Hahc21

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (51/3/4); Scheduled to end 23:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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]

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:

General comments

• 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

• 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]

Support

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]
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]
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]
37. Support Nick (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support No major concerns. benmoore 15:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. 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]
40. Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
41. 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]
42. 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]
43. 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)[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]

44. Support Got to know him while doing DR. Has my trust. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support with no reservations. --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46. 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]
47. --Stryn (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48. 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]
49. Clueful, enthusiastic, has learned from past mistakes. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50. 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]
51. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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]

3. 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]

Neutral

1. 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)[reply]
2. 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)[reply]
3. 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. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral Need to think about this a little more. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]