Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Hawkeye7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an administrator election candidacy that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (199/252/165); See official results (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer Alt (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · they/them) – Hi I'm Hawkeye7. Some of you might know me from the Military History and Spaceflight projects. Or you might have met me at Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013, Italy in 2015 or Poland in 2024! I've been around a long time. I started editing almost twenty years ago and am one of the most active Wikipedians. I am primarily a content creator, having written 110 featured articles and 370 good articles, and have created over 500 articles!

I generally pitch in when there is work to be done. I have participated in numerous drives. I rarely turn down a request for help, even when it is outside my area of expertise like reviewing an article on ice skating or rock bands, or assisting with a workshop on articles on Bhutan. I have developed bots to streamline the featured article processes and clean up backlogs.

I was was once an admin but was desysopped by ArbCom in the Civility Enforcement case twelve years ago. I was the third of several admins in a chain of knee-jerk admin actions and as such was technically "wheel-warring". This may not have led to sanctions from ArbCom, but it was part of a wider disputes which ended up at arbitration. This decision was not taken lightly, nor alone, but the responsibility was mine. At the time I thought that the editor in question would persist with a course of unacceptable behaviour until finally blocked for good. Regrettably, that ultimately proved to be the case, but not until after several more ArbCom cases. Twelve years is a long time ago - many editors have not been around that long - and I have a clean block record. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay.

I have never edited Wikipedia for pay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I've been a Wikipedia editor for nearly twenty years now. I was recently re-elected as lead co-ordinator of the Military History project. As such I am frequently called upon to perform various administrative tasks even though I am not an admin. I am an autopatroller, file mover, new page reviewer, mass message sender and template editor. I feel I can make a contribution as an admin. I am in a different time zone to most, so can particularly help in areas where a quick response is warranted. One area I am particularly interested in helping out at WP:DYK, where there are often logjams due to no admin being available to promote the queues. I have a lot of experience in this area, having written or expanded 480 DYK articles and having worked on assembling prep areas. I would like to help reduce our backlogs, especially those at WP:RPP and WP:RM that most impact the content creation process.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am particularly proud of my work on featured articles. Initially, I wrote military articles based related to my PhD research, on the Second World War in the South West Pacific Area, like Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines, Admiralty Islands campaign, Landing at Nadzab, and Battle of Sio. I am particularly interested in logistics, and wrote on Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign, British logistics in the Falklands War, British logistics in the Normandy Campaign and American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany (love the image I found for that one). I also wrote articles on the Manhattan Project, such as Robert Oppenheimer, and astronauts like Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. I have conducted article writing workshops and was Wikipedian in Residence with Paralympics Australia, writing up my experiences in Paris 2024 for The Signpost
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: You cannot be active for twenty years without some conflicts. Over ten years ago I was desysopped by ArbCom. I have now been on Wikipedia for nearly twenty years and have never been blocked or banned. I have not appeared before ArbCom since that case over ten years ago. If this RfA is successful, you have my word that I will work quietly and diligently, and use the administrative tools to help build the encyclopaedia.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Cryptic

4. What on earth did you realistically expect to happen as a result of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 37#Review request? —Cryptic 00:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: I did not expect anything to happen or change as a result. I merely posed a question for my own edification about whether a close RfA could be appealed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Thryduulf

5. Why did you choose to seek adminship via election rather than via a standard RFA?
A: To support the process! I felt that the standard RfA process had become too adversarial and intimidating, and was was deterring qualified editors from nominating. As a result, the number of active admins has been steadily declining. When people emailed me suggesting that I should run, I was still a bit hesitant. I did not want to be one of a small number of editors running, but I very much wanted the trial to succeed. I was one of the editors who pressed for this reform, most recently and back when it was first proposed years ago. I therefore delayed throwing my hat in the ring. I hope that my doing so encouraged others to also put their name forward! As it happened, a lot of other people delayed nominating until the eleventh hour (in one case, literally). We are still a long way from arresting the decline in active admins, but I believe this will be a step forward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Trainsandotherthings

6. In 2023, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Glencora Ralph/1, you said "There is no point in GAR at all." (referring to the process as a whole) and that the article containing no information on her career post 2012 (including a 2016 Olympics appearance) was "Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies." Do you stand by those comments about the GAR process?
A: No, that was hyperbole. A GA should address the main aspects of the topic. This is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. This includes articles that are not up to date. The sad fact is that we don't have enough editors to keep everything up to date and mass nominating articles at GAR defeats its purpose of reviewing and improving articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Novem Linguae

7. It looks like two editors recently claimed that you have a COI related to Australian Olympics articles. Can you please summarize what is going on at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Alison Creagh? It is hard to follow.
A: Back in 2011, the Australian Paralympic Committee (now called Paralympics Australia) initiated a project to document its history. This included collecting documents and museum pieces and conducting oral history interviews with Paralympians. An online component was recognised as being important, and Wikipedia was identified as part of that. So they contacted Wikimedia Australia, and a joint endeavour began, called the "History of the Paralympic movement in Australia". I was brought into the project in 2012 as an experienced editor, albeit one with no knowledge of Paralympic sports whatsoever. I attended the 2012 Paralympic Games in London as a journalist with accreditation supplied by the Australian Paralympic Committee.
Later that year I was asked by the president of Wikimedia Australia to become the Wikipedian in Residence at the Australian Paralympic Committee. It should be emphasised that Wikimedia Australia was eager to be able to say that it had a Wikipedian in Residence, but no pay was offered, because Wikimedia Australia had run out of money. Nor would I have accepted any, because I had a full-time job, I would have had to seek permission from my employer, which might not have been forthcoming, and, above all, my very busy work schedule precluded me from devoting any fixed amount of time to it. Instead, we agreed that I would contribute what I could, when I could. Neither myself nor my predecessor was ever physically present at Paralympics Australia's headquarters in Sydney, except for a edit-a-thon held there in 2018, but I conducted a series of edit-a-thons and workshops around Australia until Paralympics Australia ran out of money as well, and terminated their part of the project in 2020.
Nonetheless, a small but devoted group of us continued to work on articles about Australian paralympians, coaches and administrators, and Australians at the Paralympic Games. As related in The Signpost, I obtained a media accreditation from Paralympics Australia for the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games for myself and another wikimedian as a freelance journalist and photographer from Wikimedia Australia. By "freelance", I mean we were not employees of Wikimedia Australia; I am just a member of that organisation. As far as the International Paralympic Committee was concerned, we were just non-rights news media, like the folks from the newspapers, radio, Getty images and the rest. As such I updated many articles related to the games and created new ones. Amongst these was an article on the new president of Paralympics Australia. In Paris I found that she had no article, so I created one. As was my usual practice, I submitted the new article to DYK to get some more eyes on it. Another editor raised the possibility of a COI in writing an article on a person who heads an organisation with which I have an association through wikipedia. I did not think so, but I left it for a uninvolved editor to make a determination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Ganesha811

8. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?
A: There certainly are such areas. I have been around a long time and have been involved in many parts of the content creation and bot processes, but I freely admit that I do not know everything. One area I know absolutely nothing about that immediately comes to mind is sock puppet investigations. I have have never been involved in that aspect of Wikipedia at all. (I do not plan to participate in that area, due to unfamiliarity with it, but I have said that I am always willing to help out with any area.) I would read through our policies, and information pages, particularly the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions, and look through the current cases and archives of discussions. I would seek out an admin with experience in that particular area as a mentor. Until I became confident in the area, I would refer decisions to her. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Just Step Sideways

9. You have commented in your nom and in one of your answers to the standard questions about why you were desysoped, but it seems a bit short on the actual details. The committee in fact passed three findings related exclusively to your behavior[1], specifically that you wheel warred, that you made personal attacks on a user you had just blocked, and that you did these things after a previous admoinishment from the committee regarding the involved admin policy. Now, it's been a long time and this community can be wonderfully forgiving if one owns up to their own errors, what would you say to those who feel you still have not really done that, up to and including right here in this discussion?
A: It has been a long time, and several of the arbs involved in that case have come around to a different way of thinking. I honestly never intended a personal attack; my observation that the user seemed to be a protected species was intended as a statement of the situation to another admin. The third finding was particularly embarrassing to the arbs because they voted for a finding of fact that one of their number, Newyorkbrad, pointed out at the time was not true. Even the wheel war is looked at in a different light these days because ArbCom got into a wheel war in a subsequent case over the same user. At the time, I considered this as a personal attack, and I had advice that it was therefore not wheel warring. But here's the thing: when you take any admin action, you put your bit on the line. You are responsible. You can be second guessed. You can be hauled over the coals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Toadspike

10. In two AfD discussions earlier this year, you cited Moroson, Lundstrom, Hammel, and books on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons or the Battle of Philippine Sea as grounds to keep the articles, and did not respond to my requests for a specific citation that established notability. Do you believe your response (or lack thereof) was sufficient to demonstrate the notability of those articles and complied with WP:V?
A: My apologies. I must have failed to get back to the discussion. I only have a bit of time to work on Wikipedia each day and prioritise responses to reviews. I do have all those books right here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough – apology accepted. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Serial Number 54129

11. Did you ever contact Dweller? It sounds like he would have been willing to nominate you, especially if you've been avoiding controversy since 2018. SerialNumber54129 13:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, and he did nominate me, but the RfA was not successful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from BusterD

12. How many reviews of DYK, GA, A-class, and FAs of other wikipedians' works have you performed yourself so far in 2024?
A: Every DYK requires a QPQ review, so there were 14 DYK reviews. The MilHistBot keeps track of other reviews at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards. According to its tabulation, up to the end of September, I have performed 3 FA reviews, 18 A-class reviews and 11 GA reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from usernamekiran

13. Hi. Currently I'm a little confused, maybe I'm mistaking you for some editor. In the past, an admin was dysysoped by arbcom, with RfA being the only way to get back adminship. Later that editor had "requested to be re-sysoped". Was that you? Before asking the question, I went through the archives of bureaucrat's noticeboard, but I couldn't find the any relevant discussion, so I had to ask you directly. I apologise for confusion. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: In the really distant past, desysopping was regarded as temporary, and ArbCom might re-sysop. That has not happened for a very long time. In some cases, ArbCom has not allowed an RfA for re-sysop. This usually happens when the desysop is accompanied by an indefinite block. In the long lead up to this process, ArbCom has confirmed that the clause about an RfA also applies to any other community process, such as this one. Fram was re-sysopped on request, although this was later reversed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from usernamekiran

14. Hi. Currently I'm a little confused, maybe I'm mistaking you for some editor. In the past, an admin was dysysoped by arbcom, with RfA being the only way to get back adminship. Later that editor had "requested to be re-sysoped". Was that you? Before asking the question, I went through the archives of bureaucrat's noticeboard, but I couldn't find the any relevant discussion, so I had to ask you directly. I apologise for confusion. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14.1 Sorry, I found it in the discussion below. It was not on bureaucrat's noticeboard. My follow-up question is: what was your rationale behind making that request? —usernamekiran (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: I felt that Fram's resysop was out of process. A decline would be an admission of that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: follow up question: I don't think I understand your answers properly. Fram had not requested for resysop. Fram was desysoped on 9/10 June 2019. WJBscribe added the sysop flag on 25 June 23:50 UTC, and it was then removed around three hours later log. You had made the request to WJBscribe on 16 June diff. What I don't understand is your use of "that". A decline of what, would have been admission of what? I feel like you are saying "decline of my resysop request would have been admission that Fram's resysop was out of process", which doesn't make much sense. Sorry, but English is literally my fourth language. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Significa liberdade

15. Given that you talked openly about being desysoped in 2012, I'm surprised you didn't mention that you have failed two RfAs since then (2016 and 2019). Can you explain why decided not to mention this in your original nomination statement and answers to Q1-3?
A: I left out a lot of things. Lots of articles worked on. I was particularly pleased with the ones I created from scratch, and those I rescued from deletion and later brought to featured status. Getting Apollo 11 and its crew all up to Featured for the 50th anniversary of the 1969 Moon landing. Wikipedia Military Historian of the Year! Workshops and edit-a-thons in every state! Scholarships to Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013, Esino Lario in 2015 and Katowice in 2024. Dinners with Sue Gardner, Katherine Maher and so many awesome Wikipedians. Field trips to Bangkok, Toronto, Beijing, Hamburg and Dubai. Participating in the New Page Patrol and Women in Red drives. Writing articles for The Signpost and The Bugle (our military history project newsletter). And yes, unsuccessful resysop requests in 2016 and 2018, and not one but two unsuccessful runs for ArbCom. Testing the Mediawiki software. Writing my own APIs in Perl and C#. Implementing the bots for FAC and MilHist administration. Getting the packbuild infrastructure to work on Toolforge. Uploading images to Commons. Good times and bad. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16. What have you learned or changed about how you approach situations since your previous RFAs? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: I have tried to take criticisms made to heart. I learned that people like to read edit summaries, so I have made a conscious effort to always provide them. Communication is always difficult in this written form, and I have worked on more effective engagement. I consciously adopted a less confrontational style of writing, and never respond with "No, you are wrong". I always thank people for their edits. I wrote a personal note to each and every editor who supported by RfA and thanked them for their support. I always apologise when I make a mistake. Being WP:BOLD seems to have become more difficult for newcomers over time, so more encouragement is required. I find that for a younger generation, Wikipedia has always been there. People have told me that everything is on Wikipedia nowadays. How I wish that was actually true! I try to set a good example, especially as lead coordinator of the Military History Project. I do a lot less content work and spend more time on administrative tasks like cleaning up the Military History Project backlogs. Since 2019, editing Wikipedia had become a much more solitary activity for me, with far less real-life and even on-Wiki contact with other people. This changed in 2024 when Wikimedia Australia began holding online chats over Zoom, and then came Katowice, with a chance to reconnect with so many people! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from SilkTork

17. Could you explain what you mean by this statement you made in response to Q9: "The third finding was particularly embarrassing to the arbs because they voted for a finding of fact that one of their number, Newyorkbrad, pointed out at the time was not true." In relation to the finding that you had been previously admonished, all the Arbs active in the case supported it, including Newyorkbrad: [2]. (NYB added a comment later in response to Hersfold's feeling that the Civility case also related to involvement, which NYB didn't agree with - but that was a side issue, and not what we were voting on). To offer some clarity to people who might take your assertion for fact, I am not at all embarrassed that I supported a clearly obvious finding of which NYB said: "that Hawkeye7 was sanctioned in the case is a historical fact" 10:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
A:. Why would you vote on something if you didn't feel it was germane to the case? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Discussion

[edit]

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

  • where there are often logjams due to no admin being available to promote the queues -> you already have template editor rights, and DYK recently reduced protection of queues to template editor, so you can already do that. (In my opinion that action makes no sense, but I'm uninvolved there so will leave it at that) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know that proposal got up! (Makes no sense to me either, but I guess they are getting desperate.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When the idea was first proposed some years ago, it was specifically aimed at allowing me to move the prep areas. (I did not request it.) It failed because updating the main page was considered a prerogative of administrators. This time I was not involved in the discussion at all and presumably it had nothing to do with me. I am surprised that they decided to go ahead with it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I've posed a tough question above, I also feel the need to comment that I have worked with Hawkeye7 multiple times at FAC and found his editing to be exemplary, in terms of research, accuracy, and ability to create engaging prose and properly summarize. I definitely learned from his editing in making my own forays at FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD record: 90.20% match rate, n of 427. 204 keep !votes to 219 delete !votes. Mildly subjective comment: obviously, these are very good numbers, and there's plenty of participation over the past year. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved from Q7.Aaron Liu (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC) That's a very long answer, yet it still manages to avoid addressing the key issue discussed in (the majority of) the recent COIN thread [4], i.e. the implausibility of your claims that while a close off-wiki associate of yours was paid $100 an hour to create new articles, which they only did in something like point form, you were apparently paid nothing at all to edit them into a readable and usable form. Ditto the fact that earlier in that year the off-wiki associate had benefited from your inappropriate use of admin tools, which resulted in those tools being removed. Another important issue raised in that thread is why it took you 12 years to make a formal declaration in relation to Wikipedian in Residence status, and only did so when it was pointed out that it was required under WP:PAID. Axad12 (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never paid. I don't know why you find it so implausible that someone would edit Wikipedia as a volunteer editor. Wikimedia Australia made a declaration of my status at the time. I was unaware that I had to make one. Again, I was not paid. And that was not the reason for my admin tools being removed, which related to an entirely different case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was simply that you were asked to summarise the COIN discussion, but had left out any mention of the topics discussed in the majority of the thread. Axad12 (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • People should really read not only the COIN thread, but also Template:Did you know nominations/Alison Creagh which lead to this. Instead of just saying "oh yeah, I forgot, of course I have a COI when writing an article for the CEO of the organisation I am a Wikipedian in Residence for and which have just provided me with all kinds of benefits and support at the 2024 Paralympics", they denied this COI, then claimed I made personal attacks about them and another editor at the DYK (no idea what that was about), and denied that there was a ArbCom finding of fact of problematic undisclosed COI editing in the past, despite it being right here. They also have not complied with the basic WP:WIRCOI rules even after they were pointed out at the COIN thread. Fram (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I played Blood Bowl a fair bit as a kid; didn't think I ever would again. SerialNumber54129 13:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse User:Fram's suggestion to read the COIN thread and discuss it there. Hawkeye7 did write another article (he's up to 546, apparently) and put it up for DYK (he has 484), but THIS ONE was BAD! No proof given whatsoever it was a COI issue of significance. BusterD (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors are supposed to note when they have a COI with an article (and preferably not edit the article anyway), no matter if the end result is good or bad. I have made no claims about the quality of the article, only about the background. If you don't agree with the current guidance about COI and about the expectations for Wikimedians in Residence editing, then feel free to suggest changes to that. But I don't get why you feel the need to get all sarcastic about claims no one made anyway. Like I said, Hawkeye could just have acknowledged that they have a COI there, and no COIN thread nor this discussion would probably have happened. Instead, they denied having a COI, they denied ever having had problems with COI editing in the past, and they started making false claims about personal attacks instead. That is the issue, not whether that article is good or bad. Fram (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My BAD was unkind (but did draw your attention ;) I'd argue that Hawkeye7 has been a WiR for so long, the program has grown up around him, and COI reporting requirements have changed often in the many years since. Hawkeye7 certainly didn't try to fool anybody or intentionally omit any conflict, given his very public and continuous connection in person as a WiR at those events over many years. His explanation in questions above and at the COIN satisfy me. RfA voters have a chance to read our disagreement and then read up for themselves. The exact timing of the COIN report was particularly irritating (given your long disagreements) and if I've stroked short I might be forgiven for it. BusterD (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkeye7 is, as others note, a wonderfully prolific content creator who is always willing to support editors at the expense of his own time and no benefit to himself beyond the satisfaction of helping. An attitude of service — versus an attitude of "management" or "curation" — is, in my mind, the ultimate ideal for an Admin. In all my past interactions with Hawkeye7 he has been a mature, congenial, and easygoing editor with whom to work. I was excited to see him become a candidate. Chetsford (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 90.20% match rate is pretty good. I usually prefer to comment rather than close at AfD, because the real bottleneck is nominations lacking reviews rather than ones awaiting closure. I have closed AfDs, and none of my closures has ever been overturned at DRV. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked a question above that, while addmitedly a bit pointed, provided an opportunity for the candidate to expand on their previous statements about what led to their desysop twelve years ago, with the hope that maybe they would just, finally, own their own mistakes that led to it. What I'm seeing instead is an attempt to minimize, again. I don't care who you are talking about, saying that another user is apparently some sort of koala (ie a protected species who is stewed most of the time).[5] is obviously a very personal attack, but Hawkeye, while only mentioning the first half of that statement, says above I honestly never intended a personal attack. They also claim the finding of a personal attack is particularly embarrassing because NerwYorkBrad said the finding was untrue.That's simply not the case , he said the first half of the sentence, the part about protected species was an attempt at humor gone awry but added referring to another editor as "stewed most of the time" was highly inappropriate. I don't think a user should have to carry old mistakes as a scarlet letter forever, but it's certainly a lot easier to move on if a user can admit their error. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to a another finding of fact. I have never denied what was a fatal miscalculation on my part, and have never tried to shift the blame onto others. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN & FAC notes. Hawkeye7 is one of the most prolific contributors to both GAN and FAC. Detailed stats for GAN are here; for FAC, here. In summary: 376 of 386 nominations promoted at GAN, many of which are no longer GA because they are now featured; and 112 of 131 FAC nominations promoted. 198 reviews at GAN and 308 reviews at FAC. Hawkeye7 also runs the invaluable FACbot. I have reviewed many of their FAC nominations and their work is thorough, detailed, well-written and well-organized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I happen to strongly believe in second chances. Plus, it has been a long time since his desysop. However, the COIN happened too recently to be ignored. I've read the entire thread. Here is my take, it's true that Hawkeye7 technically was not paid, but he received many benefits from them. It's equivalent to being paid according to Wikipedia:PAID ("including money or other incentives"). Failure to disclose it is undisclosed paid editing. I believe it's a clear cut case here. It's a small mistake sure, but trying to argue that it wasn't paid editing is concerning. Hawkeye7 is no doubt a very prolific editor, but that does not mean he will be a good admin. The two positions (admin and editor) require 2 different skill sets. Someone who does not have a good grasp of Wikipedia's core policies should not become an admin in my opinion. 63.73.199.69 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkeye7 claims "Fram was re-sysopped on request, although this was later reversed." I don't think I made such a request (but please correct me if I'm wrong): I was resysopped as a solitary action by WJBScribe (not by Arbcom), and this was reversed three hours later by another crat. The claim here that "I felt that Fram's resysop was out of process. A decline would be an admission of that." seems misguided, as the events already clearly showed that the resysop was out of process and no "admission" of this was necessary, and the circumstances were completely different anyway. Plus, Hawkeye already asked the arbss to reverse their desysopping in 2012[6], based on the completely false claim that "ArbCom made it clear that I had to either go through the RfA process or cease editing entirely", and they then made a weird request to have the desysopping vacated in 2014[7] because they believed that Arbcom had disallowed them to start a new RfA somehow.
    Most problematic about their answer to @Usernamekiran:, question 14.1 is this though: Hawkeye's request[8] was made on 1 July 2018, my brief resysop was in June 2019. Whatever his motivation for the review request might have been, it can't have been my situation. Fram (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer was correct; July 2018 was not a resysop request. The one referred to was in June 2019, as I said. What I do not remember is how you came to be de-sysopped in the first place. Was it an office action that accompanied your block? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, on a user talk, that's one I hadn't seen yet, only all the other attempts to get the tools back one way or another. No idea how "Is there any way to have an RfA reviewed? It is frustrating trying to edit without the tool kit" is supposedly not a resysop request though, and your subsequent replies show a thorough misunderstanding of some basic processes (e.g., in reply to the suggestion that you can start a third RfA: "That path is not open, so far as I can see. RfA#2 was not unsuccessful; it was closed with no consensus from the bureaucrats."). Fram (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uncomfortable truth is that Hawkeye7 does not frequently acknowledge his mistakes. In this candidacy, he has not acknowledged his past mistakes and criticism or affirmed having learned anything from them. Doing so would hardly lose him the election: the community understands that prolific ex-administrators will have made mistakes. We cannot know it, but I suspect Hawkeye has not taken that approach because he still considers past criticism and current concerns of him to be invalid. The same ethos of 'never explain, never apologise' comes through in Hawkeye's 2016 RFA, where the question 'what you have learned' was studiously ignored. In his 2019 RFA, we only got to boilerplate question number 3 before he described his desysopping by ArbCom as a sort of technical violation: I was the third of several admins in a chain of knee-jerk admin actions and as such was judged to have been wheel-warring (emphasis added). Administrators are placed into difficult situations and require the character and communication skills to accept when they might be wrong. Arcticocean 18:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true, but I was not "placed" into a difficult situation; I mishandled it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've long been a Hawkeye7 supporter (perhaps because I watched their early work in real time before they were "famous"), but like good User:Arcticocean, I'm curious. Hawkeye7's work seems impeccable and his willingness to help others is well-known. Hawkeye7, I wish there was a way in which you felt comfortable letting us know why you felt you mishandled it, what lessons you learned in the process, and how you've incorporated it into being a good facilitator. Be as vague as you must. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to see what Hawkeye7 feels they have learned. For me (and I believe for many community members) mistakes in the past can be completely balanced out by showing that lessons have been learned. If lessons have not been learned, then there remains a concern that the mistakes will be repeated. All of us make mistakes now and again. Making a mistake is not in itself a problem - it's not learning from the mistake that causes concern. SilkTork (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first lesson was not to get involved in a situation where you are not fully aware of all the background. For me it was a personal disaster, but for you it was another day at the office. If it had not been me, it would have someone else, if it was not then, it would have been sooner or later. We know this for a fact because it was what did happen. You assumed that everybody was familiar with the situation, because ArbCom was. So I began regularly reading the ArbCom cases, ANI and Jimbo's talk page - the usual places where dramas unfold - so I would not be caught out.
    The second was not rush in even when you do. An important change here was to read without comment, even when one feels very strongly about the issue. This was as much about discipline as anything - forcefully effecting a behaviour change. It was not always easy to do, it was not always successful, but became a goal, and I have largely realised it. I is a matter of trust of course, accepting that others will manage situations. It is not just learning but actually applying the lessons and making changes.
    Thirdly, mistakes do get made. I feel that the best and perhaps the only response is to accept, to apologise, and make amends as best I can. Maybe I need to work on expressing remorse in writing, but it is always heartfelt, and about adverse effects on others.
    I did develop a hierarchy of service to Wikipedia:
    1. Protect people - fellow edits and others (BLP);
    2. Protect the pages - from vandalism and misinformation;
    3. Uphold the pillars - the principles of a free encyclopedia where everyone treats their colleagues with respect.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went back and looked at a discussion I had with Hawkeye7 five years ago about adminship, and the sentence that leaps out for me is "I don't believe (though I'm happy to stand corrected) that Hawkeye has ever demonstrated remorse for some of the comments above. That would go some way towards convincing more people that this was water under the bridge." Reading the above comments, it looks like the concerns I had back then are still valid, unfortunately. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedies

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, these were not declined. Frozen II/3 was a procedural one where a duplicate FAC nomination was created. And the Hanford engineer works one was needed for a complicated move over a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid editor who I have seen around the project Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full disclosure: I've met Hawkeye a couple of times and consider him a friend. Ignore the noise about the COI, it's a mountain out of a molehill. Look at the sum total of Hawkeye's contributions—including over 100 FAs on some difficult, meaty subjects across multiple nationalities—and ask yourself: is Hawkeye here to improve the encyclopaedia? Would he knowingly do anything to compromise the integrity of that encyclopaedia? Of course, that's not enough on its own. Hawkeye has made some mistakes in the past, but many of those are further on the past than some candidates' editing careers began and most are (to borrow a term from Newyorkbrad) "inside baseball". As long as he stays humble enough to ask for advice when he's out of depth, Hawkeye has the potential to make judicious, uncontroversial use of the tools. He has my full support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidates/Hawkeye7&oldid=1258632339"