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

Hahc21[edit]

Final (112/30/5); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 02:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Hahc21 (talk · contribs) – Hahc21 is a prolific content contributor and experienced project member. He contributes to an impressive number of areas, as well as a number of other Wikimedia projects, and he already holds several positions of trust. On Wikipedia, he is a delegate in one of the featured content processes, and an Arbitration Committee clerk. On two other WMF sites, he is an elected administrator. When not contributing to the encyclopedia, Hahc21 is widely active in these positions of trust, and through them has demonstrated excellent judgement, a polite and friendly attitude, and an aptitude for picking up new responsibilities.

Some of this is at odds with his last RFA candidacy, at which time he had a slightly patchy record of AFD closures. Nearly two years ago, this resulted in the community directing him to not close AFDs (as a non-administrator). This restriction was overturned over a year ago, and Hahc21 has since successfully closed many AFD discussions. I think his contributions since that time demonstrate quite plainly that the concerns during his last RFA (itself a long time ago) are no longer at all an issue. As was the case with many current, successful administrators, Hahc21 had a slightly bumpy start, but has since turned into one of our most knowledgeable, hard-working, and trustworthy contributors. At my urging (and that of many other users), he would like to volunteer to contribute to the project as an administrator, and submits to your consideration. I hope you agree with my assessment that he will be a reliable and trusted sysop. Good luck, Hahc21! AGK [•] 19:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 23:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I would mainly use the tools to enhance the work I already do as a non-administrator. They would be most useful as part of my contributions as an ArbCom clerk and FLC delegate. Over and above that, I would also be willing to use the sysop tools to assist with our backlog of permissions and deletion requests, and to work in the file namespace. As a current administrator at Wikidata and Wikivoyage, and having been a Wikipedia contributor for many years, I am already familiar with the rules and processes surrounding the administrator toolkit. (Of course, there are always new things to learn.) Being an administrator would also help in my roles at OTRS and account creation (ACC). However, none of this would detract from the work I do writing good and featured articles.

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

A: My best contribution is all the featured content I have written. I mostly write about independently developed video games (such as Gravity Bone and its sequel) or cancelled games (such as Armada of the Damned). Previously, I worked on music articles too (mostly on Ricardo Arjona's albums and songs) but I've only taken one music article to FA. Apart from that, I am very proud of my work at templates; my contributions at the Good article nominations project, where I have co-ordinated two drives and invested a considerable amount of time developing solutions to the problems we face out there; my tenure as delegate at FLC and as clerk for the Arbitration Committee; and finally, my work with files.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I was tempted to copy-paste my response from the previous RfA, since nothing much has happened since then. I am not the kind of user who often gets involved in disputes. I have my fair share of conflicts by being an ArbCom clerk (though not as an involved party, of course), and the last "big" conflict that involved me happened more than a year ago, when I was restricted from making non-admin closures. It was a big mess, and I recognize that I did a big bunch of bad judgement calls back there. The restriction was lifted a year ago just after I became a clerk, and no problems have taken place since then. Being restricted served as a catalyst for me to grow and mature as a user, and to understand the meaning and weight that many actions have on Wikipedia.

Optional question from Adjwilley

4. Consider the following scenario: You are an administrator. Shortly after you take a certain administrative action that you believe is appropriate, you are approached by several users, including some administrators, who question your judgement and suggest that you reverse your action. Other users, though not as many, argue that your action was correct. You still believe that your action was correct. What do you do?

A: Interesting question, thanks. The first thing I would do is to reverse back in time and re-assess why I did take the action. If, after doing that, I still believe that my action is correct, I would explain to the users who approached me, in detail, why did I consider the action necessary. Then, I would carefully read why they think it was an incorrect action and why should it be reversed. I would then spend some time thinking about both sides of the coin before coming with a solution. I won't say either that I would, or would not reverse my action because doing so depends on the circumstances and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Maybe the action was indeed correct and those who were arguing that it wasn't change their minds, or maybe it was incorrect and it should be reversed, in which case I would reverse it myself and apologize if necessary. It is always important to pay attention and value to what other users have to say about your actions, because, after all, our community is based upon consensus. It is not uncommon for ourselves to think that what we are doing is The Right Thing until we realize that it wasn't after some people we trust, such as long standing users or experienced administrators who might have went through the same situation before, approach us questioning our actions. After all, the most important part about making mistakes is being able to recognize them, bring a proper solution to the mess you left behind, and learn from the experience.

Additional question from Soni, Jason Quinn

5. Have you considered that your signature might cause confusion to those who haven't checked your username? Would you be willing to change it? I speak from personal experience because for quite a substantial time, I believed your username was AXE.

A: I know, yes, that many users believe that AXE21 is my username. I have thought about changing back my signature but I believe that it will only bring even more confusion. This is the signature I use at around 50, maybe more, Wikimedia projects, and it has become an integral part of my identity. I have used it for almost two years now and it represents what I am and what I do, and I believe that changing my signature would mean a loss of that identity. Most people won't know who I am if I go back and start using my username as signature, and it will put me in an awkward situation. I attempted to solve the problem and make the connection more evident without damaging this identity, and I found a solution by adding "Call me Hahc21" to my signature. I think it is sufficient. Though, if the community feels that my signature should be modified further, I will, of course, be willing to do it.

• Hello once again. Sorry that I missed the "Call me Hahc21" from your signature, though I think that many editors do not notice superscripted text like this. Your answer does make sense to me, even though the signature is still confusing. Can I suggest you to create "AXE" and "AXE21" as doppelgänger usernames so anyone who accidentally searches you under those usernames is automatically redirected to your actual username? Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WOah, I never thought about that. Will do. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 13:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The signature is not "AXE", but actually contains the Greek letters Lambda, Chi and Sigma. Kraxler (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Corrected. Kraxler (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chi, not Xi. Sorry, pet peeve of mine. —Soap— 15:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I was thinking "chi" and wrote "xi"... Thanks for pointing it out, I've corrected it. Kraxler (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

You might instead consider changing your username to AXE21 rather than making it redirect to hahc21. It sounds like most people (myself included) know you under that moniker, so why not just use that? I would think such a request would be honoured. If you insist, you could keep the Greek letters in the signature, but with a plain English username I think people would figure out how to ping you. Of course that still does not make it any easier to search for your comments on a talk page, which I think is a very valid concern. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why a username change is not a possibility is because it would break my SUL. If global username changes were available by now, it might be a different thing though. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 16:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Leaky

6A. Please explain the relationship between this account and User:Razr Nation which you describe, incorrectly I think, as a doppelganger.

A: Yes, I may have incorrectly labelled it as doppelganger. Razr Nation is my alt account, and I used it to make maintenance edits and to log into Wikipedia on unsafe computers. Last year, I was active with it because my computer was constantly jamming and I had to access Wikipedia through an unsafe computer.

6B. You say the Razr Nation account as being for “’’carrying out maintenance tasks.’’” Why did you use it for April Fool jokes in 2013?

A: Mostly because at that time I was using an unsafe computer and didn't want to log in with my main account. I admit that I used it for things that don't qualify as "carrying out maintenance tasks" but I think it is quite irrelevant, given that I no longer plan to use that account.

6C. There is considerable overlap between these 2 accounts [1]. I am concerned about 1 set in particular, at ANI where you appear to be editing within the same sectional discussion [2], including removing another editor’s contributions.

A: These are from November 2012. However, my explanation above of why I actively used my talt account during that period may suffice. If not, please feel free to ask me for a clarification.

6D. What was this edit [3] about, where you combine both of your Greek signatures in one single, impossible to decipher, string?

A: When I was using my alternate account, I wanted everyone to know that it was me, Hahc21. I did not want to give the impression that it was somebody else (which would have been a clear violation of WP:LEGIT) but at the same time I wasnted to note that I was using an alternate account. The Ṙ was intended to represent the use of my alt account, while the rest of the signature was intended to show that it was me. Prior to that, i used a completely different signature, as you pointed out in 6F.

6E. I have read the background about your AfD non-admin. closure restriction, but I cannot see this one mentioned [4]. Here you proposed the deletion using Razr and closed it using Hahc21. Was that appropriate?

A: A terrible mistake. I rushed that article to AFD because I believed that it should be deleted, but then I back-tracked when I saw that it was Anna Frodesiak who created the article. I then discussed the article with her and closed it. By the time I closed it, I was again on my computer and did so under my main account. However, I know that this is behaviour not expected from any user, less an administrator. Since then, I have not done that again, and will never do.

The article in question Fuzhou Airlines was written in December 2012, and is about 90% in future tense. The link to the "official website" is dead. Could you explain why articles by Anna Frodesiak must not be listed at AfD, and could you say something about WP:CRYSTAL? Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that Anna's articles must not be listed at AFD, it's that I took it there five minutes after it was created. So I decided to give her more time to develop it. If she hasn't done so since I withdrew my AFD, then it should be taken back to it and deleted, I suppose. What I can say about WP:CRYSTAL is that it's a basic rule, easy to follow, easy to apply. I see it as a line drawn in the sand as to how far in the future can topics expand to without being covered, substantially, by reliable sources. A good example of that is how Star Wars: Episode VII was managed. It is a principle that I came across several times when I wrote music articles: it tells you when an album or song article is not yet ready to be created, and when it is. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, your nomination of the article for deletion was absolutely correct. It doesn't matter how long after the article creation you nominated it. Anna Frodesiak would have had a week (the usual time for AfD to be closed) to develop anything. Your back-pedalling was hasty, but it's been 15 months ago, so: Considering that the airline never materialized, and that "fouzhou airlines" yields exactly one result on Google (our Wikipedia article), would you be so kind and nominate it right now again at AfD, with a good rationale, perhaps citing guidelines? Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was correct, but I felt that I was harsh by doing so. I forgot about it because it got lost among all the stuff I used to do. However, you're right, and I think I could nominate it again given that it has not been touched. I will do a thorough research before nominating it again. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 21:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a bit late to be borthered with now, but the content could have possibly been merged into Hainan Airlines. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you give Anna more time than, say, an editor who is less experienced? I understand that editors have seven days during the AfD to improve the article, but I don't think it's fair for a more experienced editor to be given more time on their article rather than an inexperienced editor who is not given the extra time. -Newyorkadam (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why I reverted myself was because (a) the article only had 5 minutes of being created, and (b) I thought I rushed it too hard. I decided to go back in my track because I trusted Anna to expand the article and make it pass notability. I think I would have done the same with any other experienced editor, as a courtesy. Actually, I think I would have actually reverted myself anyways because it would have been too bitey to open an AFD of an article a new user created just five minutes ago. It would have felt discouraging to be received like that. → Call me Hahc21 14:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6F. Finally, a year ago, you open this [5] in Greek, list yourself as reviewer in English and comment extensively using your alternate. You must see how confusing this is.

A: Yes, although I did not "list myself" in English, the template does that. I opened the review with my main account but then I had to use my alternate account to finish it. I realize that it must have been confusing to Niemti and I think I apologized to him for that. However, that is something I wouldn't do again.

6G. I appreciate that this is historical behaviour, but how confident can we be that you really appreciate the conditions attached to using multiple accounts?

A: I understand the conditions, and think that you can be very confident about it. It has been almost a year since I last used my alternate account and I don't think I would ever need to use it again.

6H. Do you still condone disruption to WP on April Fools day as you did in this RfC last year [6]? Your participation included spoof AfDs and a fake SPI submission [7], which was originally placed in Project Space [8]. Any similar plans for 2014?

A: I don't have any plans for 2014. 2013 was the first year I participated on April's Fools and I think of it as a single experience that I lived, and it's now over.

6I. Please see Op#2. I thought this issue was somewhat resolved by the Latin extension. If, as stated, your Latin extension is not visible to all users, that clearly impedes accessibility, makes it impossible to look you up or search for your contributions (Ctrl-F) on a lengthy talk page. Admins. must have completely transparent means of communication, especially to new users. Being able to click on your name is only part of it. Not everyone uses a keyboard that has immediate access to non-Latin characters, and names that cannot be pronounced cannot be retained in memory. Any further thoughts?

A: As I said on question 5, I am willing to change it further. By now, I removed the superscript and changed the color to black, and will work to make it more evident. I also linked the "Call me hahc21" text to my userpage. It's hard for me to come up with a different signature, but I will do my best. Is this sufficient by now? — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 16:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is entirely up to you what measures you take. The best reference point for this sort of concern is a recent RfA, here: [9]. Leaky Caldron 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Wee Curry Monster

I would like to ask a couple of questions some concerning your opinion of the handling of a recent arbcom case in which you acted as a clerk and some concerning how you would act in the same situation. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel

7. The case revolved around the actions of an admin in conflict with a wikiproject. One of the findings of the case was that the actions of User:Kafziel were entirely in accordance with policy and that the WP:AFC could not establish a local consensus that superseded policy. I would like to ask how you would respond to a similar case, if members of a wikiproject vocally criticised your actions, and insisted you followed a procedure they'd defined. How would you respond if your actions were in fact entirely within policy?

A: Difficult question. Policy is one of the most important things Wikipedia has. It defines what we do, and regulates how we do it. All WikiProjects are free to have their own internal "rules" about a set of things that fall under their domain. They need to be adjusted so that they can be followed in accordance with our policies, the five pillars and with common sense. The first examples that come into my mind are WP Albums' guideline about notability, or WP Videogames' guideline about which sites are considered reliable. These local consensus supplement the policies, and serve as an instrument of great value when working on articles that fall inside those topics. If a WikiProject (or a group of members among that project) start demanding users to comply with rules that clash with our policies, and that cannot be reasonably covered by IAR, then we have a problem. If I find myself in this position, I would try to do my best to show them that a problem exists, and then would explore ways to replace the rules with better ones that fit the purpose of the project and are compliant with policy.

8. At this time do you have an interest in running for arbcom in future?

A: I know that, as a clerk, I could be expected to have an interest in running for ArbCom. Honestly, I have not made my mind about it. I enjoy being a clerk. It's a job I like to do, but I'm not sure whether I would like to be an arbitrator or not. Time will tell.

9. A slightly unfair question, which you may choose to ignore if you wish, do you think that the Kafziel case was a suitable case for arbcom given there had been no prior attempt at WP:DR other the hothouse atmosphere of WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: I apologize, but I believe that it is not wise to answer this question properly for the time being. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 21:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lankiveil

10. If you could make one change, by decree, to any Wikipedia policy, what would it be?

A: I thought about this question for a couple of days now, and I will be honest. I don't think I would change any policy by decree, even if I could. Wikipedia policies are a result of consensus and they represent a standard. They are not perfect, and they can be polished, but a single-handedly change to one policy might not fix it but break it, and I wouldn't want to do that. Policies are the recollection of the essence of the community, and they can only change if the community at large feels that a change is needed. Doing a single change, by decree, of a policy, won't represent neither the essence of the community, nor its will, and my change will likely be then overturned by consensus, as it should be. → Call me Hahc21 13:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Question from Anupmehra

11 (a). Please give us your opinion on this image, File:Appointed_successor_Dai_syedi_Muffadal_BS_saifuddin_along_side_Dai_Burhanuddin.pdf.

A: After taking a detailed look, I agree that it has to be deleted. First, the fact that the image is inside a pdf file makes it impossible to see if it has, or not, the EXIF files to verify authority. However, according to how the image looks, I think it was taken with an analogic rather than a digital SLR camera, which means that there is no digital file to verify authority (I could be wrong, of course, but since this is a pdf file, there is no way to make sure). Therefore, that image was, probably, scanned from a printed source. It may have been scanned from the original picture, but if so, we can't still verify if the uploader is the actual owner. My conclusion is that this file is not free (because there is no way to prove it is, mostly) and per WP:NFCC it has to go. Maybe, if the uploader provides the actual picture instead of a pdf, we could have more information to find out the status of the image. → Call me Hahc21 17:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11 (b). This is your third nomination. I read comments made by editors and you in earlier RfAs. You did withdraw your earlier both nominations sensing the possible failing RfA restricting other editors to question you more. I would quote here your reasons to withdraw nominations,

"I have thoroughly reviewed the comments in this application and reached a conclusion: I withdraw the nomination. Now I know where my weaknesses are and i will work to get them up and running".

"I withdraw. I understand the concerns here, and I don't want to waste community's time".

Please tell us a summary of the improvements you made since last the RfA. How are you not wasting community time this time? Thank you.

A: The most important thing I think I improved since my last RfA is how I approach things. Before I ran the second time, I was careless about many actions I made on Wikipedia, and it obviously worked against me. I was reckless. It was evidence of how immature I was. The restriction, and how my second RfA happened, showed me that a change was needed. I wish I couldn't have learned it the hard way but I think that it was necessary. Additionally, I was granted the administrator right on Wikidata and Wikivoyage, and I had to learn how to manage the responsibility. → Call me Hahc21 23:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11 (c). I read editor's review on you, requested by you on 10 June 2012. You requested it in this form,

"I'm a tireless contributor here on Wikipedia, [..] Why I want to be reviewed? No, i don't want to become an admin nor seeking adminship soon. [..]".

Well, that was a plain lie. You nominated yourself within a month for adminship on 8 July 2012. What made you narrate such a lie? You'd be committed to your words as you promise being a good admin, how it is not an another lie?

What an extremely inappropriate and disruptive not-even-a-question question. Was something like "In an editor review you requested on 10 June 2012, you said that you don't want to become an admin nor are you seeking adminship soon. Yet, less than a month later, you nominated yourself for adminship. What made you change your mind in such a short period of time?" so hard to ask? If you really wanted to know why that occurred. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Status- The real question was the last line perhaps you either did not read or ignored. I'm really not interested to know why something occurred 1 year and 7 months ago. I wanted to know why it'd not be repeating. And, this way it is not a "not-even-a-question" but a question. If it still seems inappropriate/disruptive to you, I simply can not help. However, bring it to under discussion sub-section if you wish to discuss. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: It was not a lie, though it might look like that. My answer above might explain why. I was reckless. I did my editor review with no intentions to open an RfA, but a month later some users convinced me and I jumped in without thinking about what would happen. I only had four months of constant editing and was immature about many things on Wikipedia. The same mistake happened with my second RfA. My restriction was lifted, and I accepted to run for adminship thinking that the fact that I was just freed from the restriction wouldn't matter. I was clearly wrong, and I suffered the consequences of such careless decisions. I then realized that it was unhealthy to keep doing that over and over again. → Call me Hahc21 23:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Worm That Turned

12. Hahc21, I'm interested in how much the community means to you, and how you'd handle different situations. I know you watch my talk page and consider me a friend, imagine a situation where I'd made a comment on a controversial Arbcom case, which upset a number of people. Person Q comes to my talk page and says something like "You really are a hypocritical twat, Wikipedia would be better off without you". You're an admin and you know I won't be around for the next day or so. You notice the comment - what do you do if:

A: Person Q was an IP address?

B: Person Q was a brand new account?

C: Person Q was an editor with ~5000 edits?

D: Person Q was an administrator?

E: Person Q was an arbitrator?

A: I would be unlikely to act in defence of a contributor I considered a personal friend, but I will need to take a little time to think about the rest of your question. I want to answer it carefully. Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 13:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Razionale

13. I notice that your current user page has an enormous image of the current Venezuelan political protests, in which several people were killed. Imagine that you see an issue with ties to Venezuelan politics requiring admin intervention. How would you react?

A: I would not act as an administrator on issues relating to Venezuelan politics. → Call me Hahc21 13:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Cloudchased

14. Please explain why you have the template editor and file mover rights despite the fact that you barely edit in either namespace and demonstrate little need for either tool?

A: The template editor permission was given to me to solve a massive coding mistake on a template-protected template. Since I used to work in templates, and still sometimes do, I decided not to ask for its removal. Now, about the file mover one. I used to work a lot at the File: namespace here and on Commons. The right came in handy to me because my first uploads did not perfectly comply with the naming criteria and I wanted to help out at renaming files by request. I barely use it now that I moved to work on featured articles, and I wouldn't mind if it's removed from my account.

15. Could you please reiterate your answer to Q1 below to demonstrate an actual need for the tools?

A: Actually, part of your hidden note is not true (FLC, ArbCom, and ACC won't change even if you become an administrator). Being an administrator will make me able to edit protected ArbCom templates and pages without bothering another clerk or arbitrator to lower the protection. I will also be able to protect case pages being targeted by users or sockpuppets trying to disrupt the process. On FLC, for example, I will be able to delete, by myself, malformed FLC pages without the need to find an admin to do so (it has happened, and it's annoying). I am still getting my way around ACC, so I don't know in which ways the tools will enhance my work there. OTRS is a different thing. Some files are uploaded and then the permission sent to otrs-permissions, for example. If the permission is not sufficient, the file is deleted. It is annoying to handle a ticket like that and being unable to delete the file. Or sometimes it happens the other way. The file is deleted and then the correct permission arrives. I would like to handle both cases by myself again (I stopped). I also usually work at requested moves and cannot perform most of them because I can't move pages over a redirect. I could go on, but I think this is enough to demonstrate that there is a need for the tools.

16. The comment by Secret at O#24 indicates that he provided direct coaching to you in answering my question #6. Where did these discussions take place and why was it necessary? Have you been coached or assisted with any other questions?

A: A couple of editors sent me emails wrt your questions after you posted them. Secret was one of them. He adviced me to not answer your question, or to dismiss them with short replies. Other editors also told me not to reply to them. However, I decided to use my best judgement, be honest, and reply with my own words as best as I could. I also received comments regarding questions 11(b) and 11(c), though, as with your questions, these messages were mostly "don't reply to that" and the likes.

And to be clear, do you approve of their comments which impugn my integrity and justification for seeking clarification of your past behaviour?

I would have answered your questions differently had I been in agreement with them. I think of every question as a possibility to explain and clarify my mistakes. I know that I have had moments where I behaved poorly, and the best I can do is to be honest and open to questions like yours. It is evident that some people find them offensive, but I don't find myself among them. → Call me Hahc21 15:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't oppose you for your answers to Q6 which I did consider plausible. I recommend you choose your friends carefully. Secret hasn't exactly got clean hands when it comes to RfA matters and with friends willing to attack the motive of good faith editors on your behalf I see nothing but an Admin. career shrouded in controversy. Leaky Caldron 16:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

• Links for Hahc21: Hahc21 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Links for alternate account: Razr Nation (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Hahc21 can be found here.

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

Discussion[edit]

• Just happened randomly upon this...don't intend to vote (pile-ons aren't really necessary here), but I don't think the Q6's (by Leaky cauldron), especially 6H, are quite appropriate: the questions are quite loaded, and while as far as I understand Hahc can choose whether to answer them or not, I think it's still worth addressing. Thoughts? ₆an⁶sh₆ 12:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing loaded about my questions whatsoever. These are questions which the community is entitled to an answer to understand whether this repeat candidate has the necessary trust and confidence to support being given to a toolset that is effectively permanent. The candidate made inappropriate edits using a legitimate alternative account, I want to know if he has grown up before his quest for power is acceded to. Just because they appear popular does not entitle a candidate to less scrutiny and all I can see you doing here by attempting to censor valid questions with supporting evidence and examples is creating drama, which no one needs. Leaky Caldron 12:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards supporting here, but I personally see nothing wrong with Leaky's questions. NW (Talk) 13:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually find the questions quite interesting and worth asking. So, thanks Leaky for asking them. They give me the chance to clarify some awkward events that took place some time ago. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 15:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My take is that Leaky's questions are certainly tough ones, but most of them are worth asking (although it seems a bit overkill for one editor to ask nine questions at a single RfA). However, as the one of the subjects of the fake SPI mentioned in question 6H, I would like to state for the record that I find the use of that situation as purported evidence of 'disruption' to be in bad taste. Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could, just as easily, have created a lengthy oppose based on all of the concerns I raised as questions and the candidate would have had little effective opportunity to answer them. Result? Drama. Here the candidate has responded to the opportunity to answer (even to my satisfaction) most of the questions. What your own involvement in a fake SPI has to do with this candidate and why you need to bring it up in his RfA as "bad taste", I have no idea. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is with your labeling the April Fools' Day stuff as disruption, an assertion with which I strongly disagree. As I'm sure you are aware that Hahc21 is not the only person to have participated in such activities, your statement essentially accuses multiple people, myself included, of disruption. Such a statement, even when it is made in the form of an RfA question, is somewhat controversial and you should not be surprised that it was challenged. Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my concern as well, your portrayal of April Fools as disruption in 6B and 6H, when an RfC has shown that the majority of participants do not share that view. The concern is now moot, thankfully. Thanks all, sorry if I wasted anyone's time here. ₆an⁶sh₆ 18:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to point out that I have changed my signature to portray my current username. → Call me Hahc21 06:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

1. As nominator. AGK [•] 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. It's about time! — Status (talk · contribs) 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Of course. --Alan ^(talk) 23:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, he made mistakes in the past, but I think he's learned from them. --Rschen7754 23:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Definitely a yes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sí TCN7JM 23:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Regardless of their answer to my question, Hahc21 is an experienced user and I trust them to use the mop well. Hopefully the signature thing would also be amicably resolved. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 23:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Your question above may require amending, because it fails to account for the inclusion in his signature of the words "Call me Hahc21". AGK [•] 00:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   • AGK thanks for the ping. I wasn't aware of the superscripted words in their signature. However, this also means others may also be likely to miss the words put there. Anyways, I have replied to the answer myself. Hope this suffices as an amendment Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8. --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. 100% Support A brilliant candidate!, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. An excellent candidate. Nanobear (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Hahc21 is active in many other language wikis, with responsibilities that show community trust. His activity on English Wikipedia has diminished from a high point a couple of years ago but I think that is explained by his involvement in other parts of the Wikimedia Foundation family. I would welcome this well-rounded person as admin. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Support ///EuroCarGT 00:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. I don't see why not — fantastic editor who's been through thick and thin, learned a lot, and deserves a chance to volunteer in a new capacity. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Sure. LlamaAl (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Doubtlessly a great addition to the team. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support No issues. Widr (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Dedicated and experienced candidate. INeverCry 01:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Great candidate! Dan653 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. I was supposed to co-nominate but got distracted by the WikiCup, strongest possible support Secret ^account 01:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support --DangSunM (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Knowledgeable experienced candidate. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Delighted to support. My concerns from the 1st RfA are long-since addressed, and I keep seeing great work out of this candidate. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the closeness of this RfA, I've reevaluated the arguments made on both sides, and with respect, I reiterate my support. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24. Strong support - for about the third time. Go Phightins! 03:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. I agree with Joe Decker - recently I have only seen good things from Hahc21. I think he will make a very good admin. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I've seen them around and think they will make a good admin. The tools will definitely come in handy with the arbcom clerking business. I am also impressed with the nomination statement and answers to questions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. I usually do not participate in RfA's, but this is someone I can comfortably support. « Ryūkotsusei » 05:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
28. Easy support dedicated Wikipedian, can be trusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. Precious, Move Like This, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Of course. Graham87 07:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support enthusiastically. Even temperament, deep experience across the project space, demonstrable need for the tools. No concerns at all. Pedro :  Chat  09:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support --Glaisher [talk] 10:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Committed and experienced editor. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    After giving further consideration to the answers, and with reference to comments under oppose and neutral, I've considered withdrawing support. However, I still feel that the candidate is going to be a net positive to the project, so am sticking here. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

34. Support - impressive and patient response to previous unsuccessful RfAs. Obviously trustworthy. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support I'm mainly familiar with his work with the Arbitration Committee Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - I opposed last time, but more than happy to support this time. GiantSnowman 13:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Nick (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support No major concerns. benmoore 15:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

37. Support I have found this user to be open to discussions and willing to see multiple points of view. Good temperament for admin. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - Helpful editor with good attitude, have had positive interactions with him, should do a fine job. Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Trustworthy, helpful editor whose nominator I also trust. Good answers to legitimate questions based on mistakes made long in the past (which the candidate has obviously learned from). My great pleasure to support. Miniapolis 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support with qualifications High-profile editor who keeps his cool; definitely competent. The NAC stuff is way too long ago to worry me. Leaky's questions are great: had he simply opposed for those reasons I'd probably have followed him, but the questions invite the answers, which are fine. Signature? Not so good, but meh! What I'm not so comfortable with is the answer to Q4. Will you really explain why you think you're right before you read why they think it was wrong? You mention consensus, so won't you to point them to where they can ask what is that consensus --for example a deletion review? I hope this is just a poorly thought out answer rather than what you'd really do? --Stfg (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Moved to oppose. --Stfg (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Makes sense. I would analyze their comments before explaining my reasoning, not after. I thought that question as to be focused at actions that were taken as a single administrator, rather than as a result of consensus. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 17:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I understood the question that way too. But when an action taken as a single administrator turns out to divide opinions on whether it was right or wrong, then you then need to go looking for what the consensus actually is, don't you? --Stfg (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 18:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

41. Support Got to know him while doing DR. Has my trust. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support with no reservations. --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support No concerns with their ability to act correctly and use reasonable judgement. I have worked with them at Wikidata as an administrator, xwiki as a vandal fighter and at the account creation process and I have no obvious concerns. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    On a new note; I find the question by Leaky interesting about Hahc taking advice from other users which is just 'don't answer them. Ignore them.' While I have no issue with it; I have to point out the fact Hahc ignored exactly what they said which to me is a key quality in an administrator. Ignoring bad faith advice of others and thinking solely for themselves. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

44. --Stryn (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
45. Supprt – I am happy with the candidate's responses to Leaky's questions, especially since that alternate account has not been used in 11 months. I am not going to oppose based on the user's signature alone, and this user is otherwise an excellent candidate, so here's my support. Best of luck! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46. Clueful, enthusiastic, has learned from past mistakes. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - Hahc21 is a responsible and helpful editor whom I fully trust with these tools. Ross HillTalk to me! 19:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support – No reason needed other than that he is a very trustworthy and valuable comtributor. Epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - I just wanted to come back from my college wikibreak to vote on this candidate. I think that it is a definite yes for me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
51. Yes please! Hahc21 would do a good job with the admin rights I think. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Strong candidate. Impressive contributor of high quality content, including Featured Content across multiple types of media including Featured Articles, Featured Lists, and Featured Pictures. — Cirt (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - One thing I always look for in a candidate is not a perfect track record. Rather, I look for how an editor has grown and learned from mistakes and Hahc21 fits that mold quite well. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Valuable contributor, experienced, appears to have learned and grown over time. Donner60 (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support no concerns here based on interaction both on and off wiki. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support No need to explain much. This is a kind of editor who is willing to change for the better after seeing his past mistakes. Also, being a nice but not perfect editor is someone whom a crat should give the tools to. I think Hahc21 can use these well without going back to his mistakes. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Has always impressed me as a thoughtful and reasonable editor. Neljack (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support, cautiously because I've seen a few strange supports in votes and debates over the past year or so (but that's inadmissible in this context, I guess). The interwiki linkages are an advantage. Nomination by AGK is a good reason per se to support: the candidate must have proved himself to the arbs as a high-performing clerk. Tony (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59. Good candidate. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 12:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support (cautious) - reading the items about the alternate account left me feeling a little less confident than I was when I arrived here. Also, not proposing the deletion of an article because of who wrote it I am not impressed with either - does that mean you would have been more strident if it were an IP? You need to look at the material and try and divorce it from who wrote it at all times. It's all about the content. Bit of advice - rename the alternate account (if you must keep it, which i don't think you do really) to "Hahc21 public" or something. Ultimately I am happy though and think you'll be more likely than not to be fine with the tools. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. With 100% confidence in this user and his work for the Wikipedia community, I am very eager to support this nomination. Good luck! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - a spot check of their recent edits reveals no problems, despite not staying away from controversial places. WilyD 15:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support--MONGO 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - ```Buster Seven Talk 16:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support I see no reason why I shouldn't. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support I have a solid amount of trust in this user, having worked with him when I was active on Wikidata. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 21:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support, with very high enthusiasm. The candidate is strong on content work, and has plenty of clue. I've read and thought about all of the opposes and neutrals as of this time, and my read on the candidate is that he is someone who speaks forthrightly, even a little bit bluntly, and I can understand how that would give some editors pause. However, I have been, over and over again, favorably impressed with how he has a clear sense of right and wrong, and I repeatedly find myself agreeing with positions I see him take. He has learned from experience, and that is a plus, not a minus. I'm very confident in my support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support --buffbills7701 22:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support I thought that he already was an admin, and think that he'll use the tools sensibly. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
70. I fully support this nomination; and admire this user's example. I anticipate he'll be an exemplary admin.—John Cline (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support mostly per Tryptofish. I should say I find the opposes most vague. If you can't say why you are opposing, well, I suppose you know it when you see it, but it's not very persuasive.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. Whole heartedly. Cindy(talk) 10:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
73. I have long thought that Hahc21 would make a good administrator; he's friendly and highly useful. My interactions with him have been brief but positive. I don't have any concerns. Acalamari 12:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Kraxler (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
75. A rare RfA where I find the opposes rather significant and noting issues that I believe Hahc should work on. However, there's nothing that says he will abuse the tools (even per the opposers), and he has been an asset to the site, so he should be fine. Wizardman 15:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support The concerns raised in some of the questions were valid, but I feel they were more issues of due process (i.e. poor signature that was improved, alternate account that was mislabeled but appears legitimate) than true concerns that the candidate would misuse administrative powers. --IagoQnsi (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
77. Suport: Very trusted user. --Rosa del desierto (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Rosa del desierto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    This is only your fifth edit to Wikipedia. How'd you learn about RFA so fast? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And the user is a blocked sock on the Spanish Wikipedia. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked sock? Rosa del desierto is a collaborator to the Spanish Wikivoyage. I don't know how he came by my RfA, but he's definitely not a sock, as far as I know. → Call me Hahc21 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for the inconvenience. I come from the Spanish Wikivoyage, which is where I met Hahc21. --Rosa del desierto (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rosa del desierto: But how did you find about this RfA?--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I learned about this on hahc21's talk page. He has several threads there about it. --Rosa del desierto (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, Rosa del desierto is a "he", not a "she". While he is blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia, he is a good contributor to many of our sister projects and some non-Wikimedia wikis, and I am glad to help him when I have the chance to do so. Kind regards, LlamaAl (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

78. Support. Well-known, active user. RE Opposes: after waiting 3 days to decide, I think candidate has improved in working with others, even changing signature over the years to address user concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support: I've seen plenty of good work by this user around the wiki. Until today, I thought he was already one (cliched, I know). I understand there's some concern about the past history, but we're all human, and he's put in a lot of productive time before and since. Pakaran 02:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support —Soap— 03:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. I wasn't previously familiar with user but the sampling of work I've glanced at is impressive. A good fraction of the rationales given for the oppose votes don't seem to hold up to scrutiny. User seems to have heart in right place and seems willing to evolve. My impression is user is a great asset to the project. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Fully qualified candidate, nothing noted in opposition that concerns me. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
83. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 17:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Sig didn't bother me, nor did alt account. I fully understand what he means over the Anna F article - something posted by a regular and respected editor is far less likely to be spam than if posted by User:Seoteam whose only other edit is a talk page consisting of 'Hi!'. In a case like that, I'd talk to the r&r editor about it before taking any other action. (Hasn't happened to me yet...) Seen him around quite a lot - not seen problems. Spelling? There are active admins whose native language is English who make mistakes. This editor's spelling hasn't caused me any worries - and I'm one of those that hates to let one typo sully my reputation (as a nit-picking proofreader...). Peridon (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support In all honesty I have my reservations but I must consider that many of this editors mistakes were in a period of time where they could have changed, and in my interactions with them here at RFA and editing the Template:RecentRfX, they have demonstrated a willingness to reassess even their own work and work collaboratively. I'm sure this editor will continue to improve their writing skills (which is at a level certainly capable of being a sysop). Additionally, once they have a taste for the public service of the tools they will realize how much of it will require precise and fundamental explanations, thoughtfulness in things experienced editors take for granted, and kindness. I am more than willing to assume all the good faith there is that this editor will be fine with the tools (which are not a big deal to begin with). Mkdw^talk 20:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support My first RfA comment/!vote. The candidate appears to be extremely well qualified. Has he made a few mistakes along the way? Who hasn't? More importantly he has learned from them. Extremely active in his contributions with an impressive diversity of areas he has edited, this looks like someone who will make a good Admin IMHO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Had good experience with him on other projects, and his contributions to this site are great. I have good faith that Hahc21 will perform admin duties well. Techman224^Talk 05:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 11:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
89. NW (Talk) 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support All my interactions with Hahc21, both on Wikipedia and on Wikipedia related IRC channels, have been overwhelmingly positive. MJ94 (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Net positive with the tools, I've worked around and with him plenty of times and have no worries that he would abuse the tools. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support a fine choice for adminship! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - This editor has plenty of experience in both article and non-article space. Their grasp of policy seems very solid from the answers given above. I'm aware of the problems they've had in the past (from the past two failed RfAs) but I see an improvement. I'd be very comfortable with this editor having the tools. -- Atama頭 20:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - After reading the candidates answers to questions above and comments below, I am no longer concerned. I am One of Many (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - This enthusiastic user has a clear need for the tools and also earned other positions of trust across other projects. Keep up the good work! - tucoxn\^talk 08:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - Not perfect but still a great candidate. Honesty and openness about past mistakes earned my trust. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 10:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support - Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support A contributor. Contributors need the tools. Happy to lend my support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Good answers and honest about past . And some comments below tend to make me move even more strongly to a support and away from reasons to oppose which use vicious comments as the vehicle. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
100. Support Good interactions with candidate; has my trust. Spencer^T♦C 06:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Thought he was an admin already. —Neotarf (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support - candidate needs to improve in some areas but there's no suggestion he thinks otherwise. Careful with those alternate accounts. Beyond that, I'm comfortable enough. Stalwart111 12:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
103. Yup. Resolute 13:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support but just barely. I expect a net positive impact despite the legitimate issues described below. Pichpich (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support --You deserve it my man..Herald talk with me 16:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support You deserve to be an administrator, IMO.--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support I don't comment much on RFA however I know this user from IRC and WP:CVUA And he has given me no reason to doubt his trustworthiness.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support - while reasonable people can and do have concerns, I trust this editor to do the right thing. He passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support - A strong contributor who appears to have learned from his mistakes and become a reliable member of the community worth of advanced permissions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. He's not perfect, but who is. Ultimately, I think he has good sense and is unlikely to abuse the tools.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support Leaky Culdron's oppose is an interesting perspective but not convincing.--v/r - TP 00:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. I find that this editor is generally unwilling to take advice. When he was closing articles inappropriately, I warned him about this, but he ignored all attempts at reasoning and was banned from closing AfDs shortly after [10]. Considering this lack of willingness to listen to others and reason with them I could not trust him with the tools. Second Quantization (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   We are talking about nearly two years ago, which of course sank his previous RFA. Concerns aren't valid in this once since Hahc stayed away from AFDs since then. Secret ^account 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   As I note below, his last warning about NACs was less than a year ago. Second Quantization (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Not only is that link from 2012 as Secret points out, but I certainly don't parse it as "banned from closing AfDs". Has the candidate being formally banned from closing AFD's? Pedro :  Chat  13:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't say my warning was a ban, I was saying he had been warned, he ignored it, then later he was banned for the exact behaviour. i.e He didn't learn from his mistakes. He was community banned from closing AfDs in November 2012 [11]. That's 1 year and 4 months ago, not nearly 2 years by a long shot. His restrictions were lifted in February 2013: [12]. He was temporarily blocked for a bad NAC again on the 15th of March 2013 (Kim Dent-Brown had thought that the sanctions were still in effect, so it was soon lifted), and warned about NACs (that was a month after his last RFA failed because of NACs). That is less than a year ago. I haven't really been following things since, but I wonder if things have really improved since then ... Second Quantization (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Second Quantization: I was blocked by Kim because you intentionally misinformed him about my restriction when it was lifted. You started the ANI thread looking for a sanction against me without caring to research if the restriction was still in place. And to make things clear, I was not banned, I was restricted. Although it has almost the same effect, there is a difference. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 15:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I never intentionally misinformed anyone about the restriction being lifted and dislike being accused of such. I was not aware of it being lifted, nor where others as evidenced by the block. A month before that block your RfA had failed for inappropriate NACs, and then you went ahead and did another. Second Quantization (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. Vague answer to question 1. He describes a willingness to "assist with our backlog of ... deletion requests." This seems to imply CSD work. However Hahc21 infrequently tags pages for CSD. Occasional inappropriate tags such as hasty tag, although Hahc21 reverted the edit a minute later. I am also concerned by the signature. With my view settings, I am unable to see the superscripted addendum. I see the Greek letters, then a space, followed by the timestamp. (To those who would advise me to change my view settings—don't bother.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I was actually going to say you should take things a little less seriously. AGK [•] 14:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Now, everyone is entitled to vote according to their opinions and their conscience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   @Axl: I did not test the signature on different settings, my mistake. Is it now viewable to you? Please let me know so that I can make further changes. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, I can. Thank you for adjusting your signature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Hahc21, would you consider linking Call me Hahc21 to your talk page instead of your user page? It would increase the likely arrival to the right page they would need; if seeking discussion with you. And "Call me" is consistent with "talk to me", making it logical as well?—John Cline (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Just saw this. A bit moot, though, given that I scrapped my entire signature with a new one. However, I think that my new signature matches your request, slightly! → Call me Hahc21 06:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't want to cause any drama, but I simply don't want to see them as an admin for personal reasons, and I'm not going to elaborate on this or reply to this, so don't ask me to. Cloudchased (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sure an oppose from a sockmaster carries enough weight on its own. No need to elaborate. :P INeverCry 21:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   True enough. :P Cloudchased (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   INeverCry - I have some problems with your comment. Yes, it is problematic to abuse multiple accounts, but User:Hurricanefan24 and User:Hurricanefan25 were both, as far as I know from my own interactions, friendly and productive users. Cloudchased's oppose was, in my opinion, not helpful, but that's not because of who the editor is, but because he didn't provide a reason that anyone else could follow or verify. If he's really making a clean break and putting all the multiple account nonsense behind him, we should not be bashing him for his past behavior. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Arriving here not due to the answers to Q6 which were plausible or the name issue, although I would absolutely prefer a straightforward Latin name and hope that the candidate will consider that, despite the strong support they are receiving in this 3rd RfA. No, my concerns are more difficult to pin down but I have the sense of this candidate being rather difficult to convince once they have made their mind up and being potentially "bitey" where a minor dispute will quickly turn into "my way or the highway" exchanges. Concerns expressed in the neutral zone back this up and reference to the candidate having an active coterie of badgering supporters (which we can see even in this RfA) adds to my concerns. We know how damaging it is when an editor has partisan supporters and an Admin. with such is asking for trouble. Also, hat collecting. This editor seems determined to acquire as many functionary duties, anywhere, as soon as possible. Evidenced by 2 hugely inappropriate attempts at RfA here followed by Arb. clerk and numerous roles on other wiki. I also saw mention on their talk page last year of, in terms, "if I am ever an Arbitrator", so they are clearly looking ahead in that regard, despite denial in Q8. Wasn't all that impressed by their behaviour in a recent Arbcom case either. Functionaries should be able to leave their strong personal opinions at the door while still managing simple clerking functions where opinion doesn't enter into it. Just a collection of concerns about overall suitability, readiness and motive. Supporters please note; no need to hound me about it, that would be ineffective. Finally, I thought the ed sum associated with this recent edit was rather snarky [13] (I saved it somehwere [sic] you cannot bother me, so meh if it's deleted.) Leaky Caldron 10:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose This is a bit tough to quantify, but I'll try. I've reviewed a substantial number of contributions focusing on posts that involved H's giving his opinion, judgement, etc. There's was nothing bad enough for me to say here's the diff of why I oppose, but my overall feeling was That I have concerns enough to oppose this RFA.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per answers to questions 5, 6 and 8. --John (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you explain what's wrong with question 8? Which is a question of personal opinion and there is no right or wrong answer? Secret ^account 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Certainly. I find badge-collecting obnoxious. Fool me once... --John (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   John, I hate to state the obvious, but Hahc is not Kevin Gorman. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   True. Either 5 and 6 would be enough for me to oppose on their own. Having an impenetrable signature or playing silly games with one's online identity are each enough to disqualify, even without the suspicion of being a badge collector. I just have a bad feeling about the latter, in addition to the demonstrable problems with the former two. --John (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6. Unfortunately I get the feeling that the candidate lacks the right attitude for the role. There's no one thing that suggests he would outright abuse the tools, and I'm sure he will do just fine assuming this request passes, but I do have concerns. The response to question #5 is somewhat bizarre; as editors, our "identity" on the project is completely immaterial, and has no bearing on the encyclopedia. This ties in with the following: "I rushed that article to AFD because I believed that it should be deleted, but then I back-tracked when I saw that it was Anna Frodesiak who created the article." I understand that Hahc is open about having made a mistake there, but the fact that his self-revert hinged on discovering the creator of the article is problematic. I'm afraid that Hahc's tendency is to value site culture over the best interests of the project.

   This "obviously" rationale is ill-considered, and shows that the user is still prone to acting a bit too quickly, especially since he completely changed his opinion on being called out for it. The candidate's mainspace contribs are underwhelming for a couple reasons. First, edit summary usage is dismal; most of the time it doesn't exist, and when it does, it's sometimes very cryptic ("new owner duh", "yay!"). This becomes an acute issue when "big" edits (large additions/removals) go undescribed. Second, for as much content work as the candidate claims to do (and I admire his many FA/GA contributions), only about 60 of ~600 edits since the new year have been to articles. Dwindling content work is always concerning. Throw in the dubious usage of an alternative account, and I'm left feeling the candidate has his head in the wiki-clouds, leading to inconsistent behavior and actions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Regarding "dwindling content work": The Wikipedia project needs experienced wpians to contribute to the wp infrastructure (e.g. dab pages), to protect the encyclopedia (e.g. counter-vandalism, NPP, AFD) and to assist other editors (e.g. talk pages, Teahouse, dispute resolution). An editor who increases their effort in these non-content areas will (unless they increase their total wp activity) reduce their contribution to content - how is that concerning ? DexDor (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand that, and in the past I've strongly backed admin candidates on both sides of that spectrum. I see a sharp decrease in mainspace edits, which, while not alarming in its own right, adds to my suspicion that the candidate may be increasingly out-of-touch with the encyclopedia at hand. If it were just this little thing, I'd have no problem supporting. I just thought it was worth mentioning. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) Julian, I feel the need to respond to you because other editors have been citing your oppose as having influenced them, and yet I see some problems with your argument. First of all, however, let me say that you are right about edit summaries, and I want the candidate to learn from that feedback, although I don't consider it disqualifying by itself. I went back and looked at Q5, and I don't see anything there about judging other editors by identity. The AfD discussed in Q6 is about a page that is currently back at AfD, with the page creator supporting its deletion! I don't read what Hahc21 said as saying that the page should have been kept because site culture outweighs policies and guidelines, but that he nominated it because it seemed non-notable, but then realized that the editor was still working on it and therefore withdrew the AfD. His "obviously" comment was about something in his own user-space, and should not be blown out of context. And as for article work, has RfA really gotten to where someone who has multiple FAs and GAs doesn't have enough content experience because there has been less of it recently? Personally, I judge RfA candidates' content experience by whether they have demonstrated that they can navigate content disputes, not by some arbitrary metric. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Tryptofish, I'm glad you responded and am happy to try fleshing out my arguments. I do value edit summary usage very highly, especially when it relates to actual articles. It makes things easier on everybody, and transparency and convenience should be among an admin's first priorities. This is an easy fix, and something I would like to believe the candidate will work toward improving. Regarding the Q5 thing, Hahc writes, I believe that changing my signature would mean a loss of that identity. Most people won't know who I am if I go back and start using my username as signature, and it will put me in an awkward situation. There's nothing remotely "awkward" about changing your signature, username, userpage layout, or anything along those lines, if it helps alleviate confusion amongst your peers. As for Q6, Hahc clearly states, I rushed that article to AFD because I believed that it should be deleted, but then I back-tracked when I saw that it was Anna Frodesiak who created the article, implying that had someone less prominent initiated the article, he would have approached it differently. This is an older incident, but like I said, it ties in to my concerns over Q5. In most cases, admins must be completely impartial to individual editors when carrying out admin-exclusive actions. Briefly, I understand that the offending MfD comment is fairly inconsequential, but if the candidate really wanted the page kept, a quick explanation is not too much to ask. He goes to great lengths in his Q4 response to address the issue of criticism/inquiries in the most politically correct way (naturally), but if he believes something so simple as a forsaken subpage is to be treated "obviously" and instantaneously... it gives me pause for when tough questions come along. I don't want to come across as grumpy—I'm sure I do to many—and I think Hahc is a valuable and friendly contributor on the whole, but I'd still like to see some more on-site maturing before I'd be comfortable supporting. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, Julian, for taking the time to give a thoughtful answer. Actually, I think that I already realized everything that you have pointed out, so it appears that you haven't persuaded me and I haven't persuaded you. And that's OK. It's up to other editors to decide whether either of us has persuaded them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7. I agree with others here. The answers to some of the questions are somewhat concerning. United States Man (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. I'll reinstate my oppose. Juliancolton has expressed many concerns which I'll echo; I stand by my original oppose, however, though for different reasons. Cloudchased (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose - Despite a large group supporting, including editors I respect highly, I can not support. Leaky and Julian's opposes are reasonable and I find my concerns outweigh my admiration for the work done by the candidate, but I do thank the candidate for their service. Jusdafax 04:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. Seems to struggle w/ spelling, and more importantly has demonstrated sufficiently poor judgement to oppose:

    [..] it will be useless to hand out admonishments that won't work (I'm sorry but that's the truth). [...] Kevin already recognized that he made some mistakes in how he handled the situation, and that should be enough. I admit that I am, in principle, aligned with what Kevin though and acted upon. [...] — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 18:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

    Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't generally fancy the idea of replying to opposers, and have yet to feel the need to up until this point, but what about Hahc's "struggle w/ spelling" has to do with his ability to be an administrator? If you weren't aware (which you should probably be, as before you comment, you should look into the candidate), his first language is not English. As for the "more importantly", would you enlighten us on what you are referring to? You just copied some sentences that Hahc wrote last month, without any background information on what it's about. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    [14] Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Re spelling, first you say it's not relevant to adminship, then you spank my bottom for "not researching the candidate" and his relation to English. First, your assumption is off since I'd make the same comment whether English was his first or was his hundredth language. Second, that chronic misspellings are apt to make negative impression on new users, when admins are in a role of essentially representing WP to new users, isn't something I should have to be asked to explain or defend. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ihardlythinkso: I don't mean to badger, you are free to oppose. I just wanted to note that my spelling mistakes are the result of a minor writing disorder I've had since I was 6 years old. I've been used to it, though it is extremely frustrating sometimes. They are not intentional and I try to correct them as soon as I see them. → Call me Hahc21 22:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So I guess your messge is, one shouldn't expect to see any better from you, and no one should complain about your spelling either (unless they want to be considered an insensitive ogre), since you've had a condition since childhood that explains. Interesting. (Apparently your condition preempts or inhibits you from taking the time to proofread what you write before hitting "send"!?) You should know (if you don't), your claim (same as Asperger's) is not something confirmable on the WP and so has limited acceptance in way of explaining. You also felt it worthwhile to point out to me your spell errors are "not intentional". (Gosh. Apparently you thought there was at least a chance that I supposed, or might suppose, your spell errors are made deliberately?! [Really impressive AGF'ing, that!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I love how you misspelled the fifth word in that message. It's so appropriately ironic and hypocritical of you! Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh fuck you and your loose application of "hypocritical" -- I'm not running for Admin as Hahc21 is, and this isn't my RfA -- if it were I'd be sure every word was polished. You misread the thrust of my point entirely, which was frequent and chronic misspelling by an admin-wannabe, then make an irresponsible accusation. So go fuck yourself. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. Is this RfA? Or did I make a wrong turn and mistakenly end up at the ANI cesspool!?[reply]

    I was more interested in the aggressive and thoughtless nature of your response to Hahc21. You accuse him of failing to assume good faith, yet you imply that he could be making up his claim about his condition that causes his spelling issues. That looks like a double standard. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    *You* are the aggressor and thoughtless editor here, with your bold unwarranted uncivil bullshit accusations. I never implied any such thing that you contend. Arguements of "I have Asperger's, so please give me a break" and the like have no validity on WP, and Hahc21 was essentially making a similar plea. (I questioned above, if Hahc21's justifying condition somehow preempts or inhibits him from proofreading sentences before hiting "send". Maybe it does and I'm just uninformed about it. No followup from him on that.) You should learn to read and think more carefully, Antarctica, because your throwing around "hypocritical" and "looks like a double standard" are baseless and personally offensive. (You are one of the famed Civility Enforcers on the WP -- going to ANI as third party for e.g. numerous times based on CIV. Yet you engage in sloppy and offensive personal accusations of "hypocrisy". Go figure. Oh will I get some more trash argument from you now? Please go away, badgering troll.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If you choose to consider what I am saying instead of just ranting angrily, perhaps you would realize why your posts look hypocritical. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not responsible for what you think my posts "look like" Antartctica -- especially when I've taken pains to make myself more than abudantly clear, and especially when you go off half-cocked and sloppily and aggressively calling someone "hypocritical". (If you are going to make such accusations that are personally offensive, then you should get your ducks in a row first. But you don't. Because you are irresponsible. Because you rather like your ability on this site to be an uncivil badgering troll when you feel like it.) @The ed17, I asked the troll to stop badgering. He didn't. I opened a thread on his Talk, he deleted it. Then I opened another. He continues to attack here with his shite. Tell *him* to lay off. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    OK I get it. (I.e. why NorthernAntarctica decided to badger my Oppose !vote above ... There's no doubt in my mind it's because there is a wiki-friendship between the candidate and him; the candidate was one of Northern's extremely few Support !votes in this miserably failed RfA seven months ago: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AutomaticStrikeout 2. [Which raises another Q in my mind: Does said Support !vote by the candidate exemplify good judgement?! The RfA is an extremely short read if one wants to form their opinion!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you, take it to another page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wanted to state that to me, it's perfectly legitimate to oppose an RfA due to what are perceived as poor communication skills. Clearly I don't agree with Ihardlythinkso's opinion (since I'm supporting) but if an editor has frequent spelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes, that is a much less frivolous oppose than other opposes you might commonly see (a person has too many Huggle edits, not high enough a percentage of mainspace edits, they had a personal fight with the candidate, etc.). And someone running for RfA opens themselves up to any and all criticisms (I sure did in my RfA). I don't think that a person's communication skills should be overlooked because English is not a native language, or for any other personal reason, because while those may explain poor communication, they in no way mitigate it. Having said all that, I find that I have no trouble understanding Hahc21, nor do I think their communication skills are too poor for an administrator. -- Atama頭 21:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you find that you have no trouble understanding the candidate, curious: Can you honestly say you understood his I admit that I am, in principle, aligned with what Kevin though and acted upon. to have the meaning that he now assigns to it? (Because I certainly didn't. And neither did several other editors.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ihardlythinkso: I read "though" as "thought" the first time I read it. It's more plausible for it to be a typo of one letter than for the entire sentence to be mangled if you assume he meant the word "though". But I can appreciate any confusion that may result from such a typo, and that is why I'm stating that your objection isn't frivolous. -- Atama頭 15:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You misunderstood my Q, Atama. (I wasn't asking what word you interpreted "though" to be, I was asking if you would have understood the candidate's sentence to mean the same as the candidate has clarified in this RfA, if you hadn't the benefit [hindsight] of said clarification. [Because several editors, including me, interpreted the meaning vastly differently from the clarification provided.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, sorry. Since the beginning of your oppose was based on the candidate's occasional misspelling of words, I assumed that's all you were referencing. Yes, I also thought it was unclear. I understand now that when Hahc21 talked about "the principle", that was in reference to the principle behind BLP, in general (and I assume BDP). The initial statement was pretty vague and required clarification. I didn't interpret the meaning differently so much as I had trouble interpreting it at all, as unspecific as it was. -- Atama頭 21:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So your I find that I have no trouble understanding Hahc21 above, turns out to be a bit of an exaggeration then. 05:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

    Because of their poor spelling, which is (again) what your complaint was? No, not an exaggeration at all. -- Atama頭 18:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No. You misunderstand. You wrote above: I also thought it was unclear. That statement is in contention with your other statement I find that I have no trouble understanding Hahc21. But you did have trouble, at least once, because you said so. (Why isn't that clear?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose per Juliancolton's links. To be particular this shows how impulsive and quick he can be when dealing with certain situations, something that's uncalled for when he wants to work on deletion requests, one of the many areas of adminship that require a good deal of judgement. A trusted editor though, so I hope he continues to build on the encyclopaedia. Minima© (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose per John and Julian above. The brief "answers" to the points raised in Q6 don't show that the candidate appreciates how confusing/disruptive flip-flopping between 2 accounts (and 3 dissimilar names), sometimes within a few minutes[15] in one discussion, is. DexDor (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose - I am uncomfortable with the abuse of alternate accounts. One person, one account — maybe an easily identifiable extra for public computers. It's time to shut the sockpuppet shit down. No confidence. Carrite (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really curious. Can you point to any particular part of the alternate account policy that is being violated? --Rschen7754 03:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also curious as to whether or not you actually read Hahc's comments on the matter? Considering he stated he used it primarily when he was having problems with his own personal computer. He hasn't used the account in almost a year and said he plans to never use it again. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to his answers to my questions (#6) I described his answers as plausible. That isn't to say they are definitively acceptable by everyone and there is no doubt, regardless of the justification given, that his behaviour with multiple accounts was unacceptable. I don't think it is even arguable that raising an AfD with one user, commenting with another and combining signatures in an illegible mess is not fitting behaviour. Surely it is up to editors to determine whether they still regard it as a reason for opposing. I think it would be a good idea if you eased up on the badgering. It rarely achieves a good outcome. Leaky Caldron 11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The bottom line is this: no confidence. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose- Definitively, a badge collector. In answer to improvements made since the last RfA, "Additionally, I was granted the administrator right on Wikidata and Wikivoyage[..]". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC) (Note: I'm not willing to answer any RfA campaigner here.)[reply]

    Pretty sure that's to inform people that he's gained more administrative experience and can be trusted with the tools, not to brag about how many hats he's gotten, or to plead for more for the sole purpose of getting more. You don't have to reply to this, I just wanted to let you know something you may have missed. TCN7JM 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's perfectly obvious who is and is not a hat collector. Hach21 has all the hallmarks of someone who treats this as a social activity rather than an encyclopedia, (chats with "wiki-friends", clerking etc and working on those oh so "important" articles about music and games, badge collecting etc) and they intend to climb the ladder. Second Quantization (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right. It is perfectly obvious.

    What is "important" is your opinion and should not factor into whether or not someone is or is not a hat collector. I mean, I'm a road enthusiast. Those aren't the most important of articles to the encyclopedia in terms of the amount of views they get, but that doesn't automatically make me a hat collector if I try to run for adminship again.

    I also see nothing wrong with finding people you work with on the site that you can converse with; are collaboration and even friendship dead?

    "Hat collector" is, in my experience, a term used to describe an editor who is trying to gain access to tools for the sole purpose of getting more rights. Most of the time, they request rights they don't actually need or have no experience with working with just because they want more rights. This is prominent both on the English Wikipedia and globally, and it's perfectly obvious that Hahc21 is not a hat collector. He so demonstrably would have a beneficial use for the tools, and this request is to fulfill that, not just to gain more rights. TCN7JM 00:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose I was originally going to support but day days later with all these uncomfortable issues piling up, I don't think granting adminship is anywhere close to being recommendable at this point.--Razionale (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose per Leaky Caldron, Juliancolton, Carrite, and Ihardlythinkso. I echo Jusdafax's appreciation for the candidate's contributions to the project. While I both worry that we've made the bar for adminship too high and consider the candidate's support from editors I respect, I, too, have been fooled once. Shame on me. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't need to make RFAs to impossibly high standards because one administrative candidate that isn't related to Hahc in anyway failed to achieve high expectations. Secret ^account 13:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was urged to clarify the comparison about Kevin Gorman. When I said that I was in principle, aligned with what Kevin though and acted upon, I was making a reference to WP:BLPBAN. I was not approving what he did against Eric Corbett, nor the way he did it. Even when I believe that we all must abide to civility, I would not have done what he did under any circumstance, and as of today, I have yet to speak to Kevin Gorman for the first time. → Call me Hahc21 15:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously? KG's impropper application of WP:BLPBAN was IMHO his worst move in that fiasco.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Worse than equating an insensitive remark about a recently deceased editor's psychological state with grave-dancing? If such malice were ascribed to me, I would feel profoundly offended. That would stick with me much longer than being told not to edit a certain article. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Will reply on user talk page, a little off topic to continue here.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)-Cube lurker (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Received and responded. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 00:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I don't know how you can hold what appear to be 2 equal and opposite views. If you were in principle, aligned with what Kevin though [sic] and acted upon you would have to approve his action v Eric. Saying you "would not have done what he did under any circumstance," is a non sequitur. Leaky Caldron 15:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the problem was how he applied BLPBAN. That's what I wouldn't have done. → Call me Hahc21 15:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I admit that I am, in principle, aligned with what Kevin though [...] Is though = thought? If so, curious: What particular thought(s) of Kevin Gorman were you "admitting to being in alignment" with? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The only principle I think I share with Kevin Gorman re: that mess was that WP:BLPBAN can be used to protect recently deceased people from being deceived by users on Wikipedia. How he applied that against Eric Corbett is a different thing, and one I definitely not find myself in alignment with. → Call me Hahc21 18:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose I have been mulling this over for a few days and although I disagree with quite a few comments that have been posted in this section, I'm moving to oppose myself anyway. The reason is that we currently have a (growing) backlog of deletion discussions that need to be closed and that the candidate has indicate that one area they'd intend to work in would be "deletion requests" (which I assume include closing AFDs). However, this is exactly an area where the candidate has been in trouble in the past. I have looked at the AFD closures posted on the talk page here, but those are mostly uncontroversial keep decisions and don't provide much guidance how the candidate would fare with closing more controversial debates. Looking at the candidate's AFD statistics, I see only 14 debates in which they participated in the last year (from this date), again mostly clear-cut cases. I think this might become a good admin, but before I can move to support, I would like to see more AFD participation, especially in some more complicated cases, where the candidate could demonstrate that they have a good grasp of deletion policy. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, per this answer to Q6E. Quite apart from the question of whether an experienced editor should be cut more slack than an unexperienced one, it shows a failure of WP:BEFORE, because the article was apparently taken to AFD without even checking its edit history (the nom only got aware of the brief existence of the article after nominating it for deletion. By taking it to AFD (and then immediately closing it), other less-time consuming methods like PROD were precluded. At the least, this shows a tendency to make impulsive decisions that are not well-thought out (twice here: to take it to AFD and then to close it immediately). We already have enough drama and an overly impulsive admin is just a sure recipe for more. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, under WP:NAC they are prohibited from closing controversial discussions. --Rschen7754 18:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you're absolutely right, I intended to include that in my comment, but got distracted. That is why I said I'd like to see participation in AFDs, so that we can judge the candidate's grasp of policy better than by NACs, which indeed should be non-controversial. --Randykitty (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no prohibition on non-admins closing controversial discussions. WP:DPR#NAC states "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." This is a recommendation, not an outright prohibition. If any editor in good standing finds it appropriate to make a controversial close, they are free to do so... and they are accountable for it in the same way that an admin is. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's as close as you get to outright prohibition. NAC's are regularly overturned on the basis of it being too controversial a call for a NAC to make. They are not as free as you think they are ... Second Quantization (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose - somewhat per Leaky Cauldron's reasoning, but also some of my own. I was less than satisfied with the user's answers to questions 6B, 6C, and 6E. I am also concerned about the answer to 6H; I have never been a fan of April Fools pranks on Wikipedia, and Hahc21 doesn't seem to think that it was a bad thing that he did what he did. I realize that the non-admin closure incident was nearly two years ago, but there seems to be a pattern of unwise decisions from the user, and I'm not yet satisfied that the user has actually learned from past mistakes. The answers at this RFA seem to simply be the "correct" answers and lack the depth that I'd like to see to show that the user has truly made some changes to his conduct. All this being said, I could potentially see myself supporting the user in an RFA in a couple years. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Y'know, I remember the days when it was "come back in six months". It's 24 now? (mildly sarcastic but not meant as badgering; I hope it doesn't come across as such) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My "come back in" timeline varies based on the individual circumstances. My concern here is that we're just getting the answers that the user thinks we want to hear. 6 months or a year isn't enough to convince me of actual change; I want to see some substantive changes before I'd support. In hindsight, 2 years may have been a little long, and I'd probably say between 18-24 months would be my comfortable range. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose (moved from Neutral) I have to say I'm a bit shocked: I thought I was permanently ensconced in Neutral. However, a review of some of the opposes have shown that I'm actually bit out of touch with Hahc's more recent actions, and that the behaviours aren't so far in the past. All of my other comments from my original Neutral !vote still apply, but this has been significant enough to bring me up to here. Sorry Hahc ES&L 10:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose, sorry, but I find the response to question 10 to be a bit of a cop-out. There's seriously nothing you wouldn't change? We need admins who aren't afraid to advocate for change and stick their necks out occasionally (even if they sometimes lose their heads as a result). Sorry, but I can't support at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    With all due respect, just because he doesn't think there is any policy he would change right now, doesn't mean there couldn't be something down the line that he might feel differently about. My understanding of his answer is not that he's "afraid to advocate for change and stick their necks out occasionally," but that he would not be willing to change a policy by fiat. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Status... and I would have answered that question the same, policy is by consensus based building. Slightly vague but I wouldn't penalize a potential admin candidate because of a question that asks a personal opinion unless its way off. Secret ^account 16:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the candidate is clearly stating that he thinks policy s/b changed only by consensus. But that was a literal interpretation of question 10, he clear spirit of the Q is: "Is there any policy that you very much would like to see changed or added to WP? (Dismissing for a moment any consideration about actually putting any your time/attention toward changing or adding it.)" That's clearly the spirit of the Q. The answer given by the candidate seemingly approaches the Q as though it was a "trick Q" (i.e. "If I say there is a policy I'd like to implement by decree or fiat, someone will complain of me that I do not believe in consensus--a fundamental WP principle. And I don't want that."). That is a shallow reading of the Q, and the candidate copped out in my opinion too. (He could have rephrased the Q in a way palatable to answer. He didn't.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21. It pains me a bit but I can't support at this time. Hahc's article contributions are fine, and I'm not aware of problems with their clerking, for instance. But besides the few remarks about closing AfDs I don't see him giving much of a rationale for actually wanting the tool. Account creators don't need the tool, and I don't see why being a clerk or participating in FC processes is easier with it. The user name/signature isn't really a big thing in itself, though it could be for new users, and I'm glad they made the change, but I'm a bit in the dark as to why it took so long to change it, or why it wasn't done before. Such indecisiveness (coupled with the airline deletion issue, for instance) is not a desirable trait. Again, I don't feel happy about opposing because of Hahc's many useful contributions, but a. lack of a demonstrated need for the tool and b. some waffling (for lack of a better term) make me oppose this RfA. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose As per Leaky Caldron, Juliancolton. Looks too much of a hat collector to me. One can only do so much, and spreading oneself over too many projects is not a good idea.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose while also wanting to acknowledge the good encyclopedia-building work that Hahc21 has done in the past. My concerns are similar to Juliancolton's, and I also share Randykitty's reasons for being hesitant in trusting the candidate with the delete button. Hahc21 showed, in my view, not just poor judgment in November 2012 (which led to him being formally restricted from closing AfDs) but also a difficult-to-parse defensiveness when challenged about it. Certainly that was a while ago, but as Randykitty has noted, it is hard to get a sense of the candidate's approach to deletion subsequently due to little participation. If anything, some of the non-admin closures cited on this RfA's talk page show the similar problem of closing AfDs earlier than the required seven days. I don't think the outcomes of those AfDs would have changed had they been closed at the correct time, but I would expect someone who was previously restricted to attempt to display much more carefulness than that, after the ban was lifted. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. The links given in question 6C show a 3-minute gap between editing from different accounts in the same section of discussion on ANI. This evidence also makes the answers to 6A and 6B seem insufficient. Dekimasuよ! 03:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You know that was the most dickish question I have ever seen in a request for adminship. Those questions were asked just to pile up opposition and I can't believe many of you are falling for it I did advise Hahc not to answer them, and when he became persistent I advised them how to answer them, so blame me not the candidate. I would have threw a major fuss with those questions if I wasn't attached to a string on Wikipedia. Secret ^account 15:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This accusation is completely without merit. I asked those questions in good faith to highlight clear and well researched problems this candidate has had in the past. I cannot remember an RfA in the 8 years I have participated where so many editors have openly agreed with my own oppose comments or used the answers to my questions on which to base their decision. This level of oppose badgering in this RfA is troublesome. Leaky Caldron 17:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25. I've sat on the fence long enough, but finally have to come down on this side. A very recent RfA candidate changed his username completely as soon as it was pointed out that there was the potential for difficulty; i find this candidate's dithering and final (at least for now) changes evidence of much less good judgement. Also the very confusing behaviour with the use of two accounts editing the same place at essentially the same time is proof to me of at least outstandingly poor understanding of the acceptable uses of and precautions to take with an alternate account. I appreciate what the candidate does ~ i've seen his signature in all sorts of places over time ~ but not enough to overcome my concerns about giving him the mop. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose per Leaky, Julian et al. I'm uncomfortable with the use of alt accounts, the appearance of hat collecting with no clear need for the tools, and several other aspects of the candidate's answers to questions, and history. I'm not convinced that giving the candidate the tools would be a net positive. (Note: the level of badgering oppose votes here hasn't impressed me either, though that's not a factor in my vote). Begoon ^talk 09:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose - In several instances within this RfA the nominee has stated he acted “recklessly” and “carelessly”. When these traits are coupled with a poor ability to quickly comprehend what is being asked, which has been demonstrated by the time it took even for something as basic as a signature change, it could inflame matters in circumstances when Admin intervention should hopefully be to de-escalate/calm the situation. It’s stated above “We don't need to make RFAs to impossibly high standards”, which is probably true; however the standard does need to be at a reasonable level in an attempt to avoid the type of situations that have been occurring recently. While I have the greatest respect for many who are supporting this nomination, I have to concur with the reservations expressed by Leaky Caldron, Carrite, Drmies etc. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose with regret (seeing his great contributions), but there are too many things here. I particularly dislike this edit summary, treating a fairly inexperienced editor with complete dismissiveness. --Stfg (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean somebody who registered in November 2009, and found his way to somebody else's user space pages and MfD, and cites a guideline I (a veteran editor, on site since 2006) had never seen before, is "fairly inexperienced"? Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    He has tenure and the ability to find his way around, sure, but yes, with an edit count of less than 500, I would say "fairly inexperienced". Although the key point here is the contemptuous tone of that edit summary. --Stfg (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If it was a worrying tread, I will totally agree, but it seems like a one-off event. Secret ^account 16:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

29. Oppose. Candidate does not seem to have achieved sufficient maturity to make a good admin. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
30. Oppose Good judgment, or at least knowing when not to comment, is essential for an admin. The comment at the KG case does not give confidence. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Neutral - I'm waiting for the answers to Leaky's questions which are quite pertinent. Anyway, answering questions is the essence of RfA. I dimly recall having read somewhere something like "comprehensive answers are needed to showcase how comprehensive and thoughtful would [somebody] be as an" admin. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Moved to support. Kraxler (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I still have concerns about temperament - I recall a rather inappropriate response to what I considered to be a friendly note, and Hahnc's erroneous response raised up a team of angry friends who laid a pretty severe beating on me. Yeah, that was a time ago, but the repercussions of that event continue to raise their ugly little heads again and again (even very recently), so it cannot be considered "in the past". I recognize the work they're doing here, but personally do not see them as admin material ... YET. I emphasize YET. I further emphasize that they WILL be a good candidate, and that hell, I'd nominate them in the future ... but now is not yet that time. DP 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC) MOVING TO OPPOSE ES&L 10:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral For now. I may change my mind if the user decides to sign with their actual account name. Too confusing for newbies, and not-so-newbies. I've decided to stay here because I'm not convinced, by some of the above behaviour and some of the links above, that this candidate has the qualities I'm looking for in an admin. I do appreciate the eventual change in sig, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   @Anthonyhcole: Just wanted to let you know that Hahc did change his signature to his actual account name, if that helps you make up your mind. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the ping, Status, but I've thought about it and I can't support. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral Need to think about this a little more. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I wonder why he wants to maintain deleted content as a WP:FAKEARTICLE in his user space? Currently active MfD nomination Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hahc21/List of Steam games was dismissed as keep, obviously [16], with no elaboration at all, which does not communicate well candidate's understanding of deletion policy or process or willingness to participate to deletion discussions. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 15:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Interesting. I suggest Hahc21 add a rationale explaining why he wants to keep it, and why it doesn't fit WP:STALEDRAFT, instead of saying just "obviously". Kraxler (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I took a moment and explained why I kept it all this time on my userspace at the MfD. I also stroke my vote there. I admit that I was a bit arrogant there, though. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 21:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral Staying here for the moment until I can make up my mind. Active editor, but some of the points raised above make me skittish. Given the history of the candidate at AFD, I would have liked to have seen some AFD closures that show some more understanding of policy than the rather obvious keep decisions listed on the talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral - My gut reaction when I first saw the RFA was to oppose based on this user history from a while back. However, the supporters and their rationale are more than sufficient to tip me into supporting normally. Taking all that into account, I'll sit here on the fence. -- KTC (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. There's no doubt in my mind that you are valuable to the project, but I can't ignore the concerns raised in the oppose section, in particular Juliancolton's and Leaky Caldron's comments. Hastiness at times can happen to all of us—we all make mistakes—but I'm concerned about a general pattern that those two outline. I won't oppose because I don't think these concerns overshadow the work you do enough for me to do so, but I cannot comfortably support either. Regardless, good luck with your RFA and happy editing. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral Whilst I would like to move to outright support given the good work done by the candidate, there are enough lingering doubts in my mind. There has been some suggestion of hat collecting and there is some merit to that. I also feel uncomfortable with some of the badgering of oppose votes, this gives the appearance of a cabal of editors and whilst the badgering may not be the candidates fault, I don't seem him telling anyone to knock it off. The final thing that brought me down on the neutral side of the fence is the answer to Q.9 that I posed. I made it plain it was slightly unfair and I didn't expect an answer and I would have respected a decision not to do so. However, the answer "I apologize, but I believe that it is not wise to answer this question properly for the time being" really put doubt in my mind. An inference can be made that he disagreed with the decision but isn't prepared to come out and say so. It may be an unfair inference to make but I'd have respect for and would support a candidate prepared to voice an honest opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   @Wee Curry Monster: I apologize for answering like that. Not that I want to change your mind, but I think I have to explain further why I did not give you my opinion on the matter. When I was selected by the Committee to serve as a clerk, the first thing that was shown to me was discretion. I was free, of course, to comment on any matter and I usually do so (examples are the KG case request, and Ebionites 3). The only exemption I make to this rule is the cases I clerk. I feel that I hold a neutral position as the clerk of a case, and any personal opinions I have on that case must stay with me until the matter is old enough, or I stop being a clerk. I think it would not be fair for the parties to find out that the clerk is commenting on their case, either approving or dissaproving the outcome. However, if you are still interested in what I have to say about it, feel free to email me. → Call me Hahc21 13:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? You offered him the chance to decline a loaded question, and he declined it. I don't see any inference to be made here. KonveyorBelt 20:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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