Hahc21

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (79/10/5); 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]

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]

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: Aknowledging that I've read this question and that I'm not ignoring it. I'm just taking my time to think about it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 21:44, 7 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:

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]

• 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

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]
52. Support – No reason needed other than that he is a very trustworthy and valuable comtributor. Epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
53. 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]
54. Yes please! Hahc21 would do a good job with the admin rights I think. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
55. 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]
56. 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]
57. Support Valuable contributor, experienced, appears to have learned and grown over time. Donner60 (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support no concerns here based on interaction both on and off wiki. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59. 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]
60. Support Has always impressed me as a thoughtful and reasonable editor. Neljack (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
61. 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]
62. Good candidate. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 12:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
63. 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]
64. 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]
65. 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]
66. Support--MONGO 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - ```Buster Seven Talk 16:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support I see no reason why I shouldn't. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
69. 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]
70. 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]
71. Support --buffbills7701 22:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
72. 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]
73. 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]
74. 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]
75. Support. Whole heartedly. Cindy(talk) 10:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
76. 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]
77. Support Kraxler (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
78. 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]
79. 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]

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]

   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]

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)

Neutral

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]

1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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 [14], 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]

4. 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]
5. 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]