would volunteer to go through the process. I have no doubt that Harrias initiated this process in good faith, but in my opinion future outings like this should be highly discouraged. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral It has already been shown by thoughtful comments in this section that this is both futile and mockery of the real process. Ammarpad (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - a re-confirmation RfA for an uncontroversial admin is utterly redundant. Inept admin will inevitably lose their tools anyway through procedure without coming here, and the candidate is not inept. He is qualified to run and succeed as an admin again, but this sets a poor precedent, especially considering the rumours of the imposition of term limits that this nom conjures. Thus, neutral, and any frivolous future re-runs will likely meet a harsher fate from me. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is what you are saying here that if a person stands up and demonstrates that they stick to their ethical principles you would feel personally obliged to punish them for it? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. What I am saying is that if another admin wants to partake in an exercise of futility, and waste project time, for no ostensible reason, then I will oppose. I don't appear to be alone in this sentiment. Moreover, since you appear to be insinuating that being nonplussed about a waste of time reconfirmation which has dangerous implications regarding a precedent forming is standing against ethical principles, let me ask you this. Is the nomination about standing by ethical values, or giving the appearance of doing so? From where I stand, it looks like the latter. An inept admin would never submit to a re-con, so it is a waste of time. Harrias had community consensus, and my respect, and this does not change that. However, if the tsunami of neutrality is anything to go by, we should deter against repeats of this in the future. Stating that another frivolous recon would earn an oppose vote is my way of doing so, and I stand by it. Stormy clouds (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral If he doesn't want the tools anymore, he can resign. Otherwise, I don't see the point here. Katietalk 14:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I don't have a problem with the candidate, based on review. With that said, like the others I do not see the need for this action. It does seem an "exercise in futility". Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per Katie. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. You are a great administrator and editor of the project, and I do not see the need for a reconfirmation RFA. Neutral as per the others in this section.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 17:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - I want to oppose this as a self-indulgent inquisition that is neither needed or appropriate; however, I don't think this stupid decision and waste of time is enough to remove your rights. Nihlus  21:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Already an admin and no more comment about this decision here. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral I'm sure Harrias is a fine admin, but I really don't like the idea of reconfirmation RfAs. RfA is a rough enough process if you're not an admin yet, and I imagine that if admins thought that they'd get raked over the coals for every controversial action they took, some would just stop doing anything remotely controversial. (I'm not even sure I'd bother; the tools are definitely useful, but my own RfA back in 2010 was stressful enough and the process has only gotten worse since.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral I do not see the need for this action. --Frmorrison (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral - For the tie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral, pointless attention seeking. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c">fish &amp;<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33">karate 09:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral, per the others. But anyway I'm glad to see that this RfA is heading in the right direction. Keep up the good work Harrias. Carry on! — sparklism hey! 10:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral per Cyp, agree completely. Κσυπ Cyp  18:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per yourself? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, since I tend to agree with myself. It makes perfect sense. I think. Clearly. Right. Maybe. Why maybe? Well… Ok, I should stop here before it goes too far. Κσυπ Cyp  21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per the above. Harrias seems like a fine admin, and I really have no reservations about their continued use of the tools. But I also agree that this RFA was unnecessary. If it did fail, as it might with another candidate, then we'd be setting a precedent that would best be discussed at an RFC, with the entire community involved. I'm not entirely comfortable with that. I also question the wisdom of scheduling this during a holiday week, where participation will necessarily be lower. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Mellifluous Neutral: I don't always !vote in RfA discussions, but when I do, I do it mellifluously. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * !! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per most of the above. Ultraexactzz sums it up quite nicely. Regards  So Why  08:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I have no strong feelings one way or the other. If I don't survive, tell my wife ... hello. &rarr; <b style="color:green">Stani</b><b style="color:blue">Stani</b> 09:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Emphatic neutral I see no reason to be here. Harrias isn't doing anything worthy of desysop, and, like others, I don't like the precedent this might set.  --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral but for slightly different reasons form most of the above. I don't think reconfirmation RfA's are a waste of the community's time.  Not one single editor is required to spend even a nanosecond on reading or considering or commenting on any RfA (including this one) if they don't want to, and any editor that does engage in those activities therefore considers them important enough that they aren't wasting their time.  That said,  doesn't appear to actually need the admin tools in any significant way.  They have made, for example, over 1,700 main space edits just this month alone yet they issued a mere seven blocks, protected only four pages, and deleted all of 22 pages in all of 2017 so far.  Those three areas of logs are hardly all admins do, I realize, but they speak to very low admin activity.  Harrias's status as an admin appears to help him lead WP:CRIC but that is, at best, a hat-collecting reason for being an admin.  Their answer to Question 1 appears to confirm they aren't really interested in actually exercising the admins tools in any significant way.  If they were an ordinary editor starting a new RfA, I would certainly oppose their nomination as unnecessary.  Since, however, they have done nothing to suggest they should be deprived of their current status I cannot bring myself to oppose this RfA.  I suggest that Harrias should use the trust previously placed in them by the community more actively. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral not a fan of the precedent this may create as per above. Sure, discussing and !voting on the candidate is voluntary but that doesn't mean it is not a waste of time. Going through the whole RfA process for something that should be routine will inevitably direct resources away from other work done here. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 02:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning Oppose. Pointy, disruptive, unnecessary, self-nominated RfAs such as this do not demonstrate the kind of thoughtful, knowledgeable, policy-based decision-making expected of administrators. Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Per the above. I think the 36 neutral votes here serve a purpose, to inform others who might want to try this that it's not something the community supports, and that IMO outweighs any potential benefits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, leaning oppose. This Rfa is wasting everybody's time, for no particularly good reason. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Useful learning experience for me and good faith on the part of the candidate but there's enough noise on WP without strictly unnecessary political events. Pouletic (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per Softlavender. We don't do "reconfirmation" RfAs and this wastes the community's time. Neutralitytalk 05:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to this RfA, so if you feel that your time is being wasted, you only have yourself to blame.
 * If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Geez, not only has hell frozen over, but I just saw aerial hog outside my window: not only do I agree with Joefromrandb (above) but I also agree with Guy Macon, at least the first part of his statement. No one's time is being wasted here unless they want to waste that time.  It's not like this is an article that one is trying to protect from damaging edits, eating up editing time that could be put to better uses, almost everything on this page is simply someone's opinion, and no one is forced to express theirs.Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral.  At first I thought I wouldn't participate, what difference does it make in my life?  Then I read a hilarious comment in the Neutral section, laughed out loud and thought it fair to give Guy Macon credit for that (right above here, see?), went back to the beginning, and began to read more closely.  Then I saw Harrias has defended The Rambling Man and thought, defending any admin's right to be persistently rude just because s/he/it feels like it is not a good thing and deserves an Oppose.  Then I looked at some of his edits and logs and thought he seems to have been doing good work, even if I still don't see the point of cricket (and don't even get me started on soccer and that absolutely idiotic offside rule), and is asking for some attention, which is perfectly reasonable as attention is one of the (often-unacknowledged) necessities of life (after air, water, food, shelter, and clothing) and worthy of consideration for Support.  After further perusal, and before I completely ran out of interest, I landed here, in my typically spectacular and world class parallel parking fashion.  – Athaenara  ✉  20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Meh. Normally I don't !vote Neutral as it's pointless, but then so is this. Jonathunder (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

General comments

 * Um, Harrias is already an admin and as far as I can tell not about to be deadmined. Is this supposed to be a reconfirmation RfA, but what happens if it fails? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume, since this admin did this voluntarily, they would resign if it fails. Ifnord (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer about that. Yes, it is a reconfirmation RfA, and if it fails, I will indeed resign as an admin. Harrias  talk 21:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that I've just edited my opening statement to make this a little clearer. Harrias  talk 21:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ivanvector has a compelling argument. I hope "second terms" dont become a common thing. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  00:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on the voluntary recall. I have no issues that I know of with .  It's the whole idea of declaring specifically they're open to recall, that has always seemed to me like a redundancy, a ceremonial process so people can ask it at RFA, or wherever.  WP:DESYSOP Admins are ALL subject ro recall, whether they state it or not.  You mess up as an admin, and you are called on the carpet on one board or another. What I can see happening with this "going through the motions" situation here is the setting of a precedence, as expressed by concerns above. I can think of a number of things that could arise from this, and will not be mentioned here so as not to inspire, "I never thought of that ... let's do an RFC to make that happen."  Harrias, if you mess up a little, you'll know at WP:ANI.  Wikipedians do not sit silently on their indignations. If you mess up enough,  you're going before WP:ARB. — Maile  (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the theory. But in practice desysopping an admin is hard, and at any rate much harder than making them fail at RfA, which is why the recall process is important IMO. That is a well-known trope, but if you need an example, see this ArbCom proceeding. The admin in question might or might not get desysopped and I think it is arguable both ways, but it is fairly clear that a candidate coming at RfA with such a spot in their career, even if it was five years and 100k+ edits ago, would never be given the mop. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 18:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In theory, indeed! "You mess up as an admin, and you are called on the carpet"... ... ... Sure you are. Sure. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true, but I don't think it has anything to do with an Admin's Cabal, or anything like that. It's primarily a systemic things, where complex human systems prefer not to be perturbed, and stick to the status quo whenever possible.  But it's also related to a culture of forgiveness here, which is sometimes carried too far, in my opinion, so that disruptive elements aren't well-dealt with, and are allowed to keep on editing past any reasonable point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't all of this hold true regardless of the process used? Someone willing to a voluntary recall might not go rogue and get out of hand anyway.  Those who end up at ANI or ARB have stepped through the looking glass, in a sense.  Whether it's just a string of events, a personality issue, or a group of like-minded editors encouraging the individual, on the boards we sometimes deal with a case of "the ends justify the means", and the justification in the individual mind is that they're right and others are wrong.  Are the ones who end up at ARB likely to voluntarily be recalled in the first place? — Maile  (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things. (1) If reconfirmation was mandated every X years / Y admin actions / Z edits, the inertia of status quo would be lower, because (a) it avoids the "shoot the messenger" effect (none wants to be the first complainer about any admin's conduct) and (b) it offers a venue to contest multiple small-to-medium mishaps. Imagine an admin that closes AfD, mostly well but let's say 1 out of 10 is widely off the line, and each time they get taken to WP:DRV on those the close is overturned. Or a patroller at WP:AIV who closes 1 out of 10 worthy reports they handle as "not strictly vandalism, go at WP:ANI instead". The point is not about the value of 1/10 error rate, but that there is a range of error rate for which the admin is a net negative yet not desysoppable because there is no salient incident to warrant a formal complaint. The reconfirmation hearing acts as such a crystallization point and reduces (probably not eliminates, sure) the range of "not OK but not actionable" conduct. (2) Administrators open to recall clearly do not intend the process to actually be used against them, but cancelling one's commitment to the recall process "under a cloud" or refusing to honor a successful recall proceeding will certainly give ammunition to the opponents when the real wheels of justice start grinding. Being open to recall has if nothing else a self-deterrence effect. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 13:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooh yes 100% on that shoot the messenger etc. However there are disadvantages of mandatory reconfirmation as it will deter admins from controversial decisions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with Tigraan. I'm also not worried about deterring admins from controversial decisions, for three reasons: 1) Admins making decisions that turn out controversial (especially under WP:AC/DS, the creation of which almost singlehandedly turned adminship into a Big F'ing Deal overnight) is the very reason for increasing levels of distrust and unease about admins, FUD about desyopping process (including that messenger factor – no one wants a target painted on their forehead in a regime of in which admins largely cannot be taken to task for wrongdoing unless one has a lot of friends who show up to cheer-lead at RFARB on one's behalf), and general paranoia about making anyone new an admin, or changing RfA in any way (in case it turns out even worse). If the decision would be controversial, there is no consensus for it pretty much by definition, so the decision should not be made but deferred to the community for more discussion until consensus emerges. 2) With an auto-reconfirmation system, many of these community anxieties would be quite assuaged, and we would consequently have lots more admins, so losing some who don't do the "job" well would matter much less.  3) Such a return to adminship being not such a big deal would also make it easier to regain the bit after a while, in the case of a vote of no-confidence, as long as the admin re-candidate showed that they understood, and had learned past, whatever the issue was that cost them the bit.  Wouldn't we all love it if everyone competent for the work could become an admin, without also having to be in the top 0.5% of Wikipedia's Most Popular?  We'd never have a backlog again, and we'd be finally rid of this awful cult of personality mess we've created.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

--- The opposers don't seem to have much good faith going around.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of those in the neutral section seem not to understand the purpose of this reconfirmation RfA. Makes you wonder if they read the self-nom statement. We need more reconfirmation RfAs, not less. Indeed, we need some form of community recall, but too many editors are opposed to that idea for it to happen. Oh, and anyone who considers this to be a waste of time is free to not participate. Lepricavark (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally stay away from this stuff, keeping my time as an editor within my wikiprojects of interest, but I decided to check this out and now I'm confused, is there any sort of harm this causes? I guess I can see where people are coming from that it was unnecessary, but I'm not seeing why people are finding it such a bad thing. Is this taking up one of a limited number of nomination spots or something, or is it somehow causing problems by being clutter? I don't' see the issue with this, needed or not.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 00:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the admins whose conduct does need reviewing will not do a reconfirmation RfA, while conscientious ones will. Like Recall, is a flawed process. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But,, if you are right, that would provide an excellent system for identifying the conscientious admins. Personally, I'd be interested in how we might develop a culture whereby admins would want to voluntarily go though reconfirmation in the spirit of WP:NOBIGDEAL - but not this broken process, obviously. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This RFA may be pointless but can it be record-breaking? Does anyone know the most neutral votes in a single RFA?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 24. — xaosflux  Talk 04:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nearly there then.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And I see we've passed it now. Double sharp (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping this turns into cause for a new subheader at WP:100, titled "100 times Wikipedians went out of their way to make sure everyone knew that they didn't have an opinion about something". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The (record-breakingly) strong sentiments of neutrality here demonstrate just how futile this RfA was. With many (myself included) stating that a repeat of such a re-confirmation without any grounds will warrant an oppose, I wonder if (despite fears of instruction creep) an official statement either for or against re-confirmations. It certainly seems to me that a formal discussion on the matter is necessary. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An official statement by who? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By or on behalf of those who bother comenting when the issue is inevitably raised at AN, I expect :)  Ironically, the most surefire way for this never to happen again would be if the percentages went into the discretionary range... then no admin in their right mind would ever risk it!   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 17:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was (admittedly poorly) suggesting a discussion about this at AN, or maybe having some of the bureaucrats step in and formalise policy following an RfC or community consensus. Apologies for the lack of clarity. The only way that we, in the here and now, can ensure this does not occur again is to vote the admin, a good candidate, into oblivion for one bout of time-wasting, which would be reckless. Thus, I propose that we go elsewhere to do so. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do hope that those who honestly believe that voluntary reconfirmation is disruptive, not allowed, etc., realize thatr if I were to post an RfC with the question "Is there anything wrong or disruptive about an administrator voluntary posting a reconfirmation RfA?" I would get support in the 95% to 98% range. If at lease five editors disagree, I will be happy to post the RfC and then sit back watch as it gets snow closed after the overwhelming support becomes apparent. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Worth doing anyway, just to put to bed any "anti-reconfirmation bias". PS: It's interesting to me how many of the oppose and neutral voters are admins. Says a lot.  So does wanting to make a rule about (mostly against) this at AN, a forum virtually no one but admins pays any attention to. If we RfC this it should be a WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the issue is not that people don't like the idea; the issue is that Harrias is putting the cart before the horse and trying to follow a process that is not established. Your "suggestion" of starting a RFC and how it will be "snow closed" because it's such a great idea is WP:POINTy and will essentially be an exercise in futility. If you are so keen on addressing this issue, I suggest you try establishing a process for future reconfirmations rather than wasting other people's time. Nihlus  09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to your "WP:POINTY" accusation and request that you retract the false accusation. In fact, my post is the exact opposite of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Posting an RfC when everyone knows what the answer will be might be pointy (but see below). Saying that there is no reason to post an RfC when everyone knows what the answer will be is the opposite of pointy. Also as is usual when someone writes "It's clear that the issue is..." you have simply expressed what you personally think the issue is. I don't agree with your opinion. As for your implication that posting RfCs is disruptive, you are dead wrong. When a small minority of editors insists that their view has consensus an RfC is the approved method of demonstrating that it does not. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You can object all you like, but it still stands. I have no desire to repeat myself as my view is above for everyone to see. Nihlus  20:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * An interesting comment from Bureaucrats' noticeboard: "If we have opposing comments along the lines of, 'I oppose all self-noms' or 'reconfirmation RFAs are self-indulgent and disruptive,' I would urge any admin not to resign on that basis. It might technically still be a cloud, but bureaucrats weigh arguments and reconfirmation-runners should do the same. However, I can imagine a hypothetical scenario where an admin resigned after a reconfirmation RFA but it was not a cloud, because no policy-based arguments were raised against that admin." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment what a disgrace. This is now at least ten minutes overdue for closing.  We really should completely force all 'crats to re-confirm their commitment to closing these things to the minute.  Happy new year everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2017 (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.