Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (72/8/3); Scheduled to end 08:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) – Ladies gentlemen, please allow me a few minutes of your time to introduce Hawkeye7. This is a relatively long nomination statement, but Hawkeye has a long and distinguished track record (albeit with one black mark, which I'll come to shortly), so please bear with me. For those who frequent the military history project and the featured article process, Hawkeye of course needs no introduction. For those less familiar, Hawkeye is one of our best and most prolific writers; as of last count, he is responsible for 46 featured articles, over 200 good articles, and even more DYKs. This total includes multiple weighty articles on important subjects (like the Manhattan Project and Douglas MacArthur), with a focus on military history. He is a long-standing coordinator of WikiProject Military History, elected by a vote of that project's membership, and a regular contributor at FAC and other article review fora. Further, he is an accomplished bot operator, responsible for MilHistBot and FACBot which perform essential and tedious meta tasks that keep review processes functioning and free up significant amounts of time for their human coordinators. He wishes to help with fairly routine admin tasks of the sort that are sometimes neglected, as he grows tired of standing by while no admin can be found to (for example) populate the DYK queues or fix something on the main page.

Now to the elephant in the room: Hawkeye was desysopped by ArbCom in the Civility Enforcement case four years ago. He was the third of several admins in a chain of knee-jerk admin actions and as such was technically "wheel-warring". He was previously admonished for blocking an editor with whom he had been in dispute (the block was necessary and the editor in question was banned as a result of the same case, but Hawkeye should have sought help from another admin). Neither of these issues on their own would normally have led to sanctions from ArbCom, and many admins have made similar mis-steps that were never brought to arbitration, but both of these actions happened to be part of wider disputes which did end up at arbitration. Nonetheless, this is not a referendum on the desysop. Four years is a long time on Wikipedia, and Hawkeye has come a long way since then. He acknowledges the mistakes he made then and has learnt from them (I'm not the person to tell you about what he's learnt, I'll leave that Hawkeye). Indeed, he was a candidate in the most recent ArbCom elections, and quite a credible one judging by the results—he came 12th (of 21) with 55.69% support, making the highest-rated non-admin and placing him just below the nine electees and two incumbent arbitrators. Several guide-writers opined that his reputation had been rehabilitated and that he would stand a good chance at RfA.

Hawkeye has no desire to become associated with high drama as an admin, merely to beaver away in the background on important but oft-neglected tasks. His primary focus will continue to be on the mainspace. All things considered, I am strongly of the opinion that he should be given another chance with the tools. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: : I accept the nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came to Wikipedia in response to an email requesting that I correct a Wikipedia article that I had written. My first thought was that I had not written any Wikipedia articles; but on checking I found that I had. An article had lifted some text from a web page of mine. I corrected the error. I created an account around this time, which was 2005, but did not normally log on. What I found was terrible. Everywhere I looked, on every subject, I found poorly-written articles. I was appalled. In 2006, Lindleyle encouraged me give Wikipedia editing a go on a more serious basis. Since my doctorate is in Military History, I started writing Military History articles. By pure chance, I had found one of Wikipedia's most active and friendly projects.

I try to pitch articles at the high school level. I remember everything that I was taught at high school. (At Christmas I met up with an old school friend and we recalled Pushkin poetry that we had memorised in Russian.) I was disturbed to discover that my nieces did not know about matrices. Have they been dropped from the syllabus?

Some of you may be wondering about my user name. It is not, as some people believe, after the character in M*A*S*H, but the comic book character of that name. If you bare not familiar with him, here are 24 Reasons Why You Should Be Reading Matt Fraction's Hawkeye. The characterisation is a very accurate depiction of my values. Especially nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 11 and 24. I always try to do what is right.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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: The admin toolset will allow me to be more effective in the work I am already doing. I would like to help out in the places that always seem to have backlogs, like WP:RM, WP:UAA and WP:RFPP. I don't intend to be engaged at drama-boards, or to ever use the block button on anyone other than a bona fide vandal. It would be great to be able to help out at WP:DYK. I have in the past been involved in pasting up the DYK prep areas. It is a great place to get an overview of the article creation process on a daily basis; but really bothers me when DYK runs late, as editors often want their hook run on a certain date and timeslot. While most admin functions are backlogged due to a lack of willing hands, few cause as much disappointment as when DYK runs late.

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

A: Normally, I bring one article up to Featured quality, and concurrently create or improve a couple of smaller articles. In the case of Douglas MacArthur, for example, I spun off Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines and President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur. The latter lead me to restore Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. After my doctoral thesis was accepted, I drifted away from writing articles on Australian military history, although I continued to write the occasional article, such as Battle of Bardia (which involved reading through sources in Italian), and started on a huge project to overhaul the Manhattan Project articles. The main article is a good example of my work. Many of the sub-articles are now featured, such as Robert Oppenheimer, Niels Bohr and Enrico Fermi. I also became involved with the efforts to improve the articles on Australia at the Paralympics. I am particularly fond of Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics.

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: Generally, conflicts are over user behaviour rather than editing, but there have been some that caused real stress. One that comes to mind was when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter, a good article, was deleted under WP:NOT. My normal way of dealing with such things is just to walk away and move on. Like many things, this does not always work.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from MSGJ

4. Your acceptance statement does not mention the "elephant in the room". Will you use this opportunity to explain in detail what led to the controversial events four years ago, what you have learned, and how we can be sure they would not be repeated? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A: I cannot explain in detail what led to the events, because I do not know the full story. In each case I wandered into a long-running dispute. In the most extreme case, racepacket mentioned my name (I do not know whether it was my real name or my user name) in connection with two other wikimedians. I inferred that one was his original harassment victim; the other, not on the English Wikipedia, remains unknown to me to this day. What comments he made were revdelled, and ArbCom did not share them with me. (Being on another project, I could not read them myself.) It was a clear violation of racepacket's interaction ban, and triggered another ArbCom case. Emails from ArbCom said that serious allegations had been made against me, but they were not shared with me. So I could not respond. But I took steps to ensure that these events cannot recur. First, there is my undertaking above that I am not going to use the block button. Second, I spend a certain part of each session reading through ArbCom and the drama boards, so I am not caught out by an ongoing situation. So much for myself, what about other people? So I ran for ArbCom on a platform of reform. It became clear that some people felt that I should not have been editing, much less running for office, without a successful RfA. Which brings me back to here. 14:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Ritchie333

5. A new editor with 200 edits, all to article space, changes the last sentence to the opening paragrah on Walter Raleigh so it reads "He is also well known for popularising potatoes and tobacco in England". There is no edit summary. Three minutes later, an experienced editor with 5 FAs reverts the edit, also with no edit summary. Ten minutes later, the newbie re-adds the information, again with no summary. The experienced editor reverts again, this time with a summary "wrong". The newbie re-adds the information a third time, with a summary "i am confused, please watch blackadder there is an episode called potato about raleigh". The experienced editor re-reverts with a summary "FFS will you pull your head out of your arse and go and read some policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:LEAD and WP:DICK, now run along". You are the first other editor to discover this sequence of edits - what do you do?

A: Happens all the time. There is an article on my watch list called 0.999... We had to protect the article, notwithstanding the fact that it contains not only a series of proofs, but a discussion of the pedagogy. The newbie may have not bothered to read the article (many people only read the lead it seems); but in this case the newbie is not wrong; Raleigh is well-known for that. He just didn't do it. So I might try to defuse the situation with a suggestion on the talk page that it be changed to something like: He had been widely credited with introducing the potato to Europe, but modern historians dispute this claim. Which is in the article and supported with a source. A criticism of the use of a wiki to create an encyclopaedia was that it would fill with folk wisdom and common misconceptions. This hasn't happened. (No one has tried updating the Manhattan Project articles after watching the TV show, thank heaven.) The summaries can't hold too many characters, and newbies are often unaware of the use of the talk pages. Another is that article writing seems to involve amassing the correct arguments to deal with your fellow Wikipedians. The blizzard of abbreviations probably won't mean much to a newbie. Nobody has violated WP:3RR, but WP:BITE definitely applies here. I would like to see some evidence of expertise from the newbie though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Liz

6. Regarding Q#3, you answered Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? but not How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? Could you speak on how you deal or diffuse conflicts with other editors and how this has evolved over your many years editing and admining Wikipedia? Thank you.

A: The easiest way to diffuse conflict is to take it to one of the fora where large numbers of editors can see it and weigh in with their own opinions. I prefer to resolve differences of opinion through discussion. I wrote an entire OpEd about this process, related to the article on Albert Kesselring, a German WWII field marshal. My English-language sources had cultural biases that needed to be addressed. The article is very popular, and got close to 100,000 views as TFA; but research is exhausting when you need to work through sources in German. Which is why I haven't written any more articles like that one. I did read through a book in French for another article though. Even when you can read the other languages, you may not be aware of the ongoing conversations about the subject. Over time I have became a lot more used to the way people communicate on Wikipedia. I hew closely to the subject and the facts. If I don't think that the other person can be reasoned with, I will walk away. Unwatch the page, and go do something else. One thing I regret doing was in the Robert Oppenheimer article. At some point, I resolved a conflict with an overly-clever wording that could be read both ways. People pointed out that this did the readers a disservice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ottawahitech

7. I see this on your user-page: To be a good Wikipedian, be respectful, overly combative. self-critical, vulnerable, hortatory, ambitious and analytical. Above all, to be a good Wikipedian, edit and create entries." - The Cunctator Would you please elaborate

A: Military historians are familiar with Fabius Maximus Cunctator ("the delayer"), who opposed Hannibal by remaining behind the walls of Italy's cities and waging a long war of attrition. In the Wikipedia context, though, there is an editor called The Cunctator. I found a book The World and Wikipedia: How we are Editing Reality in a remainder bin. (Originally $45.00, it was marked down to $4.95.) Written in 2009, it contains a good description of the world of Wikipedia. Sadly, most of the editors mentioned in the book are no longer with us, although a few , like Newyorkbrad and TonyTheTiger remain. I found The Cunctator and the quote on p. 125. Every part of the quote has a story behind it, which The Cunctator explains through links on his user page. The Cunctator, an inclusionist, is credited with the creation of deletion mechanism as we know it today. So while we still have The 10 Best Articles Wikipedia Deleted This Week, the shadows of deleted articles live on in their deletion discussions. It turned out that The Cunctator was not gone at all; I encountered him online doing some gnomish task. Like the book author, I winced at the "overly combative", which might seem incitement to WP:BATTLEFIELD, but I would not change the quote. Nor do I interpret it that way; in my version, it merely means that I should be prepared to defend what I have written. It has to be rigorous, referenced and right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Rubbish computer

8. You go onto RPP and notice the following page protection requests. How would you respond to each of these?

• A town, somewhere – Full protection - Vandalized 128 times in the last hour.
• Joe Bloggs, Sr. - Semi protection - Persistent edit warring between 6 users, most of them substantially experienced.
• Greenish (color) - Semi protection - Got vandalized by 2 different IPs on the same day.
• Crayons, Inc. - Creation protection - Unambiguous advertising speedy deleted 4 times in the past week, also no indication of notability.
• Internet vandalism - Move protection - Has been moved without consensus.
• nkdjvnbd - Creation protection: why create this random string of letters? (Has never been created.)
• Foo - Move protection - Persistent move warring between 4 autoconfirmed users.
• Graphic graphs- Semi protection - Vandalized by several IP-hopping vandals over the past month (but the two main constructive contributors are IPs, who have reverted most of the vandalism before anyone else.)

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A:

• A town, somewhere – 128 times in the last hour indicates more than one account. Clearly something is going on off-wiki. (A lost football match?) If all are IPs, or not autonconfirmed, then temporary semi-protection will suffice. Otherwise, temporary full protection will be required.
• Joe Bloggs, Sr. – In this case most or all of the editors will be autoconfirmed, so semi protection will be useless. Temporary full protection will be required.
• Greenish (color) – Twice isn't much. Could be an IP hopping vandal. Temporary semi protection.
• Crayons, Inc. – Creation protection
• Internet vandalism – If it was moved to a BLP accused of same, then move protection. If there have been repeated move attempts against consensus, then move protection. If it is currently under the moved name, move it back. Otherwise no action required.
• nkdjvnbd – No action required.
• Foo – Given that it is four autoconfirmed users, move protection.
• Graphic graphs – Semi protection would lock out the two main constructive contributors, so apply pending changes protection. I am not sure if this will put the page on my watch list; if not, add it so there will be at least one editor watching the page who can approve changes.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Gerda

9. Even if you say you would block only vandals, I would like to know how you feel about {{user talk before you block}} --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think those are wonderful sentiments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Caballero1967

10. It seems that one reason you enjoy Wikipedia is because there is still plenty of room for growth where you can "run with" your favorite topic unencumbered with the ordinary complications in scholarly or trade publications. Besides such a convincing motive, what kept you coming back after being divested of your admin responsibilities and then after the last ArbCom elections?Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 01:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A: I was not distraught over the ArbCom election results. One of the better aspects of the ArbCom election process is that you don't feel that you are running against other candidates. Rather, I was cheering for some of the others, voting for them, and hoping that they would be elected too. I hope that the editors who voted for me were not too disappointed. I wasn't expecting voters to call and tell me that they had voted for me. I had great support. Being desysopped was devastating. I don't blame anyone for quitting after that. And it is ongoing. Every week something happens where the admin toolkit would come in handy. But I had promised to help with the Paralympic articles, and I keep my word.

Additional question from Caballero1967

11. (Sorry: second and last question) You pledged not to use the "block button on anyone other than a bona fide vandal." However, the button is there for a purpose. Would not you prefer to have at your reach a wise admin who in moments of need (as a military historian, you know what I mean) could respond ably rather than one impaired by a campaign pledge?Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 01:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A: It was not a campaign pledge so much as a disillusionment with the practice of blocking users. While WP:RBI works well against trolls and vandals, it seems that while we say that "Blocks intended solely to 'cool down' an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption" (WP:COOLDOWN), it seems to me that blocks are frequently "cool down", or are punitive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Hawkeye7: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Hawkeye7 can be found here.

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

1. Sure, why not? By the sounds of it the desysop was very harsh, a long time ago, and I'm not aware of any accusations of troublesome behaviour since. Reyk _YO! 08:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't always agree with Hawkeye7's opinions on some divisive issues. But for me there is no doubt that he is deeply devoted to the project and has contributed to it significantly. And as an admin, although he made mistakes, the good far outweighed the bad. I thought it was a harsh decision to desysop at the time and since then I have been convinced the project would have been better off had he remained an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Four years is long enough, whether you agree with the original desysop or not. His highly creditable result at the recent Arbitration Committee election shows he has been completely rehabilitated by the community. Hawkeye7 is a content creator par excellence and a doyen of Wikiproject Military history. He is a committed and clueful member of WP who wants the bit back so he can make our boat go faster. Good on him for putting his hand up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support per no big deal. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 09:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support I see no reason that Hawkeye shouldn't have the community's trust for these tools again. Sam Walton (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hawkeye7 was a better administrator than most of us; I trust he'll be so again. —Cryptic 09:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support We need more admins, and I don't see anything objectionable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support: I have worked with Hawkeye quite a bit over the past seven years I have been on Wikipedia and I am confident that he would be a net positive influence as an admin. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I have only had positive experiences from Hawkeye's work on Wikipedia, they are an excellent content creator and have good sense when it comes to project issues. Four years is a long time and people change, a second chance with some forgiveness is in order. I am confident that giving the tools to Hawkeye would be a net positive to the project. Winner 42 Talk to me! 11:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Four years is enough. —Kusma (t·c) 12:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - hardworking, committed to WP, an excellent content record and experienced with admin tools. One black mark from 2012, which I'm sure won't be repeated. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
12. I've encountered the candidate several times over the years and am delighted that they are willing to pick up the mop again. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - no problems with understanding policy or communication, as evidenced by answers to the questions so far. A clear need for the tools (assembling DYK queues) has been given. Concerns raised in the original RfA (principally a lack of edit summaries) have long since been resolved. I have looked carefully over the Arbcom case, paying particular attention to specific diffs and their timing, and concluded their findings of fact on Hawkeye7 were wrong, his actions were justifiable and could be backed with policy, and that he should not have been desysopped. In particular I want to emphasise that unlike a number of desysopped admins, Hawkeye took it with good grace and has carried on editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14. SQL^{Query me!} 14:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
15. Uncertain he deserved desysopping in the first place and feel recent ArbComs have been too harsh in desysopping with minimal process. In any event, he deserves the mop and certainly won't abuse it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Elephant first: The desysop was harsh, and the action that led to it was out of character. But I opposed Hawkeye7 in the ArbCom elections as the ArbCom desysop would have been a bit like Damocles and the pointy thing, and I thought it needed to be properly addressed via RfA first. Now that it's happening, I'm happy to offer my support to Hawkeye7, who has amply demonstrated his knowledge and abilities, his commitment to the project, his help for newcomers, and his kindly attitude. Quite an easy support, actually, the more I think of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support I remember the desysop and the circumstances surrounding it, and believe that Hawkeye has learned from both. I also trust HJ's judgement as nominator. Miniapolis 15:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I'm going to park here, because of the DYK offer, in combination with his process knowledge. I will look a little deeper, but I will be highly surprised to move from here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - Good editor, and will likely make a good admin. Mistakes are in the past. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
21. Absolute support - we've all done things we're not proud of. Deb (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Four years is more than enough time to forgive past transgressions. Looks like a net positive to me. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 16:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
23. I was one of the arbitrators who voted for the desysop back in the day (my very first case, actually). It's time to make Hawkeye an admin again. Courcelles (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support per Deb - We all make mistakes here and we all (hopefully) learn from them, I can't recall ever seeing Hawkeye being in any drama .... Anyway the past is the past!, Great candidate, No issues, Good bloody luck! :) –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I am not wholly happy about the answer to Q.5 - although I feel both hypothetical editors should receive warnings, the answer did not so stipulate - but that aside, Hawkeye was an excellent admin, discounting the admitted elephant in the room, and I would be happy to see him reinstated. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Well, Courcelles is convincing ;) It's been a long time, and Hawkeye has done a lot of good work since then. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Per HJ Mitchell and Courcelles .A clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Obviously familiar with the tools and not likely to misunderstand how to use them; absent the desysop situation, I can't imagine a solid reason to oppose. Given the time since the desysop, and Hawkeye's consistent contributions to the project since then, I think he can move, and has moved, beyond that event. Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per WP:NETPOS and WP:NOBIGDEAL. I see no reason to not give admin rights to a trustworthy, long-term contributor such as Hawkeye. —  dainomite   18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support as appears thoroughly suitable, including when the desysopping is taken into account. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support One mistake years ago does not outweigh his other, considerable contributions. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Call me biased but HJM's noms have proved to be worthwhile (and I don't need any more reasons to support). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I have expressed concerns over a few things with Hawkeye7 directly but unreservedly I have great respect for them and their work at Military History. Regrettably I don't think I ever shared this with them at the time of expressing a few concerns but it was done as I would with any of my respected colleagues. The issue around the ArbCom desysop was quite some time ago and I would trust Hawkeye7 with the sysop tools. Mkdw^talk 19:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Class455fan1 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support has a clue and won't delete the main page. The problems are a few years old now so I'm confident that giving Hawkeye7 the bit will be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support I have no doubts that the candidate will make a good admin. Gap9551 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. I don't think we should hold a four-years-old brief lapse of judgement against Hawkeye. I'm quite certain he has learned his lesson and will not do that again. Biblio (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support A good admin, being desysoped for blocking an abusive person in no way disqualifies this candidate in my view. If it is arbcom's view that they can come back after passing RfA then welcome back!. HighInBC 22:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support: I'm confident he will be a good addition to the admins. --Mirokado (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support The past is the past, and they're clearly here to contribute massively positively- just look at the article/content creation stats. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support: I thought he already was; as for past indescretions, Wiki is one of the two interweb sites I haven't been banned from, so I can't complain. Keith-264 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - More than ready to pick up the mop again. Thparkth (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I reviewed his contributions and it's good to see that they are so focussed on building the encyclopedia. This review reminded me that our paths crossed briefly at James Chadwick where he seemed a bit prickly but it was no big deal. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
44. I'm pleasantly surprised to see this RfA. I had hoped that Hawkeye7 would run for adminship again if he received over 50% support in the recent ArbCom elections and he indeed achieved that. I don't always agree with Hawkeye7 but I trust his judgment and I think he'll be fine if he receives the tools again. I supported him in his first candidacy many, many years ago and I don't regret that support. Acalamari 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I'm all about second chances. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. I trust him to do the right thing for the encyclopedia, and I don't think the ArbCom ruling should be held against him after so much time doing so much good work. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - Hawkeye7 has been a good front-line editor for a long time. I have seen nothing that would disqualify him. I have not investigated the ArbCom ruling, but I trust the combined judgements of certain other editors on this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    
48. Support. I was not aware of Hawkeye's demotion from admin at the time it happened. Unless his actions affected me, it wouldn't have been the kind of thing I would have been paying attention to. I can tell you that Hawkeye is a really, really good editor, and I have learned many editing techniques from him personally. I've interacted with him for years on WP MH and on various review processes. He's pretty valuable at WP MH, and he's been trustworthy over there. Let him be an admin again. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. I think has enough experience to be net positive. I think if any problems arise then they can be reviewed then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. I know of him from the Wikiproject Military history section, where he has been elected a Coordinator; he has done very good work there. I believe in giving him a second chance with adminship. Kierzek (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support as per well-reasoned comments from many above, including HJ Mitchell. Quality article contributions and their past issues have long since been made up for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support, should make an excellent addition to the administrative staff. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Nobody's perfect, and four year old mistakes in the middle of a decided cluster-F shouldn't constitute a permanent stain against a guy who has done great work in all forms over the years. oknazevad (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Even as someone editing in topics far from military history, I've seen Hawkeye's constructive contributions and tireless efforts. On the content side, I love that Hawkeye remembers to pitch major articles at the right level, spinning off article details into their own articles as they need them. Leadership in content creation is extremely helpful to proper usage of the tools and in setting precedent for admin mop use in the future. No problems since the desysop that I've seen; admin is no big deal; he can be desysoped again if there's a problem, but I highly doubt there will be one. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Your desysopping sounds very harsh, besides people change and you deserve a second chance. I reckon you can be trusted with the mop. Good luck!--5 albert square (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Top tier contributor and been a long time since the desysop with no disqualifying issues since.--MONGO 02:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
57. Everyone deserves a second chance, and I see no reason to distrust Hawkeye at present. They've shown themselves to be trustworthy and denying them the tools would only hinder their ability to further contribute to the project. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Would make a good admin, I am unconvinced about past occasions as they date to 2011 and 2012. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Ordinarily, a previous desysop for civility/possible misuse of the tools would be something I would oppose, but it has been a long time, and the candidate does indeed seem to have learned from it. I have frequently been annoyed at the DYK queue myself, and I would be very glad if more eyes (and more mops) were on the job. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Would be a good admin. Laberinto16 (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - No worries here but, give him a new mop :P . Mlpearc (open channel) 03:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support I have weighed the arguments against Hakweye's candidacy in the balance and found them wanting.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. I see no problems here. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support without hesitation. Net positive, excellent content contributor, and I'm positive the candidate has moved on from past issues. --Laser brain (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. Four years has a long time. I took a look at the edits he has done and seemed to have made some good edits in good faith. seemed good for another RFA. Winterysteppe (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. I can't believe I've had no interactions with Hawkeye, but in reviewing his contributions, I believe it would definitely be a net positive. I rarely feel compelled to !vote in these things, but, from what I've seen, Hawkeye is a real asset to the project and just wants the ability to help out more. As for the past, admins are humans too; they're going to make mistakes. Four years is a long time to think about them, grow and learn from them, all the while continuing to make many valuable high-quality contributions with no disqualifying issues. I am willing to trust him with the tools again.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support A week Four years is a long time in politics on Wikipedia. I believe Hawkeye has learned from the events of the past and have no problems supporting.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - if we seek admins who are 100% perfect 100% of the time, we won't have any. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - Another fine admin candidate, and another fine example of how people honestly can and do learn from mistakes and improve! -- samtar ^whisper 09:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Long time, people change & mature; quite sure that the candidate will be well aware of eyes all over his actions; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. I had front row seats for the Netball debacle that ultimately lead to the candidates first admonishment mentioned in the nomination statement. The issue for me was not just the involved block of the now banned editor, but the somewhat forgotten block of Thivierr for violating the 3rr (they didn't actually violate 3rr although edit warring was involved). Hawkeye wasinvolved in the Netball article[1] and with the other editor edit warring, including being involved in the edit war. I know this happened four years ago, but after Hawkeyes response to a question at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Hawkeye7/Questions#Questions from Beeblebrox where Hawkeye7 says he didn't consider himself involved, I feel he still doesn't understand WP:involved. I don't know if I could trust this editor with the block button despite them saying they will only use it for obvious vandalism. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose: First, I don't find Hawkeye has no desire to become associated with high drama as an admin,... to be comparable or compatible with running for Arbcom. Second: the stewed koala comment does not appear to be a one-off, although it may have weighed in the desysop of Feb. 2012. Hawkeye7 had been admonished by arbcom 8 months prior to that for blocking an editor; in violation of WP:INVOLVED at a June 2011 case. I haven't researched further; but, when I weigh all this together and I feel I can not support. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  16:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   What swung it for me was this comment from Eric : "I don't actually have a problem with Hawkeye's block, other than that he blocked for the wrong reason". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose mainly per Ched. Intothatdarkness 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose I've strongly disagreed with this user's commentary on ArbCom cases in the past, as such it's likely I'd not trust his admin judgment either. --Pudeo' 00:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per Pudeo --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Putting past drama aside, there are temperament issues that concern me, based on my own interactions with and observations of the candidate. Unquestionably he is skilled, typically means well and as an editor, is a net plus to Wikipedia,but I think there is often an unnecessary abrasiveness that all too frequently comes across as demeaning to other editors. This doesn't benefit the public perception of admin, and can negatively affect retention of good editors. His participation at Arb doesn't help his case, but isn't necessarily a determining factor for me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - Sorry, my own observations of his behavior lead me to believe that Hawkeye7 would not be a good admin. This is confirmed by his commentary at ArbCom and his admonishment followed by desysoping. which confirm that there are problems with his judgment. Not all good editors should be admins, and this in one case where I believe this is true. BMK (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak oppose - While this user's AfD stats (which really aren't that bad IMO when you take into account the No Consensus = Keep outcomes) only apparently encompass around 100 or so votes, after perusing a number of the AfDs where their vote didn't match up with the final outcome, I found a number of very poorly-worded or justified (IMO) votes on articles. This, plus the fact that I don't remember voting for this particular individual in the recent ArbCom elections and their statements since then (like above: "So I ran for ArbCom on a platform of reform. It became clear that some people felt that I should not have been editing, much less running for office, without a successful RfA. Which brings me back to here.") leads me to believe that they may be using this RfA as a way of increasing their chances of eventually being elected to ArbCom (since admins are basically the only people that get elected to ArbCom these days) leaves me uneasy about this RfA at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral, at least until Gerda's question is answered. I am probably leaning oppose (which I rarely do) on this one, simply because misuse of the block button is almost a lifetime ban on adminship, in my view. Blocking another editor should be an absolute last resort, and it's hard for me to recommend giving the admin buttons back to an editor who lost them because of misuse of the admin-equivalent of the nuclear button. Hawkeye7's editing history is such that I could certainly be swayed to support, but I'm not there... yet. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 01:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral leaning towards Oppose; The nomination bring up a lot about the ArbCom case with multiple negative findings, but the acceptance barely touches on them. I'd expect a much more thorough response in light of the past findings. May revisit this as additional q&a sections evolve. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. I need to research more about this editor first, but he seems like a good guy, and I am inclined to !vote in support. epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't know what role forgiveness and rehabilitation play in RfA. We have plenty of other Wikipedians that we could hand the mop to that don't come with all this baggage. I'd feel silly supporting an otherwise eminent Wikipedian only to get stuck with regret like I did over Kevin Gorman. If it's time for Hawkeye7 to come back is it also time for Piotrus to get the mop again, too? They're both excellent contributors but is desysopping a deal-breaker? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say it is a pragmatic rather than moral judgement. Is the risk of re-sysopping Hawkeye7 likely to outweigh the rewards? Hawkeye may or may not have made bad calls in the past, they have said that they will not put themselves in the position to make similar calls in the future. If we assume good faith, competence and a certain very minimal degree of self-control then re-sysopping will be a benefit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  

  I would also note that we actually don't "have plenty of other Wikipedians that we could hand the mop to". We're not being overrun with applicants are we? This is the first one for over a month. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on terminology in the answer to question 2. Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, and even Robert Oppenheimer are not sub-articles of Manhattan Project, just as Manhattan Project is not a sub-article of their articles. These people are primarily physicists, who happened to have worked on the Manhattan Project. Gap9551 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have not been here a very long time, and am not extraordinarily familiar with the editor, so I can't justify voting. But I did want to leave my comments. A desysop is harsh, and something that shouldn't be overlooked (not like anyone was anyways). But, four years is ancient history on the internet. After something like that happening, for Hawkeye7 to not only continue editing, but to continue to be a great editor, with a mind boggling amount of FAs, great contributions, and what seems to be a great attitude..well, that is something worth commending if you ask me. Thank you for your contributions, and best of luck in this RfA. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Are we really at the point where we'd hold something which happened four years ago against someone? Yes, it was pretty darn bad, and if it had happened last year I'd understand - Hawkeye clearly understands that they need to be held to a higher standard, otherwise they wouldn't be trying again and putting themselves up for an inquisition RfA. Those who voted oppose, I completely understand your positions, and respect them - but can't we apply a little bit of thought to the idea that they can always try? I'm certain our current admins would step in should the very unlikely happen and Hawkeye was to repeat their actions. -- samtar ^whisper 09:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]