Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 3

Hawkeye7 3

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (64/69/13); Scheduled to end 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) – A long time ago, no, a very long time ago (OK, 3.5 years ago), I gave my opinion in a Cratchat that Hawkeye's request to have his tools returned had not found consensus. I'll leave it to Hawkeye to explain how he came to lose his tools in the first place back in 2012, but I was impressed by his demeanour in that 2016 RfA. So I left him this note.

I've kept half an eye since then. Back in April, Hawkeye contacted three people (Ritchie333, Dennis Brown and Aircorn) who had opposed his last RfA, asking for feedback. I thought that was a brave step and one appropriate for a candidate with some history who wishes to show he can move forward.

I think Hawkeye will be a hard-working and respectful admin and I warmly nominate hin for adminship.--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.

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: My priority would be maintenance areas that, while not generally backlogged, may be considered time critical by the editor requested them, like WP:RFPP, WP:RM and WP:PROD. I would also keep a close eye on Category:Administrative backlog. Behind each request may well be a frustrated editor who may have only a limited time to devote to article writing, and who has no inkling of how long a reasonable request will take to process. I think that empathy is the most important attribute of good adminship.

I find it particularly dispiriting when DYK runs overtime due to a lack of admins to perform the required move. This isn't the recurrent problem it used to be, but that's because of the decrease in article traffic, which in turn has meant that the queues cycles slower, with a queue every 24 hours instead of every eight like it used to. This makes it a lot less hectic. Nonetheless, it remains time critical, as many hooks need to run on a particular date.

In addition to sending over 300 new or improved articles to DYK, I have also been active at times in assembling prep areas. This is quite a job technically, it is done under time pressure, and sometimes there's this mass of text that makes finding the parts you need for the prep quite challenging. It is also a bit of an art form. There are many rules regarding how the prep areas have to be arranged, and what hooks can be in in what places in the prep area. Picking the best possible lead hook is nothing less than black magic. The amount of work involved, and the fact that you cop the blame for any errors that sneak though makes it one of the most demanding and least appreciated tasks around. I normally assemble preps for a few weeks each year. The promoting admin needs to check the image and the hooks a final time before promotion.

Due to my being in a different time zone from most admins, I believe that I can make a difference in this regard.

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

A: My contributions to Wikipedia fall into three general areas.

The first is military articles. I came to Wikipedia in 2005 in response to an email requesting that I correct a military 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, but was not very active. (I did marked the web pages with a creative commons licence, retrospectively authorising their use by Wikipedia.)

What I found was a terrible mess. Everywhere I looked, on every subject, I found poorly-written articles. I was appalled. In 2006, Lindleyle (talk · contribs) 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 welcoming projects. Since then I have served the project as a coordinator from 2011 to 2016, and since 2018. I was awarded the Golden Wiki for the project’s member of the year in 2012, and the Silver Wiki for runner-up in 2014 and 2016.

I found that much of the MilHist Project coordinators' workload involved a cumbersome process for promoting A-class articles. I wrote a bot, the MilHistBot (talk · contribs), to handle most of this workload. Since then. It has been expanded to handle most of the coordinator chores, including keeping the membership list up to date, processing reviews, tallying reviews for awards, and actually delivering them to the recipients. It also helps with the production of our project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, for which I occasionally write OpEds and book reviews. I later added a second bot, FACBot (talk · contribs), which performs administrative tasks related to Featured Articles. This includes not only the promotion process, but compiling the stats on page views. (Last month's can be seen here.)

Initially, I wrote military articles based related to my research, on the Second World War in the South West Pacific Area, a rather poorly served topic in the literature. The project has made good progress on these articles, and after contributing a series of biographies on notable commanders like Sir Edmund Herring (my first featured article) and Douglas MacArthur. Normally I spin off a couple of GAs from each FA on subjects I come across while writing them. In the case of MacArthur, these became featured articles in their own right: President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur and Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines. The former, I regard as a fine effort, as the article had to be fitted together very cleverly, because knowledge itself affects how the reader understands the event.

Since then my main contribution to the topic has been to write the section on logistics in each article, collaborating with another project member. However, along the way I have produced some articles of which I am quite proud, on the Admiralty Islands campaign, Landing at Nadzab, and Battle of Sio. The logistics section of the Kokoda Track campaign had become WP:UNDUE, so I spun it off into its own article, Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign. I have also created articles on British logistics in the Falklands War and British logistics in the Normandy Campaign. I am quite proud of these three articles.

After 2012 I became involved in improving the articles on the Manhattan Project, starting, oddly enough, with the main article, which I took to featured. I upgraded dozens of articles on the notable. Everyone involved on the Manhattan Project who received a Nobel Prize before or subsequently, and all 100 articles in the Manhattan Project NavBox, now have at least a good article rating, and many are featured. All are all 100 articles in the NavBox.) Many others are biographies of the not so well known, have also been improved. I guess I am most proud of the article on Robert Oppenheimer. The centrepieces though are the topical articles: Project Y, Metallurgical Laboratory, Calutron, Clinton Engineer Works, K-25, X-10 Graphite Reactor and S-50 (Manhattan Project), all of which I took to featured status. (The S-50 article was rescued from deletion.) Afterwards, I wrote a series of articles on the history of the British nuclear weapons program. This includes three articles that I created that now have featured article status: British contribution to the Manhattan Project, High Explosive Research and the British hydrogen bomb programme.

My second area in the articles on the Paralympics. I was asked to join the History of the Paralympics in Australia (HOPAU) project by John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) in 2011. Nearly a thousand articles have been created and hundreds of images uploaded in collaboration with the Australian Paralympic Committee. I attended the 2012 Paralympic Games in London and the 2016 Paralympic Games in Rio as an accredited media representative, and have been involved in workshops and training courses all over Australia. (The admin toolkit would have been very useful here.) My work on the warranted Wikipedia a rare mention in Hansard. I am most proud of the article I wrote on the Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics. It is one of a kind: the only Paralympic article with FA status.

Finally, I have done some work on the American space program, reaming up with some other editors to bring the articles on Apollo 11 and its three-man crew (Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins (astronaut)) up to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary. My contribution has been more editorial than creative, mainly adding and formatting references, filling in the gaps, and shepherding them through the review processes; probably no more than a quarter of the text is mine. The result though was very pleasing to me: Neil Armstrong alone garnered over 2 million page views for the week. My latest work is on a couple of articles about the nuclear rocket propulsion program: NERVA and Project Rover, which is currently at FAC.

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:Time to discuss the elephant in the room: I was desysopped by ArbCom in the Civility Enforcement case over seven years ago. 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.

I was previously admonished for blocking an editor with whom I had been in dispute. The block was necessary (the editor’s actions caused a bot to got into a loop), and the editor in question was ultimately banned, but I should have awaited a response to my request for help from another admin (who overturned my short block and instituted another one of much longer duration).

It has been said that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, that neither of these issues on their own would normally have led to sanctions from ArbCom, and that many admins have made similar mis-steps that were never brought to arbitration, but that these actions just happened to be part of wider disputes which did end up at arbitration. I don’t want to sound as though like I feel hard done by; if many other admins have done much worse and gotten away with it, others have been severely punished.

This is not about vindication. This is not a referendum on the desysop. I have no desire to argue the case again. That has no value now; the verdict of the community was rendered and was accepted long ago. Seven years is a long time on Wikipedia. A lot of editors were not even here then. I have come a long way since. I made mistakes and I have learnt from them. One lesson was to pay attention to ArbCom and the drama boards (although I rarely comment on them), so I don’t blunder into a dangerous situation. Another was that just because something requires urgent action doesn't mean that I should do it.

It is true that I was a candidate for ArbCom in 2015, and quite a credible one; I was placed 12th out of 21 candidates, with 55.69% support, making me the highest-rated non-admin candidate ever. I just missed out on being elected. I was motivated by a belief that I could make a difference, but an important factor in my decision was that I was taking 2016 off to care for my terminally ill father and knew that I would have the necessary time to devote to the task. That is also why I have not run again.

I have been on Wikipedia for nearly 15 years and have never been blocked or banned. I have not appeared before ArbCom since the 2012 case. If this RfA is successful, you have my word that I will work quietly and diligently, and avoid drama.

I would like to conclude with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita from the Robert Oppenheimer article:

In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains,
On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows,
In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame,
The good deeds a man has done before defend him.

Disclosures

I have never edited for pay. I have two bot accounts, User:FACBot and User:MilHistBot.

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not feel any sense of entitlement. I do not feel entitled. I don't believe that I or anyone has a right to be an admin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: That is very true. Back in 2009 I was only interested in using the admin tools to further the work I was doing. But that was along time ago, and things are very different now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Reyk

4. In your opinion, what is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?

A: I would have to say Wikipedia:Verifiability. Why should anyone trust what it says in an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Because we don't ask the readers to trust us, we provide sources that they can check to verify what what we say is true. Our credibility rests entirely on this policy. I've never heard any public criticism of WP:OR, and claims that Wikipedia is biased are constant but seldom gain much traction. But getting facts wrong is what occasionally reduces Wikipedia a laughing stock on late night talk shows, lands the odd body blow, and strikes at the very foundation of the project. And I've been in the uncomfortable position of being face to face with athletes who feel wronged by errors in their articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Barkeep49

5. What feedback did you receive from the three users mentioned in Dwellers nomination statement? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A: The three editors I chose were selected precisely because they strongly opposed at my last RfA. I don't shun or avoid editors like that, and am always prepared to collaborate with even my harshest critics. The response was mixed. Ritchie333 dug up some of the old bodies, but said that there was nothing recent. I had not returned to his talk page until this morning. Is he really gone? That is a very sad turn of events indeed. I am stunned actually. His advice was sound and appriciated, which is why I am going to really miss him. And the advice was taken to heart. I always admit it when I've done something wrong. I'm always happy for anything I've written to be corrected. But it is always harder to convince people in an atmosphere of suspicion. Dennis Brown (another great Wikipedian gone, and this is only since April) had nothing to say. AirConn was rather more positive. [1][2][3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Serial Number 54129

6. Thanks for standing, Hawkeye7. Can you advise on the appropriateness of canned shit at RfA, please? ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A: Inappropriate. Gratuitously undecorious. Us Ausssies sometimes have trouble in an international setting with this sort of thing. The question is one of a series I created based on a set of questions for admins the Newyorkbrad created. Mine are more intractable, but in each case call only for a stement of the policies and procedures involved. In real life, there would be a host of other relevant external factors, but our policies and procedures provide the framework for decision making and the means for effecting them. Each has two possible avenues of approach: by first principles by going through the policies and procedures, and by corporate knowledge, through recalling earlier cases. It was not intended as to determine unsuitablity as an admin through making someone see red and go off the rails. The artwork alluded to is one of the world's most famous, and has its own Wikipedia article, which a quick search would reveal. I thought it was far more wudely recognisable that it apparently is. It also invokes a incident in which a Wikipedian commissioned an artist to paint a portrait of Jimbo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from 1989

7. On June 12, 2019, during the WMF Fram controversy, you asked then-bureaucrat WJBscribe to resysop you despite being desysopped for cause by Arbcom. When you were reverted as trolling, you reverted stating you were serious about it. Why did you take this approach?

A: I wasn't the only one. I was not intending it as a troll. I was seeking an explicit statemement to the effect that out rules were not being changed to permit this, and that this was an invocation of WP:IAR. I just wanted to state that I didn't mean it as a troll, and immediately self-reverted so it wouldn't be taken as one. The issue has not been resolved, but I have chosen to run an RfA, which I think is the strongest possible statement of my opinion on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from Fish and karate

8. Please could you provide links to each of the arbitration cases in which you were involved in as a named party? Fish+Karate 14:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A: There are three cases, all dating to 2011 and 2012: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket and [[4]]. In the third one, I was a victim, and it was particularly upsetting because somebody said something about me, it was no way my fault, and the way ArbCom went about treating me was not the way I would expect an innocent party to be treated. What was said was never disclosed to me. In the Racepacket case, ArbCom said that it had received secret information about me, but it was never put to me to confirm or deny. I sincerely hope that Fram gets better treatment, and is at least informed of the nature of allegations against him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

9. Please expand on why you believe Fram should never be given the mop back, yet you should. Fish+Karate 14:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A: That was not what I meant. It was very poorly worded. I only meant that he should not be given the mop back automatically, at least not without asking for it. And on that, the community has rendered its verdict. That should be accepted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from 28bytes

10. If given the tools back, what editors and what topics would you consider yourself WP:INVOLVED with, such that you would not use admin tools regarding those editors or topics? 28bytes (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A: Not on any article or topic area involving an editor with whom I have had a dispute or conflict, however long ago or minor it might be. When promoting a DYK prep area, it must not contain any hooks that I have either created or reviewed. WP:INVOLVED provides caveats where the involvement is purely administrative, or in straightforward cases. My experience though is that this is not generally accepted, and that editors typically make no distinction as to whether or not actions are purely administrative, or whether it straightforward like reversion of vandalism. So no actions whatsoever when an editor with whom I have had a dispute or conflict is involved. And that has to also be considered as broadly as possible. People are apt to consider that they are (or have been) in conflict with anyone they disagreed with. I have considered the possibility of creating a separate account for admin work so it would be logged as such. I don't think it would affect perceptions though; admins are always considered to be speaking as such, so you simplycannot say things like "you'll wind up getting yourself blocked. Descretion is the best policy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from CoffeeCrumbs

11. In one of the arbitration cases which resulted in a finding against you, there was a finding involving an undisclosed conflict-of-interest that resulted in serious subversion of the FA process. Yet in your last RFA, one of the few questions you did not answer was how you would navigate another undisclosed conflict-of-interest. So I'll repeat the spirit of that question: can you elaborate on how you would navigate your existing conflicts-of-interest? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A: The conflict is between WP:COI and WP:OUTING, which effectively prevents disclosure. So you have to recuse yourself in these instances. I would like to say a great deal more about why this cannot and will not happen again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

12. Do you have any additional conflicts-of-interest that you wish to disclose at this time, including but not limited to conflicts-of-interest involving users on whom you have edited on their behalf, involvement with members of the WMF Board of Trustees, or involving the WMF's process for grants? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A: No, I don't. I have no involvement with the WMF Board of Trustees. I spoke to Jimbo in Hong Kong once. I have applied for some grants in the past in relation to the work on the Paralympic articles, and got one, for Germany in 2018. I did get partial scholarships to attend Wikimania in Hog Kong in 2013 and in Esino Lautio in 2016. With respect to WP:FRAM, I don't have any involvement in it, I don't know anything about it except what has been published on this site, I don't have any inside information on it. When it first blew up I my first thought was that he must have interfered with a software rollout. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from TurboSonic

13. Can you please explain why you would feel that you should have admin tools now?

A: The main reason is the upcoming Paralympic Games in Tokyo in 2020. This will be my last content creation effort. Experience in London and Rio has shown that they are extremely useful in time critical situations. DYK queues are likely to be flooded with articles created by the project, but the admin toolkit is needed for work on page moves. Protecting pages would be useful. I was at a training course in the lead up to London and a page a student was working on was deleted; the ability to undelete would come in handy too. I'm not so much a content creator so much as a content completer. I do whatever work an article requires and others have not done or cannot do, be it referencing, formatting, templates or Lua modules. So I feel the pinch. Once an editor was facing having an article on Queen Elizabeth II archived at FAC for lack of a source review, so I went rounbd to the National Library, pulled the books used as souces by the article, and checked them. That's what I do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from ZLEA

14. I've already !voted as support, but I am curious about one thing, and I'm sure others would like to know this too. As you probably know, several admin accounts were compromised and caused a lot of trouble. How will you prevent your account from being compromised if you become an admin again?

A: I don't know if it can be prevented, but I can sure make it as difficult as possible. I change my password every few months. I use a strong password which is not one I use anywhere else. At work I use a 2FA product called Duo, which works quite well. So I would turn on 2FA for the admin account. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Nsk92

15. Could you explain your low (46.7%) main-space edit summary usage?

A: I don't undertstand. That's can't be right. I have the option switched on to always force an edit summary. The only exceptions is when pasting a template on a talk page like the DYK tremplate, because it creates a section header. 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment I ran WMF xtools for edit summary usage for Hawkeye7 and compared the results to my own. I then looked at the last 500 edits myself. The DYK taggings do not leave an edit summary. Otherwise, I saw at least 99% edit summary usage.-- Dlohcierekim 00:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if your 99% edit summary usage/500 last edits comment refers to your own edit history or Hawkeye7's. Looking at Hawkeye7's edit from two days ago, Aug 10, I see quite a few edits without edit summaries (and these are not DYK template edits but regular edits). E.g. [5] [6][7] [8][9] [10] [11][12][13][14][15]. All of these edits have a notation "Tag: PHP7". Not sure if that tag has any significance. Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what the "PHP7" tag indicates either. Maybe someone else here knows. Like Dlohcierekim, I have always considered that these were edit summaries. Nobody has brought it up before. I am certainly willing to change my approach to edit summaries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's "technical" to do with the software Beta Features/PHP7. (no I'm cross-eyed). I see it a lot. If your preferences require signature, it won't save the edit w/o signing. Sometimes mine are blank 'cause my fingers go haywire. -- Dlohcierekim 19:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's also been pointed out on my talk page that putting text between the /* and */ to create a faux section header also means that it will not count. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Cryptic

16. As of this writing, this RFA is under 50% support, and you would need to more than double your current support without any further opposition to reach even the bottom of the discretionary range. Did you honestly expect it to go any differently?

A: I was approached by two editors who said that they thought it was time, and that my sysopping was a long time ago. Others expressed a willingness to nominate. And it needed to be before the end of the year to be useful in the run up to the 2020 games. And recently another editor who was desysopped for cause ran successfully. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Jonathunder

17. In your last RfA, you wrote "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." Would you still make that committment?

A: Sure. That is in line with the work I intend to undertake if successful. I have certain principles. I don't overturn an administrative action of another editor. I do support another editor overturning mine if they think I am in error. And I don't use the toopls to escalate a situation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Billhpike

18. Over the last few years, what discussion did you find the most challenging to close?

A: This one. A military air crash sitting uneasily on the edge of WP:AIRCRASH. A lot of very reasonable and well-thought-out policy arguments on both sides covering matters like WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. And is having a locomotive named after one of the one of the victims a form of enduring notability? Clearly there was enough material to create an article, even years twelve after the event, so WP:GNG was satified, and WP:NOT was the issue. There was no consensus on this, and that was my close. A deletion review followed, and the close was upheld. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Bilorv

19. Following on from question 15, in which you say I am certainly willing to change my approach to edit summaries, and oppose/neutral !votes which are solely or partially based on your edit summary usage, would you be willing to pledge to use an edit summary (that's not just a section header) in every manual mainspace edit you make in the future?

A: Yes, I will be doing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Dweller

20. Was Arbcom wrong to desysop you?

A: No. I hoped for a different outcome at the time, but when you take any adminstrative action you should be prepared to defend it at ArbCom and accept their decision. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

21. Please explain your account name. For example, does it allude to a particular Hawkeye?

A: It refers to the comic book character of that name, a childhood hero. 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 own values. I always try to do what is right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Winged Blades of Godric

22. An oppose !vote (Pudeo) has detailed about how you did not disclose your Conflict-of-Interest with one of the primary figures in the Framgate fiasco but went on to make extraordinary comments throughout the saga including (but not limited to) stating that Fram shall be never re-sysoped and lot more, disfavoring Fram, while being in the garbs of a neutral bystander. I also note that not only do other oppose !voters derive thereof but also a support !vote (SN54129) mentions of it. So, why shall I trust you to disclose your conflict-of-interest in a proper fashion, while taking administrative decisions?

A: That is not correct. I did not make comments throughout the saga. When I saw that name mentioned (and a scary comment from Drmies) I not only ceased making comments, but unwatched all the pages related to it. It is a matter of record that we collaborated on the Paralympic project back in 2010-2012, but have not been on speaking terms since then, and I avoid all contact. I don't know anything about Framgate, I have no information on it, I have no involvement in it, and I don't want anyone to think that I do. And because I haven't been even reading about it, I don't know what the ultimate outcome was. I just assumed that it was all over from Floq's RfA, which appeared as a table on my talk page. But I do support the principle that Floq fought for, which is that the Wikipedia should be administered by the volunteers enaged in building it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7
• Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2
• Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat
• Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 3

• 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.

Support

1. As nom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
2. At the last nomination, I sat on the fence, but I have no hesitation to support this time around. I believe in second chances, and I also believe that Hawkeye7 is a net positive. Harrias ^talk 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support --AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 13:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   Why not Good god there's a lot of these lately. Well, he meets all of my criteria, so I'll say yes. Squeeps10 13:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

4. Support - per my comments at RFA 2. GiantSnowman 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support, will be a fine addition to the admin corps. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support — An invaluable editor whose commitment to the project is without question Chetsford (talk)
7. Support. Well, they did something terrible eons ago and they were desysopped for that. We should be forgiving now. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
8. Support - You betcha. I've been working with Hawkeye7 for years, and he has always been a Net Positive in my interactions. Whatever he did to be desysoped, it's time to take our collective feet off his neck and let him carry the admin load around here. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
9. Support - net positive for Hawkeye to have the tools back. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
10. Support Time to pardon them for the actions from 7 years ago. A net positive. SD0001 (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
11. Same as last time, except that it's an even longer time ago now. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
12. Support - oh yes, I remember this one. Please do come back, we need you. Deb (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
13. Support, tentatively, per my comments on RFA2. It's been three years, and a lot has happened, but this will be my default position until I have time to go through the more recent stuff. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Reaffirm my support. Everything about this nomination, even the diffs linked by the opposes, looks to me like a valuable content contributor who sees in the tools the ability to do their work more effectively. I respect the opposes as people tend to be more risk averse than I am, but I still see a net positive. Per my comments on the last RFA, Hawkeye's statements here, and his contributions since that RfA, I really do believe he won't abuse the tools. The BN post was ill-advised to say the least, but he followed what even the most conservative participants suggested: wait a year. I can't in good faith hold that against him because even though that post was strange he took the advice which to me demonstrates he's willing to listen, even when wrong. I like to think that's a consequence of the desysoping and related matters. SanFranFramBan is a total non-starter for me per NYB below. For that same reason, I'm willing to look past the IAR resysop request. While in hindsight a poor decision, Hawkeye was at least as good a candidate as Fram for an IAR resysop, and with tensions high many people made many poor decisions. I respect the opposition's perspective on these events, but I do not share them. I see a net positive and am willing to trust the candidate with the tools. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
14. Support. The candidate's desysopping in 2012 was a disproportionate sanction and overreaction, as I voted as an arbitrator at the time, albeit in a minority of one. Nothing in his behavior in the seven years since then suggests there would be a problem if the tools were now returned. As for the Fram-related opposes, the level of commotion that surrounded that situation on all sides deters me from holding comments made at that time against anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
15. Happy to give my continued support to Hawkeye7. Stellar content contributor. I hope his candidacy isn't going to be yet another battleground for the Fram drama, which I am, to be frank, bored of. Acalamari 18:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
16. Support - Haven't seen anything since RfA2 to make me think he would abuse the tools. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
17. Support, mainly per NYB. I think he would be a net positive.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
18. Tentative support. Hawkeye's conduct surrounding RFA itself, and his own unsuccessful RFA in particular, haven't inspired confidence. But his work in other areas is good enough that I am willing to believe this string of incidents, which really all stem from RFA bitterness, are a singular lapse of judgement; and that he will still be a net positive with the mop, particularly because his past experiences ought to have inoculated him against taking controversial actions. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
19. Support I see nothing that suggests that he will abuse the mop. As for his involvement in Framgate, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
20. Support This one required some soul searching. The original desysop was long ago, and we need to move on from that and the related/ensuing FRAM debacle. Per Newyorkbrad the level of commotion that surrounded that situation on all sides deters me from holding comments made at that time against anyone. Partly per Newyorkbrad, I don't think we'll see further tool abuse. The rationales above my own summarize my thinking on this. Hawkeye7 comes across to me more as embittered and disillusioned than arrogant. I can't oppose for that. Hawkeye7 needs to immediately set preferences to require edit summary usage and to affirm doing so here. Communication is essential-- especially for an admin. -- Dlohcierekim 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

    Please see my comment under the edit summary usage question.-- Dlohcierekim 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    Adding per Acalamari. I have read and taken in the opposers concerns, and continue to support.-- Dlohcierekim 01:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

21. Support There are historical concerns, and I've read through all of the opposes at this time, but I think giving them the mop back would be a net positive. I don't expect this to pass at this point, though. SportingFlyer T·C 20:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
22. The opposes hold water, but NYB and Acalamari are persuasive – consider this a vote "per" both of them. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
23. Weak Strong support for now, per NYB and Acalamari. I considered opposing but pointedly not because of anything to do with Framgate (concerns I see as frivolous, or to do with the candidate holding the wrong opinions rather than being likely to take poor admin actions), or going neutral, but after some more thinking I find myself unconvinced that Hawkeye7 would be a net negative administrator based on a silly couple of edits or a problematic attitude towards an event that happened seven years ago. I'm going to need to see a recent pattern of poor-tempered behaviour to convince me that one of the most prolific content contributors on this website cannot be trusted with +sysop. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

    Strengthening my support per WereSpielChequers and the answer to question 17. I particularly endorse WereSpielChequers's comment I think it unhealthy to oppose at RFA a qualified candidate who one disagrees with re things that divide the community. I find it very concerning that so many people are explicitly opposing because of a candidate's personal opinion on a matter which has absolutely nothing to do with how they plan to use the admin tools. I also see some quite frivolous opposes that I trust the crats will give accordingly less weight to (though it shan't matter unless the RfA's support happens to increase at a bit of a steeper incline). — Bilorv (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

24. per nom. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
25. Yeah, OK. We've got worse, so why not. I was a 50/50 depending on the answer to my question: it wasn't great, but enough. I was inclined earlier to oppose based on the candidate's undisclosed relationship to LH (which, in spite of some of the supports, has impacted on WP:FRAM, and so is absolutely relevant). I mean, pretending you have no connection to a primary figure in the case and then being outspoken on their behalf? Really? Frankly, I find Pudeo's arguments incredibly persuasive. The candidature is not only phenomenally poorly timed, but poorly worked out. If you were getting paid to sustain that peanut gallery, you couldn't have done any better. ——SerialNumber54129 22:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
26. Support. I've supported last time. Looking at the comments below, the support side praised the candidate's good work in DYK in the last few years, and the candidate's comments in the Fram fiasco appears to be the only substantial concern relating to events since his last RfA. In the context of all the hot air vented during that Fram fiasco, I don't think a significant downgrade of my assessment of this long-time contributor is justified, and I am willing to support this candidate again. Deryck C. 23:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
27. Support long term user, clearly here to help the project, not a saint but net positive. Can be trusted with the mop. Find bruce (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
28. Strong support I know Hawkeye7's outstanding content work and even temperament very well from our interactions within Milhist. He is a prolific and expert content creator, in the top ten of all those with FAs to their names, totalling 72 FAs. He has made incredible contributions to Wikipedia, especially in our coverage of the Manhattan Project, from articles on nuclear tests to scientists and nuclear facilities. There is no evidence of any issues in the recent past, and he will make good use of the tools. The Fram-related opposes are frankly ridiculous, we don't yet know what ArbCom is going to rule with regards to Fram, and all Hawkeye7 did was express an opinion. The fact you don't agree with him isn't a solid basis for an oppose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
29. weak support His content contributions are such that he has an intimate knowledge of what it's like to build content. The comments cited by opposers (whose reasoning does have validity) were ill-advised, however, do I think he'll do anything deleterious with the mop? I doubt it, and if he does he'll be watched closely by a bunch of people. Hence on balance of things, a (guarded/hopeful) net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
30. Support I supported with reasons in 2016 and I am not persuaded to change that opinion on the theory of bad timing or other reasons which I do not imply are frivolous but are adequately considered and found insufficient to oppose per Dweller (nom), Peacemaker67, Newyorkbrad, Acalamari, and Vanamonde. Donner60 (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
31. Support as nom. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
32. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
33. Support -- okay so this will probably never get up, which surprises and saddens me, but I'm going to register support and my reasons for doing so are largely covered per Peacemaker67 and Donner60. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
34. The Oppose section is certainly interesting and could be used as a crash course in Wiki history of the last few years. But I don't find it convincing. Yes Framgate is a huge saga, and one in which the candidate and I would seem to be at odds, so I probably wouldn't !vote for them for Arbcom, but I think it unhealthy to oppose at RFA a qualified candidate who one disagrees with re things that divide the community such as Framgate unless they are about discretionary use of admin tools. Yes last time the candidate was an admin they didn't use the tools very often, so I can see where people are coming from when they say "no need for the tools", personally I have always thought that an odd reason to oppose, though a valid reason not to bother putting in the time to assess a candidate for a nomination. But on this occasion the candidate has responded and made a reasonable case that they would be an active admin. There is a concern that the candidate is over eager to regain the mop, I'm minded to think of some cases where people were over eager and came back to RFA more often than this candidate and over a shorter time period, but here, it has been 7 years and how many attempts? I only wish some more of our unsuccessful RFA candidates would try again here. RFA's three most common concerns are has this person contributed content? Can they be trusted with the deletion button? and can they be trusted with the block button? In this case it is the third of those that causes concern. I think I have enough reassurance from the candidate's responses so far re the incidents of 7 years ago, but will watch for the answer to Q17. ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
35. Support. I've been torn here. I think the timing with respect to the Fram case is unfortunate, as it was pretty much guaranteed to generate opposes in response to one or two injudicious comments from Hawkeye7. But we went through a heated few weeks, a lot of us expressed ourselves strongly, and I put little weight on Fram-related actions here. Next, I think the original desysop by ArbCom was harsh, and I can't help wondering if the case could have been resolved with a lesser sanction. Finally, what's swayed me is Hawkeye7's reason for wanting the admin tools back - to aid in building content. Overall, we have someone who is dedicated to creating content, but who is imperfect like the rest of us, and I don't think think the reasons for the desysop will recur. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
36. (moved from neutral) Per Newyorkbrad, SN54129 and Boing. —Kusma (t·c) 09:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
37. Support As per nom. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
38. Support Hawkeye lost the admin tools essentially as a consequence of Wikipedia's problems at the time with dealing with high achieving and systematically disruptive editors, which were even worse than they are now. I'm familiar with their editing since then, including their huge contributions to "back office"-type tasks, and am confident that they'd use the tools sensibly. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
39. Support As per Peacemaker, Boing! and the interesting comments made by WereSpielChequers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
40. Support. My only real criterion for adminship is whether I think the candidate can be trusted with the tools. Normally that evaluation is based on their performance and conduct in non-admin activities, but this is one of those rare opportunities to evaluate a candidate who was formerly an admin. It seems that seven years ago admin Hawkeye7 did some things that led to losing their rights, though seemingly in good faith and with the project's best interests in mind. Now I think most people who have had the [!]pleasure of interacting with me know I'm more "BUT TEH RULEZ!" than most but seven years is long enough, I think. Defrocked-admin Hawkeye7 nonetheless continued working in service to the project very diligently throughout their long exile from adminship, where many editors punished in this manner simply leave. If they were here to break things it would have become evident by now. As for the opposition because of timing related to Framgate, that's just stupid. Editors who oppose "because timing" are the same ones always here finding a reason to oppose because of the timing related to something. "Because timing" is the new "hasn't created 100 featured articles from scratch". It's just not convincing at all. So, do I trust former admin Hawkeye7 to use the toolset responsibly and in good faith, seven years later? There is nothing here to convince me that I should not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    I won't seek to change your mind as to whether timing opposes are unconvincing and stupid, but are you sure it's fair to say that us timing opposers are the same ones always here finding a reason to oppose because of the timing related to something? I cited the timing in my oppose, but I also opposed with regret. Support is normally my default position. Lepricavark (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    It's a trend I've noticed recently, which was only amplified by Framgate. I could compile statistics but the RfA vote analyzer tool is down and I don't have anywhere near the time to compile such metrics manually just to back up a trivial observation. I mean to criticize, not to offend. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

41. Support – per NYB, WSC, Boing! and Ivan. – Levivich 16:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
42. Support. I supported the last time and will do so again. I'm aware of Hawkeye's conduct issues that, in the past, have caused him to lost his admin rights. I did look over the opposes, which are pretty interesting. I agree however with WSC, NYB, and other users who've made an argument above that Hawkeye received disproportionate sanctions in the conflicts he was involved in, and anyhow he seems to have learned since his previous RFA. epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
43. Support per WSC, NYB, et al. I fear that this might just be a moral support at this point, but I get the sense that Hawkeye has long since learned from the error of his ways, and would be a net positive if he were to regain the tools again. I'm a firm believer in giving someone a second chance whenever possible (after all, we're all human), and I don't see a reason why this RfA should be any different. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
44. Support I think Hawkeye is a good candidate - in fact I suggested an RFA recently on his talk page. Moral support at this point looks like :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
45. Support - I have no reservations at all about entrusting the toolset to the candidate. I'm positive he would use them responsibly. --Laser brain (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
46. Support based on the answer to question #17. Jonathunder (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
47. Support A fine content contributor whose work on Manhattan Project articles has been superb. I am not acquainted with much of the negative stuff that is discussed by the opposes below, but I have seen him deal with difficult editors with patience (perhaps too much!). So I don't get all that stuff. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
48. Support - valuable content creator with a number of FAs under his belt. As to earlier problems, I refer you to NYB's support comments. GregJackP Boomer! 23:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
49. Support - content creator who wants to use the tools to create content. Ivanvector sums up earlier problems well. --Spacepine (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
50. --JBL (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
51. Support Arguments regarding his comments on the Framgate issue are unconvincing, and I highly doubt this editor will abuse his tools or misuse his position. Concur with NYBrad that the original desysop was an error.--MONGO (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
52. Support I have never voted in an RfA but this candidate certainly deserves my vote. I don't know what happened in the past but my experience with this editor is that he certainly has the temperament and knowledge to handle the position. Hawkeye7 has demonstrated to me immense humility, jurisprudence, and AGF. Oh, the patience he demonstrates everyday! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
53. Support Gamaliel (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
54. Support. Candidate has demonstrated long-term competency and ability to work with his fellows. Vastly familiar with pillars, policies and guidelines. My experience working with and watching this editor interact with others leads me to believe he can be trusted by the larger community. He was, I believe, incorrectly desysopped many years ago and has learned much since then. If given the tools it is unlikely he would abuse them and might become as trusted an administrator as virtually everyone here agrees as a content creator. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
55. Support Can't see how Hawkeye can reasonably be expected to demonstrate his adminship will be better without being an admin, a Catch-22 if there ever was one. Hawkeye is a great editor and valuable content creator. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
56. Support I find Hawkeye's actions with regard to the Framgate fiasco to be a mark in their favour rather than against. Furthermore, their statement that their loss of the bit was largely "wrong place wrong time" and the way they approached their detractors for feedback prior to this nomination speak very favourably. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
57. Support I don't find the oppose rationales convincing, and am not concerned by wheel-warring from 2012. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
58. Support Hawkeye was a good admin; I was an admin contemporary with him. He was judges as committing a significant error some seven years ago, and neither he nor I wish to argue that. It is now time that he has his mop and bucket returned to hi; he is needed. I do not see activity in relation to the FRAM problem as relevant. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
59. Support per NYB and Boing! said Zebedee. I supported the candidate's last RfA (which went to a crat chat), and still see them as a net positive. Miniapolis 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
60. Support I have had positive personal interactions with the candidate, and has my trust. I supported the previous RFA stating that the positives outweighed the negatives, and that Hawkeye would provide a net benefit to the project with the tools. I want to add that a lot of work as an admin isn't logged, and I am not concerned about any relative lack of the tools during previous role as an admin. Overall, Hawkeye is a strong content contributor and I believe that the tools would enhance the contributions that the candidate can contribute to the project. Best, Spencer^T•C 02:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
61. Support, basically per NYB. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
62. Support, as I did in the last RFA. The desysoping was ages ago, and his contributions since then have been exemplary. As for the Fram thing, a lot of people lost their cool with that one. Hawkeye gets a pass, as should a great many other editors. schetm (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
63. Support Per NYB and OR, a sad commentary on the skills that should be valued and trusted to define the project if this does not pass. AlasdairEdits (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
64. Support Arbcom cases are old news. Seems like they would be a net positive to the project as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 21:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose An excellent content editor but unsuitable to be trusted with advanced tools. Even in the midst of saying that they're past the drama, they again try to whitewash the two Arb cases in which they received findings, just as they did in the previous RfA and the ArbCom election. I also have a hard time believing they're past drama when they jumped in, during l'affaire Fram, to defend the person with whom they were found by secret evidence to have an undisclosed conflict-of-interest, by declaring Fram guilty and saying they should "never" get the tools back. Why should they get disparate treatment from what they advocate? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose for now. I'm a big believer in redemption, second chances, and moving past old disputes, but it appears the candidate isn't. To say that an admin desysopped for cause should "never" get their tools back, and then come here to ask for their tools back after having been desysopped for cause? That shows some stunning lack of self-awareness. A net positive editor, absolutely. A net positive admin? Not from what I've seen. 28bytes (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   In all fairness to Hawkeye, I think it's reasonable to read that diff as "Fram should never get the tools back without going through RfA". That might still qualify as holding a grudge but it isn't a "stunning lack of self-awareness" imo. Pichpich (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, that's another reasonable interpretation. An answer to Fish and karate' question (#9) should clarify it for us. 28bytes (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   I can't read that answer that way at all. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

   Since there seems to be some confusion, this is not a "Fram" oppose, and specifically it is not about the candidate's "opinion" of Fram. The candidate can have whatever opinion he likes about Fram. It's the "other desysopped people can go pound sand" attitude combined with the sense that he himself is somehow "entitled" to a backdoor resysopping through an unprecedented "review" and/or various other dubious means that is keeping me in this column. 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose There are four separate ArbCom findings of fact: Hawkeye7 wheel warred, Hawkeye7's personal attack, Hawkeye7 (involved blocks), and a prior one which was referenced in the newer case: Hawkeye7 has a Conflict of Interest with regards to LauraHale. Now, the last one is interesting because LauraHale was central to WP:FRAMBAN. As mentioned above, Hawkeye7 argued that Fram should never be allowed to become an admin again and supported further intervention by the WMF. It is reasonable to suspect that Hawkeye7 acted in this way because of their past relationship with LauraHale. It would have been wise to avoid advocating for a friend like this when there's an ArbCom finding on the COI. A pretty horrible timing for the RfA. --Pudeo (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (after EC) – same reason as last time, plus this diff, which shows extreme arrogance and desperation that is incompatible with being an admin. Also, this bureaucrats' noticeboard thread speaks for itself. Graham87 15:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Though my limited interactions with Hawkeye7 as a content editor have been positive, I cannot get past the idea that he first decides how a discussion or dispute should be resolved, and then invents a rationale, if necessary when he can't present a valid rationale, to justify his desired outcome. As recently as June he argued in the WJBscribe request for arbitration that "While it is true that in the distant past some administrators were de-sysopped for WHEEL-warring, in recent times (the most recent case being Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder), ArbCom have taken a far more relaxed and understanding view, and have regarded WHEEL-warring as worth no more than a caution at most." Bauder was DESYSOPPED, and Hawkeye7's blatant misrepresentation of this well-known fact makes this RfA a nonstarter for me. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   To be fair, I think he referred to ArbCom's handling of Boing! said Zebedee in this case who was "only" cautioned. Bauder was desysopped, yes, but for more than just wheel-warring. Regards SoWhy 15:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   There was no finding-of-fact that Boing! wheel-warred. Boing! was only cautioned for blocking Fred Bauder while actively involved in an edit war with him. wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   And if you read the Workshop, there was a feeling expressed by multiple arbitrationrs that the sanction was *less* than it would otherwise be based on the argument that Hawkeye7 fessed up to what he did. Their conduct since the case was closed has been inconsistent with admitting fault. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose, moved from Support due to concerns raised by other editors. Squeeps10 15:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose This is a somewhat close call, especially in light of his having the FACBot and being overall a great contributor, but his inability/refusal to express remorse in his answer to question 3 is what pushes me off the "Neutral" column. Looking through the ArbCom case (which is located here) myself, I feel that at least some admission of fault is in order. The evidence provided by the other opponents also convinces me that it would be a mistake to give him the bit again, at least for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose 28eytes and Pudeo nailed why I can't vote for him. He still doesn't have the right temperament for admin. spryde | talk 15:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose - things like trying the IAR resysop (it could have just been a good way of making a point if he hadn't stated he was serious). The original ARBCOM stuff is way too far in the past to care, but some of the other opposes just make me too concerned to be support. Some phenomenal question answers might change my mind, but I'm below a pending neutral at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   Reinserting my oppose after an accidental deletion by @John M Wolfson: Nosebagbear (talk)

   @Nosebagbear:, my apologies for that, I had encountered several edit conflicts when posting my oppose and apparently deleted yours by mistake. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   Changing to weak oppose because the later answers have been better and more helpful than the earlier ones/my reasons for opposing. Thus far I haven't yet been inclined to move to neutral, though it's possible Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

10. Oppose Clearly can't be trusted as an admin given past behavior, desysop for cause, and statements during the Fram fiasco. This is mainly an oppose per the above statements. Noah^Talk 16:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose per all of the above oppose votes, of which most are well-argued in my opinion.—NØ 17:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose -- Hawkeye7 is an amazing content creator, probably doing more so far this summer than I have during my entire Wiki career. That being said, I would say that a very large percentage of an editor's duties as an admin does not directly involve content creation. That is an area that I believe Hawkeye is lacking for reasons that others above me have articulated better than I can. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
13. Oppose – several reasons, but most of them revolving around Fram(gate). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

    Oppose – edit summary usage is too low for me. Just 46.7% of edits have summaries, and, as far as I can tell, this user hasn't had a month with >80% summary usage since March 2011. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Upon further thought, I'm not comfortable with opposing solely based on edit summaries, so moving to neutral. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

14. Oppose with some regret, per the evidence provided by Pudeo, which indicates that the timing is not right for a resysop. Lepricavark (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Serious concerns about temperament and judgment of this defrocked former Administrator. The chutzpah of running so soon after uttering the hardline warriorism pointed out above by 28bytes is breathtaking, with a lack of self-awareness clearly evident. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
16. Oppose With the questions not being answered and the arrogance, he just can't be trusted with the tools of an admin. TurboSonic (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

    @TurboSonic: I sincerely don't mean to "badger" an opposer, but as a point of information to explain questions not having been answered yet, Hawkeye7's userpage discloses that he lives in Australia, where it is currently 4:45 a.m. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

    @Newyorkbrad: Oh, I didn't see that he lives in Australia, I guess that would make sense on why he hasn't responded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurboSonic (talk • contribs)

17. Oppose - in the 2 years and 4 months that Hawkeye7 was an admin, they performed 34 blocks, 11 deletions, and 15 protections [16]. That's about one action every two weeks. There were some page moves that couldn't be performed by an admin, but overall Hawkeye7 wasn't someone that was in the slightest interested in reducing backlogs while they were an admin, which makes it surprising that they suggest they could reduce the backlogs at PROD, RFPP and so on now. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I think there is too much danger of things going bad that I see the benefit-risk ratio as being net negative. But I am going to continue to watch the discussion here, and I am very much open to having my mind changed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
19. Oppose Edit summary usage, removal of the tools previously for cause, didn't appear to be an active administrator in their previous time with the mop, and overall temperament pointed out by others before me leads me to oppose this one. As always, however, I thank the candidate for being willing to put themselves out there for the community's consideration. Strikerforce^Talk 18:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
20. Oppose Strikerforce sums it up nicely: The removal for cause is more serious than the candidate seems to understand, and the reliance on past experience as an admin is not at all strong given how little Hawkeye7 used the tools. 28bytes, Pudeo, Carrite, and Black Kite are also of the same mind as me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
21. Oppose Not the best fit. CLCStudent (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
22. This is a "not ever", sorry. I don't mean that to be pejorative. It is just a blunt way of saying that there are some editors who, for one reason or another, just aren't suitable to be administrators no matter how capable they are at other tasks on or off Wikipedia including many tasks that administrators perform. It took me a number of years including a few as a an admin to see that, finally, in myself. I see it in this candidate too, principally the compulsive urge to involve himself in disputes for the wrong reasons. It was that urge that lay behind each of the earlier Arbcom findings, and, on the evidence available in some of the opposes above, it has not disappeared over time. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
23. Oppose per 28bytes, Pudeo, and Graham87. Additionally, your views on the WMF are worrisome and something I find incompatible with being an administrator who serves the community. Nihlus 20:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
24. Oppose reaffirmed by the subject matter relating to question 7. I find it quite extraordinary the candidate thought it appropriate to try and circumvent due process, and the followup revert suggests a general lack of respect for consensus rather than an act of facetious ignorance. I feel anyone who had previously been trusted and lost that trust can not reasonably expect to regain that by making direct requests that undermine the whole nature of trust and failing to ascertain whether it exists among the community. The candidate demonstrates a commitment to content creation and article development and I do not see how being an ordinary user (so to speak) is a hindrance to that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
25. Oppose too desperate for the tools. For people fit to be sysop, it shouldn't be a big deal but it seems to be for the candidate. Also, I am not confident that they would not bring about drama again in the future, per diffs supplied by other opposers. Sorry, I hope you stay as a content creator. wikitigresito (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Graham, Black Kite, Wikitigresito, Nihlus. Too many reasons why not. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
27. Oppose Per that stupid attempt at an end-run around RFA last year, and all the other baggage. As I said three years ago :" As a big believer in second chances, I did not want to end up here, but here is where I am. And here's why: nobody (well almost nobody) exopects admins to be perfect. We all make mistakes, misjudge a situation, etc. It's what we do after the mistake that counts. An admin has to be able to own their mistakes, it's the only way we learn from them and improve for the future. Unfortunately, what I see here is a candidate who seems to be trying to dodge their own mistakes and "unsay" things, and I'm not talking about the ones from years and years ago either. Beeblebrox (talk) 9:03 am, 27 January 2016, Wednesday (3 years, 6 months, 16 days ago) (UTC−9)" I don't see any growth between then and now. (this isn't part of my oppose per se but I could swear I saw someone on Wikipediocracy correctly predict that this would show up within 2-3 months of Fram's ouster. I do feel there is a connection between Framgate and Hawkeye suddenly deciding the time was ripe to re-apply, instead of trying to backdoor it like he did last year.) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

    ...wait, what backdooring happened last year? —Cryptic 22:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

    Beeblebrox is referring to this BN thread in which Hawkeye7 requested a reconsideration of the second RfA: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 37#Review request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

    Correct. It was mentioned above, but I probably should've provided a link here as well. To me this was like a newbie editor who keeps asking for permissions they don't need or aren't qualified for, it just seemed so utterly clueless for a former admin to even ask sucha question, like they really, really want to be an admin, and just don't get why they aren't one. Since I'm here I'll also throw in this [17] which was just last month. When that comment was removed, he responded with I am as entitled to have my admin status restored as anyone else. And I think that about sums it up, he feels entitled, because he was an admin years ago who did very little admin work during their tenure, to just have it handed back to him now. No thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

28. Oppose I find the answer to my question (Q7) unsatisfactory. This edit summary is yet to be explained. 1989 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
29. Oppose per above. Candidate clearly does not understand why they were desysoped and still engages in childish behavior. -FASTILY 23:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
30. Oppose. I love the content focus, but Q3 hits the wrong note. I commend the supports, but many of the above opposes (e.g., Strikerforce list) raise doubts about present temperament and attention to process. Glrx (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
31. Oppose, having read all of above and links, to me seems to be: didn't use tools much when had them, coi issues and downplayed conflicts/problems, hard done by when lost them, entitled to regain them, again won't use much (only for 2020 Paraolympics but instead just line up a number of interested admins to assist?) if gets them. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
32. I am as entitled to have my admin status restored as anyone else. Excuse me, what? No one is entitled to having the admin bit. I am also well aware of the candidate's history of trolling RFAs, including my own (I know the "Jimbo Wales' canned shit" nonsense was four years ago, but I should still mention it). Temperament is simply unbecoming of an admin. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
33. Oppose Having been through the experience of a brutal RfA I am often reluctant to oppose, especially when my vote is essentially a pile on to an obviously doomed run. Hawkeye7 is a solid content editor and in that capacity clearly a net positive for the community. But having reviewed the opposing comments above, I am compelled to admit they are persuasive. There are so many troubling aspects to their record as an admin and since where adminship is the topic, that it is all but inconceivable that they would ever again pass an RfA. With regret I think Hawkeye7 should do the right thing here and withdraw, and not seek adminship again. It's time to lower the curtain of decency on this unfortunate business. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
34. Oppose. Right, I've now had a chance to review a lot of the material linked by Hawkeye7 and others, and regretfully, I have moved to "Oppose". I started with Hawkeye7's own page, and I have to say WOW!! Hawkeye7 is clearly a most excellent author and developer of articles. It's a tremendously impressive body of work. He is an asset to the community. Unfortunately, the skills for writing and developing content are not necessarily the same as the skills for being an Administrator. Having read his answers to questions (including answers posted since my first "Neutral" comment), I'm afraid I have two serious concerns. First, I value redemption and forgiveness. Those are essential in a community. What someone did seven years ago shouldn't necessarily be held against them forever - provided they show acceptance and growth from their missteps. I regret that I don't see that in Hawkeye7's answers to the questions about his sanctioning by the Arbitration Committee that led to him losing the tools. He literally paints himself as a victim: victim of a malicious complaint, victim of bad Arbitration Committee process, victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, victim of being made an example, when other admins got away with worse conduct. There is nothing there that suggests he recognises that he was in the wrong, that he breached community standards for admins, and that he was being called to account. Without that, saying "well, it was a long time ago" isn't enough to engender trust. My second concern is the answer to the Conflict of Interest question. Or, rather, the non-answer. Yes, he has to respect the non-disclosure rules about past events. Fair enough. But that doesn't give him a pass from explaining how he would ensure he will comply with the Conflict of interest rules going forward. Those rules bind him and the community is entitled to know how he would comply with those rules. Hawkeye7 can't duck answering that question, since avoiding conflicts of interest is a condition of the trust the community gives to admins. (And, just to be clear, none of these comments relate to L'Affaire Fram and whatever role Hawkeye may have played in it, if any. As a wise man once said, "All I know is what I read in the papers." I have only the slightest knowledge of the Fram issue. My opposition is based on the answers he has given, in light of the past Arbitration Committee rulings.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
35. Oppose per his response to question eight—i.e. his lack of acceptance of his first arbitration case. He is an excellent editor, definitely, but he does not have good conduct—which means I can't trust him to use admin tools appropriately. Abequinn14 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
36. Oppose due to the issues regarding temperament/judgement mentioned above. Also the eagerness to (re)gain the admin rights appears to be disproportionate to the need for the rights. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
37. Oppose. Hawkeye consistently exhibits problems with temperament, and even with making sound decisions (at least about affairs outside the mainspace). I have thought this for years; others obviously have too. Great contributor, but I can't talk myself out of being sure this would be a bad appointment. AGK ■ 05:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
38. Oppose per K6ka. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 08:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
39. Oppose - I wish that I could join many editors I hold great respect for (for instance NYBrad, TonyBallioni) on the support side, but I just can't do it. I don;t believe H7 has the right temperament to be an admin, and is at his best helping Wikipedia as a content-creating non-admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
40. Oppose, largely per 28bytes and Pudeo. No such user (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
41. Oppose, partly based on the weak answer to my second question, partly based on temperament, partly based on COI concerns. Any one of the three I could look beyond as Hawkeye's heart is clearly in the right place, but not all three. Fish+Karate 10:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
42. Oppose largely per Beeblebrox. When someone has been desysopped for cause and then failed at an RfA, I expect to see some explanation of what has changed that should make this RfA successful. I'm not seeing that. GoldenRing (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
43. Oppose: Agreed. Hawkeye was desysopped with cause and has done nothing to earn back my trust. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
44. Oppose An admin should understand that the purpose of the edit summary is to help others understand the intention of your edit. You know if you're not typing something in the field to explain your edit. So Hawkeye's poor record for ES is concerning, but what pushed me into the oppose ranks was, when Nsk92 tried to explain to Hawkeye how section editing adds the section header to the ES field but isn't a communicative ES on its own, Hawkeye blamed the software: The sections have been added by my edits. The editor preferences setting regards them as edit summaries. If we want to regard them as otherwise, then the editor preferences will need to be changed first.. Insisting that the "letter" of ES is met while ignoring the "spirit" of ES and refusing to acknowledge it as something they could improve reflects poorly on both temperament and judgement to me (plus their answers above, and many of the reasons in oppose comments by other editors). Schazjmd (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    I want to clarify that I'm not opposing because of a low rate of edit summaries. I've watched admins deal with complaints and issues. The best (IMO) listen and when given new information, they take it into account and adjust, even change their minds sometimes. Others, when something they've said or done is challenged, double-down and dig their heels in, even refusing to consider that they could be wrong. To me, that's how the conversation on Hawkeye's page came across: when challenged, he wasn't open to reevaluating or learning. That's why I said it pushed me into "oppose". Schazjmd (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

45. Firm Oppose - content editing is the primary means by which contributors ensure the encyclopedia grows, but as far as a requisite for adminship it chiefly indicates a knowledge of applicable policy and some indication of temperament and the ability to communicate with others. Adminship requires other talents also, outside of the technical abilities the mop confers. While it appears that the candidate has, with perhaps the exception of edit commentary, all the requisites for content editing, I do not feel that they have the necessary skill set for the sysop tools. The postion of admin is not a reward for good content contributions, it is a matter of a No Big Deal in keeping the content editors free from the inequities and pressures that the internet often inflicts. I do not believe that this candidate would fulfill that function. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    @LessHeard vanU: with regards to I do not feel that they have the necessary skill set for the sysop tools, I'd be interested to hear specifically which skills you believe the candidate is lacking. For instance, they have an inordinate amount of AfD experience (including closures), have more familiarity with editing content and main page processes than almost anyone (so editing through full protection would benefit them) have used the tools as a former admin etc. With regards to WP:AAAD's advice Criticisms should be constructive and polite. They should give the candidate an idea of what they should change in order that you could trust them, what does the candidate need to do to gain your support in the future? — Bilorv (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

    @Bilorv: My concerns are that the candidate does not understand how the role of admin, although Not A Big Deal in the manner of responsibilities, effects how they are perceived and how they should conduct themselves. I believe that they have a sense of WP:OWNERSHIP with regard to the mop, that it confers a degree of status to that of an excellent content editor and is a reward for participation in the project. BlackKites noting of admin actions during the previous tenure indicates that the candidate was not then inclined to much use the tools they had been granted. When they did use the tools in one instance, it was found to be so egregious that they had them taken away. This does not strike me as someone who was committed enough that they knew how to use them. I thus wonder that in their references to having been relieved of the position as being more or less unfortunate consequences, if they had changed their opinion of what being an administrator entailed. I sense no commitment to extend their ratio of sysop actions to content production (which in many ways is good for the encyclopedia as a whole) other than vague suggestions of helping out at venues they neglected previously. I consider that they simply want the mop back as a badge. Lastly, my view of low percentages of edit summaries is a deal breaker. The primary job of admins is to COMMUNICATE the aims and policies of the project - even this is done with a block, or the protection of a page, the reasons WHY must be made clear; not only with templates and text, but with something that will show up the edit history to enable the reader to quickly grasp what had occurred. Should the candidate make those changes to their editing profile once this RfA finishes, then I could consider supporting if another one is made (I am assuming this one will not). LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

46. Oppose - The record here is one of a desysopped admin, who hid things that they should've been candid about, and generally displays a temperament and behavior not befitting someone who is asking for the restoration of the community's trust. Their most recent behavior and language during the FRAMBAN just reinforces, rather than rehabilitates, that reputation. Grandpallama (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
47. Oppose per lots of editors above me. I'm particularly troubled by comments made during the Fram saga and the rather lacklustre answers to some questions in this RfA. You're an excellent editor Hawkeye7, but I can't support your RfA. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 19:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
48. Oppose For many of the other reasons expressed here. It looks like there were numerous findings of problematic admin behavior in the past. I mentioned several because it is quite easy for one finding to be unfair/unwarranted. And IMO the essential first step for change and to confirm change is to acknowledge and address any areas of culpability. I didn't see that in the above. The only specific answer on the "do different" question was "watch the drama boards" in essence saying the state of affairs at the drama boards was a cause. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
49. Oppose With all due respect to Hawkeye as a content creator, I have to oppose per Black Kite among others.--Catlemur (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
50. Oppose I passionately disagree with all of the oppose !votes based on candidate's position on "FRAMGATE". I continue to believe Framgate is the same toxicity circling the wagons. However, Black Kite's rationale is solid.--v/r - TP 03:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
51. Oppose An admin needs to have humility and a basic sense of accountability. If you blew it previously and ended up having the mop removed, seven years is plenty of time served. However, (in diffs and this nom) you’re still litigating the past while saying you’re over it. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
52. Oppose Based on past behaviour, seems to be temperamentally unsuitable for being an admin. Nigej (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
53. Oppose, with regret. The candidate is a stellar long-term content contributor. I am also pleased to see a PhD holding academic utilising their expertise to create and improve Wikipedia articles. We should have more of that. But there are too many issues here, particularly raised by 28bytes, Pudeo, Graham87 and Beeblebrox. The acklnowledgement of past Arbcom related issues in the answer to Q3 looks rather grudging and reluctant. All the relevant Arbcom cases should have been listed there to start with, without waiting for Q8 to be asked. The 2014 diff provided by 28bytes, where the candidate says I was asking for permission to not have to use RfA, which is broken, and I felt that ArbCom's handling of the case, which has gone on for another three years, was a compelling reason. But you are saying that any alternative to RfA is precluded? Are you saying that RfA is the only indicator of the trust of the community and that desysopped admins should leave? looks troubling. The 2018 BN thread, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 37#Review request, where the candidate tries to reopen the bureacrat chat with the closure of his 2016 RfA two years after the fact, is worse. The Framgate episode, where the candidate asks for a bureacrat restoration of his admin rights per IAR, is worse still. At a minimum, it was needlessly and agressively POINTy, given that the candidate was desysopped for cause. That issue is separate from whatever the candidate's opinion of Fram is, the possible COI angle, and the decision to dive in the Framgate case head first. After something like that I find it difficult to take the answer to Q17 about avoiding drama seriously. The timing of this RfA does look spectacularly bad. Then there is the edit summaries thing (although this is certainly a smaller issue than the other ones). At first I thought that there was some technical glitch at fault which was causing some of the candidate's edit summaries not to be properly recorded by the Xtools counter. But after the discussion with the candidate at User talk:Hawkeye7#RfA and edit summaries it became clear that this was not the case. The reason for his low edit summary count appears to be that many of his edits (such as those I linked in Q15 above), don't include any edit summary apart from the name of the section in which the edit occurs (the name of the section, e.g. /* External links */ is pre-populated automatically by the system in the edit summary window when a section edit is made). That prevents the annoying edit summary warning from appearing when an edit is being saved, but this type of edit certainly does not constitute a valid edit summary (or, in my opinion, even an edit summary in the technical sense, as defined in Help:Edit summary and Help:Edit summary#Section editing). The purpose of an edit summary is to briefly explain the substance of the edit. Simply letting the system record the name of the section in which an edit is being made provides no such information, zero, ziltch, nada. The candidate's response here [18] regarding this issue shows that he really does not get this point. Very strange, especially coming from a long-term experienced content contributor. Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
54. I was seriously going to try and set aside my own issues with Hawkeye (issues related to content), and try to set aside issues related to what I consider behavior (a certain arrogance--but I'm arrogant too, so hey), and I agree with NYB that the Fram stew was served way too hot. In other words, I had set aside my own prejudice and all that I knew, to keep an open mind. But then I saw what Graham87 said and linked to, and then Black Kite, and then Beeblebrox whose "end-run" was a good choice of words, and now I cannot support anymore. I wasn't aware that the almost-annual Hawkeye RfA got a follow-up last year (a request to re-open the crat chat? wow), or that they teased a bureaucrat citing IAR--if an editor wants it that bad, they should start wanting other things. Oppose. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
55. Oppose per Pudeo and Fish+Karate. Also at least some of the candidate's reasoning for having the tools - e.g. to facilitate DYK being "flooded" with Tokyo paralympic content - makes me feel uneasy. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
56. Oppose unfortunately, the candidate's temperament seems unfavorable to being granted the sysop bit. While I applaud their content creation skills, their border line trolling at some of the RFAs mentioned above by K6ka and others, along with the sense of entitlement that is apparent in I am as entitled to have my admin status restored as anyone else, leads me to believe they should not be an administrator on this project. Further no one is entitled to the administrator tool set, you need the consent of the community to hold this right and to think otherwise is somewhat disconcerting. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
57. Oppose, 14 years on, former admin, doesn't know what a edit summary is...? - Nabla (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
58. Strong Oppose Largely per what NSK says. All the attempts to get his admin tools returned are deeply troubling....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
59. Oppose per others, 28bytes and Beeblebrox especially. I'm not really familiar with his work or history, and as to the former I'll take it on the word of the many supporters that he's an excellent content creator, but the candidate's attitude toward the RfA process as evinced by a) trying to get the outcome of a previous unsuccessful RfA reversed on the bureaucrats' talk page and then b) reapplying for an adminship he lost mere weeks after saying Fram, similarly desysopped, should not ever get the tools back, as well as some of the other diffs above, shows me that he's not taking that process seriously. If we give him the tools back in this RfA, that outcome would say the same thing about us. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
60. Strong Oppose Given the distinct lack of self reflection in the nom acceptance and verbose self aggrandising replies to the standard questions; oppose for lack of clue and total absence of situational awareness. I remember holding my head in my hands during the LH DYKs and, ye gods, FACs; which the candidate not only seriously misjudged, but aggressively perused. Bbbhhff to Dweller for pushing this; more bad judgment and I don't think bureaucrats are shining in the last few weeks. Ceoil (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
61. Oppose per Beeblebrox. --MrClog (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
62. Oppose. I've been watching this since it started, but unfortunately, I have too many concerns with temperament and self-awareness. I am all for giving someone a second chance, but Hawkeye has too often squandered the opportunity to show he has improved and learned his lesson, as noted on multiple different occasions in various opposes above. If there was one incident I would be more forgiving, but this is a chronic issue and I don't find the supports suggesting we let this go and give him another chance to be convincing. That said I thank Hawkeye for their extensive content work. I think it would be best for him to continue focusing on content. It is not as hard to get an admin to get something done as he thinks. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
63. Oppose I really do not like opposing RfA's, and I've only skimmed the support and opposes above, but I have read your answers to questions put to you. I wasn't overly impressed on a few, but the answers to numbers 3 & 7 gave me pause. Instead of a solemn statement along the lines of taking complete personal responsibility, I read statements of deflection i.e. the "others" who were involved or did it too. There was not, to me, a legitimate acknowledgement of the issues, why it was inappropriate for you to do and further not enough about any lessons learned nor anything convincing that you wouldn't do something similar. The answer to question 6 is much more legitimate in my view, but I cannot excuse behaviour because of "nationality". I lived and worked in the UK for several years and the people who excused themselves citing being "British" was never cute and it lead to the creation of some of the most hostile and depressing work places I’ve ever seen. N.J.A. | talk 14:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
64. Oppose I really do not like opposing RfA's too, and I've skimmed the support and opposes above, but I have also read your answers to questions put to you. Because I am not convinced.--Arorae (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
65. Oppose per this. Deeply troubling whether candidate is being honest or not. Husounde (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
66. Oppose regretfully. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
67. Weak Oppose - Unfortunately, I am still concerned with the history of conflict and potential for future conflict. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
68. Oppose He's a great asset to WP but with a temperament that makes him unsuitable to have the tools. Schwede66 21:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
69. Oppose I've seen no evidence that Hawkeye7 understands that comments such as as [19] are inappropriate for an administrator. If I'm to be held to account for ancient crimes, then so should he. Eric Corbett 22:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Any metric of "content created" that people will allot to an RfA has certainly been reached, so this will come down to the opinion of judgement and temperament. Someone's desysop was part of a "chain of knee-jerk admin actions" and they were "judged to have been wheel-warring" (my emphasis). I'm not seeing much in the way of an acknowledgement of past wrongs by being big enough to put a hand in the air and admit being in the wrong on that occasion. Not being able to drop the stick and move on after seven years doesn't fill me with confidence, but we'll see after some research. – SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Probably permanently sitting here ... while notating that the diff in 28bytes' "oppose" is related to WP:FRAM. Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   Also, for what it's worth, I also read Pudeo's "oppose", and after reading that would have moved myself to the "Oppose" section ... if the Arbcom case was more recent. (The case happened in 2012.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

3. Some questions have been asked in which I am curious about the answers, so waiting here.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   Moved to Oppose I am very interested in the answers to some of the questions posed above. I have to say I'm leaning to opposed, based on two of the statements by Hawkeye7 3, namely his recent comment that he's "entitled" to be re-admitted as an admin, and his comment a year ago that it's hard to edit without having admin tools. Both of those sound to me like a sense of entitlement; the great majority of editors edit just fine without having admin tools. They're not for the benefit of the administrator, but for the WP project itself, to help others. That comment sounds like someone who wants the admin tools for their own purposes. Also bothered by Hawkeye's attempt to address the "elephant in the room" in his responses above - it sounds like someone who is minimising their own conduct. I will review the links posted by others before making a final decision. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   Wanted to support (and supported last time), but have difficulties doing so after reading comments on Framgate and re-adminship. —Kusma (t·c) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

   Moving to support. —Kusma (t·c) 09:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

4. I do not vote in RfAs when possible but after a hiatus, it's probably best to pick up Wikipedia slowly, one way in which I do so is where I extend free and often bad (if not terrible) advice to RfA candidates (and/or general populace). To put it straight, making statements like It has been said that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, that neither of these issues on their own would normally have led to sanctions from ArbCom, and that many admins have made similar mis-steps that were never brought to arbitration... reflects poorly, since it leads anyone to conclude that you did not accept the result or admit the mistake. Continuing with This is not about vindication seems entirely pointless when your premise is that you never committed a wrong. Often knee-jerk reactions prevail over a demonstrated time of being a good editor, and I've seen it occur myself, and I'm sure you feel the same way since your previous RfA. RfAs are all about edits, and those edits encompass your entire onwiki history, especially those which lead other editors to form an opinion about you. To be quite honest, maybe I'm not the right person to give this advice, I've always insisted I'm not a great editor, but just as average as community decrees — but there are more people here, and there have been people before (for e.g., your thread at BN when requesting a review of your RfA) explaining what it was that needed to be done in your case, should you decide to stand for adminship. You have my luck (and two cents). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
5. I was neutral the last time. I do not doubt the sincerity of any of the votes in the 'support' section especially those of the highly experienced editors, while there are nevertheless at least some solid opposes such as Beeblebrox and Fastily to cite just two examples - ones which my own - now redundant - research would have revealed. The candidate has a truly excellent record of content contribution and creation and at that volume of work could well find some of the admin tools extremely useful. However, adminship is not accorded as an award based on content performance and achievements alone; it also requires a mature approach to contentious areas and I am not wholly confident that he has the temperament for it. I must therefore remain in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Yikes. Really, I am not sure one way or the other here. Lot of stuff going on that I just don't have time to fully review. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I am prepared to forgive past mistakes. However it is unclear to me if Hawkeye7 acknowledges that Arbcom made the correct decision at the time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
8. Neutral, moved from Oppose – edit summary usage is too low for me. Just 46.7% of edits have summaries, and, as far as I can tell, this user hasn't had a month with >80% summary usage since March 2011. However, I didn't feel comfortable opposing solely based on this, so I moved to neutral. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
9. I appreciate the user coming back and trying again, but I don't see how anything has changed from the last RfA. Please correct me if I'm missing something. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
10. Neutral This user is an excellent editor content wise with several FA's and GA's under their belt. However, I do not see a demonstrated need for the mop as improving articles do not require admin status. What keeps me from support is concerns raised by other users such as Pudeo and summaries like This. What keeps me from oppose in their quality edits. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
11. Neutral There is no doubt that this user is here to build an encyclopedia, and past actions can (and in some cases, should) be forgiven. However, there are clearly issues regarding the user's temperament and attitude towards Wikipedia in general, so I do not have a strong opinion here. William2001^(talk) 17:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
12. Neutral I won't pile-on oppose, but there's just far too much valid opposition for me to support. I think it's obvious that Hawkeye loves this project, and works hard to improve it - but I don't see any way to support giving them the extra tools. — Ched :  ?  — 00:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
13. Neutral - The user has a phenomenal track record for content work but there are too many question marks over temperament and other issues raised in the oppose section. So I find myself ending up here. Kosack (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• 28bytes & CoffeeCrumbs: My apologies if this seems a little acerbic, but why ask questions if you have already decided to oppose Hawkeye7? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing's written in stone. While I am strongly opposed to this nomination -- in stronger fashion than I've ever expressed opposition -- it would be fundamentally unfair to ignore the possibility that my fears can be satisfactorily addressed. And if not me, someone who is on the fence one way or the other may have their opposition quelled or their support buttressed by the answers I asked. The reasons for which they were desysopped ought to be extremely relevant for any support or oppose.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As a child, I was opposed to Brussels sprouts. As an adult, deliciousness-data forced me to change my mind. I have never personally interacted with the editor in question, so there's no deep abiding grudge that would prevent me from changing my mind (in which case I would not participate). But I'd be lying if I didn't say it's a tough sell.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A culinary digression

I don't usually badger people commenting on an RfA, but your original opinion on Brussels sprouts was correct and your current one is wrong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Newyorkbrad, I'm appalled. What's next? Kale? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC) "Kale" rhymes with "fail" for a reason. But we digress. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Vitally important, do yall approve of potato salad? Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC) No. Squeeps10 02:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC) The key is preperation! Properly prepared so they stay crisp and with a nice char, they're shockingly delicious. I was surprised too. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC) The key is honey, and roasting instead of boiling. Just as a general rule, stop boiling your vegetables, unless you're making a boiled dinner. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC) RE:brussel sprouts-- have you tried sauteing in EVOO?-- Dlohcierekim 13:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC) I have not, because I have easy access to honey. But that does sound lovely. I'll try that if I can find Brussels sprouts at the market again this season. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC) I only sautee my sprouts in enough fire to reduce them to ash. Evil things. Nosebagbear (talk) I'll just say that there are certain, um, fish that everyone should leave alone. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's an oppose "for now." I rarely oppose RfAs and I would love to be able to support, but it will take some convincing that the candidate is really prepared to demonstrate that he understands the concerns I (and others) have, and questions are a way to give them an opportunity to make that case. I've certainly switched from oppose to support in RfAs before, when it's clear the candidate "gets it" in a way they didn't appear to when the RfA started. 28bytes (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Since your both evading scrutiny by editing logged out, log in to continue this conversation. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not planning to log in and vote support or oppose, but I will say that I feel bad for this editor. It used to be more common to advise some adminship applicants that they should nominally retire, take up a wp:clean start, and reapply after a reasonable number of contributions. That approach has its drawbacks, but I feel like this candidate - with 22k contributions, more or less, since their 2016 RfA - could have become an admin that way. 219.91.238.177 (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC) It's unfortunate the advice isn't given commonly now. If people are recommending that a controversial candidate should wait a year or two, that's sufficient time to make a clean start and establish a reputation. If the person has really changed, then the RfA after a few months should be easy because the behaviors that caused problems under the old pen name should not have recurred while using the new pen name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5A00:C700:8031:B321:4024:869C (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A number of users have made comments about Hawkeye's previous levels of tool usage. I'd can't comment on the past, but here's a comment about current and future. Hawkeye is very active (and plans to continue to be very actuve) in Main page content development, for which the ability to edit through protection is very useful (and wouldn't show up as admin tool usage). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• @PCN02WPS, Nabla, and Schazjmd: your !votes solely discuss edit summaries, so Hawkeye7's answer to question #19 should be of interest to you. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7 committed to using edit summaries in the first RfA in November 2009, prior to which edit summary usage was almost always below 50%. Hawkeye7's edit summary rate in all namespaces went up to over 90% after that... for about six months. From June 2010 it bounced between the low-50s and low-80s, and after April 2011 didn't go above 70% again except for in September and October 2014, until May 2019. In fact, it rarely went above 60% after 2014, and occasionally dipped into the 30s. There's clearly an upward trend in the last 12 months, but that's from the 40s and 50s into the high-50s to mid-60s. I don't know what most people consider to be adequate levels of edit summary usage, but the drop-off just six months after the first RfA and the fairly consistent low edit summary usage since then (subject to ebbs and flows of course) strike me as capable of being criticized. Whether those are unacceptably low is not really clear to me. Just looking at mainspace edit summaries, the figures are honestly not as good. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv, serious question if you know the answer. Do we have reason to believe Hawkeye is hiding anything by not using edit summaries? Like if he'd done "added content" for some edits and thus had a higher percentage would we know something more and new about him? To me we use edit summaries as a way of being transparent with others about the work we're doing. If an edit has a section header and content added I don't think it's a leap to guess what happened there. But maybe that's not the kind of edit that's going without a summary and so we should be concerned. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the concern people are raising is one of "concealment" of something nefarious by not using edit summaries. I'm not even sure the concern is for transparency. I think it's more a matter of the standard practice of providing a summarized explanation of what's happening in a contribution. If Hawkeye had a penchant for using the sort of canned edit summaries you describe, it would probably be at least as harmful to his chances as using none, since a canned edit summary gives no useful information. What stands out to me in these data, anyway, is the promise to consistently use edit summaries followed by a rather sharp increase (from rarely above 50% to always above 90%) followed by a rapid drop-off in edit summary usage six months after making admin. This fits in with a really common fear with adminship, since it's not easily taken back: You can make any promises you want during RfA, but what matters is whether you keep to those promises. Keeping up edit summary usage is as easy as getting in the habit of typing something. And despite doing this for six months after his first RfA, Hawkeye went down to a much lower level thereafter. Yes, not as bad as before the RfA, but still not very good, and far from consistent.
What else bothers me here is how such a veteran editor didn't realize automated tags (like "Tag: PHP7") aren't part of the edit summary, or that the automatically-generated section link in an edit summary isn't considered part of the edit summary. That's just bizarre to me, and suggests there may be other areas where what many of us consider fairly basic knowledge may be lacking. But the kicker is that Hawkeye did get his edit summary usage consistently above 90% for six months. Why did that change, and why would misunderstanding these things about tags and section links account for that change? Surely Hawkeye didn't know about those things before, so why didn't they keep him from getting above 90% for that six-month period? I can't account for that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Those stats are all irrelevant to the picture the candidate has painted: they believed anything in the edit summary box to be an edit summary (not an unreasonable belief), had not encountered any pushback with their edit summary approach in general editing, and set their preferences to require an edit summary. They believed they had an edit summary usage of 100%. Unless you are calling the candidate a liar, nothing you said is relevant. You say What else bothers me here is how such a veteran editor didn't realize [...] automatically-generated section link in an edit summary isn't considered part of the edit summary. Well obviously they are part of the edit summary. They're part of the code you read when you click "View history" and see the description next to the username. They might not be what you mean by "edit summary usage", but let's not pretend this is some obvious fact relevant to adminship. It's just a misunderstanding arising from two incompatible but reasonable definitions of the term. Now the candidate has pledged to use an edit summary in the way you mean it, I don't see why anyone should have any further issue with this tiny aspect of their editing. I thought responding well to constructive criticism was supposed to be an important part of being an admin... — Bilorv (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Unless you are calling the candidate a liar, nothing you said is relevant. I'm not saying that, but it's a possible way of interpreting the incongruity of the statistics with his claims of ignorance. He pledged to always use edit summaries in his first RfA nearly a decade ago and maintained a 90+% edit summary rate for the subsequent six months. How could that happen if he was ignorant of the fact that automatic sections headings aren't considered an edit summary, whether by the edit summary tools or by anyone who is an active editor? And even if it is a reasonable mistake for someone to make, why wasn't he making that mistake for those six months after his first RfA?
Now the candidate has pledged to use an edit summary in the way you mean it, I don't see why anyone should have any further issue with this tiny aspect of their editing. He pledged to use edit summaries after his first RfA, and only did so for about six months. What's going to happen six months after this RfA? What other bad habits are we going to see? And to call it a "small" aspect of editing belies just how important, both historically and ongoing, good edit summary usage is to the Wikipedia system. They're thought of as minor generally because experienced editors are expected to use them.
I thought responding well to constructive criticism was supposed to be an important part of being an admin... Except the record doesn't show that. The record shows argumentativeness when the edit summary problem was called out, followed by quibbling over the definition of "edit summary" (as you are repeating here), and claiming ignorance of something that's incongruous with the statistical fact of his editing history. So no, what Hawkeye7 did in response to his low edit summary usage being pointed out was not "responding well" to constructive criticism. It was responding poorly. In light of the fact that someone standing for RfA should be participating as though it's a job interview (i.e., focusing quite intensely on being kind, gracious, humble, while also confident and assertive), what we're seeing here is surely Hawkeye7 at his best. If I'm not crazy about him having the tools as his best, he should not have the tools as his everyday self. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Much more likely than the candidate being a liar is them (a) reading something about what counted as an edit summary six months after their RfA; (b) naturally slipping into a different pattern of summaries over a period of months; (c) forgetting or misremembering something around that time etc. etc. etc. Knowledge isn't something a user permanently and irrevocably accrues, or a boolean value. We're discussing a human being and I think a human being should be allowed to have forgotten something 10 years ago without it being held against them today as evidence of their nefariousness. I also think you're seeing what you want to see in the candidate's response in this RfA. There's no one "statistical fact" because there's no "fact" about what an edit summary is: there are at least two reasonable but different definitions. — Bilorv (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I don't think he's hiding anything or that there's anything nefarious at all behind it, as Mendaliv said, which is why I switched from oppose to neutral. I applaud the candidate for pledging to add an edit summary to every edit, but it's not something that will singlehandedly switch me to "support", just as the lack of edit summaries was not enough to singlehandedly keep me in the "oppose" section. Additionally, a couple of the concerns raised by Mendaliv in his above reply (not realizing PHP7 and section headers aren't part of summaries, etc.) do strike me as odd. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv:. Thanks for pointing it (#19), I haven't noticed that. It does not change anything. If after 14 year in here one does not know what an edit summary is... - Nabla (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• Comment - Since at this point, with the !vote at 61-61 or 50%, it would take a net increase of 53 support !votes (i.e. 53 supports with no additional opposes) to simply push this into the discretionary range, @Hawkeye7: might want consider that this RfA is not going to pass and withdraw it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a shame. I can personally attest to his temperament, which seems to be the sticking point. When I started on Wikipedia he couldn't have been kinder as I blundered my way through Manhattan Project articles. In the course of this the son of one of the project's officers began editing, adding original research and family recollections in an aggressive manner. Hawkeye was tolerant and kind to a fault while upholding policy. He had every reason to behave otherwise. Just putting it out there. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)