Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Hawkeye7

Final (70/21/13). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) – Self nomination. I'm a 20th Century military historian based in Canberra, Australia. I edit pages related to Military history, particularly those related to Australia and the South West Pacific Area. This is because that is what I know about. :) Very occasionally I will take on the task of editing an article about a more international topic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If so granted access, I intend to use the tools to allow me to continue to improving the encyclopaedia without having to bug the admins. My request for adminship was prompted by having to do this yet again yesterday in order to correct a simple spelling error in the name of an image. Last year, my sandbox was moved by error by another editor and it took months to get it and its associated talk page back.

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

A: My featured articles: Edmund Herring, Neil Hamilton Fairley, Landing at Nadzab and Albert Kesselring. The Kesselring article was me writing an international article, and bringing it to that state involved considerable effort in reading non-English texts and understanding non-Anglo-Saxon points of view. The Landing at Nadzab was one of those rare fun articles that include the kitchen sink. I plan to move a Admiralty Islands campaign and Battle of Bardia through the Featured Article process in the near future. I'm very pleased with these articles.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have found that conflicts over editing are not uncommon but usually not stressful. I state my position; the other edit states theirs; and a consensus emerges. The more difficult case is where the other editor cannot state their position, usually because of some cultural issues underpinning their position, which they find difficult to appreciate and state. Then I have to stretch my mind to work out both sides of the argument. The only time I felt stressed about a conflict was during a failed attempt to prevent an image from being deleted. I lost of course, and the sadly the image is now irretrievably and permanently lost.

Additional optional questions from  Btilm 

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is a technical feature of the software, while a ban is a social decision. A block is a means by which a ban is enforced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

5. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they have proven in the past to often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption. Blocks should not be used as a means of punishment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

6. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: My personal opinion is users come to the Wikipedia seeking information. So I take an expansive view of the notability criteria. I do feel that some topics are indeed automatically notable. But notability only means that a topic merits its own article. It does not mean that an article can, in practice, be created. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Coffee

7. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, then the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article should be kept. Deleting the article is a last resort. Issues regarding BLPs should be resolved promptly. Ideally. the article should be improved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

8. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. The BLP policy represents a broad consensus. I personally believe in adhering to both the letter and the spirit of the policy, especially when it comes to privacy concerns. I have done some work with BLPs, of serving military officers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC) There are some differences between the BLPs and other bios. They are more volatile. Sometimes changes would appear on the page in advance of any press release, leaving me scrambling to verify its veracity. You can turn to the subject for information, but I haven't really been able to turn that into a useful page... yet. And the current policy on images of LPs is very restrictive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from FASTILY

9. Would you ever consider blocking a registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?

A: Admins are permitted to block certain disruptive users without warning. However, the only case where I would personally do so would be in the case of a bot running amok. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

9a. Could you please elaborate, with a detailed explanation, on whom "disruptive users" could possibly refer to?

A: A disruptive user is one who indulges in gross incivility, persistent vandalism, harassment, or spamming. An account which exists solely for these purposes can be blocked without warning. As can bots running without authorisation, or accounts with inappropriate usernames. However, I personally feel that the presumption of good faith still applies, and that it would be uncivil to block without warning in circumstances where warning could reasonably be given. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Epeefleche

10. What is your opinion of the Admin Recall proposals here?

A: There seems to be a broad consensus on some form of involuntary RFDA along the same lines as the RFA process. Given the small number of cases though, the need does not seem pressing or great. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Lankiveil

11. Your edit summary usage is much lower than that typically expected of admin candidates. Is there any particular reason for this?

A: Normally I create new articles in my Sandbox and copy them over when they are ready. Over the last few days I brought an article on Iven Giffard Mackay up to A-class. My Sandbox is in use at the moment for an article on Operation Dragoon that I am also working on, so I just edited it in place. The edit was more substantial than I originally intended. The article was expanded from 13,000 bytes to 40,000. The edit summary mostly refers to this article. In retrospect, I should have created a second Sandbox and edited it there instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can you re-address this question? I don't see any relationship between your edit summary usage and where you perform your article creation. Thanks! Tan | 39 15:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just meant that if I am editing in my own Sandbox, then edit summaries are just chatting away to myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Stifle

12. Can you please elaborate on the answer above "Last year, my sandbox was moved by error by another editor and it took months to get it and its associated talk page back."? Moving is normally an easily-reversible process; I am failing to understand how it can take months to "get it and its associated talk page back".

I agree with you. If a page is moved, you should be able to move it straight back again! For some reason, this did not work in this case. I got a strange error which I can't recall now. So we decided on Plan B: merge the changes into the original page, nominated the page for deletion, and created a new Sandbox. Doing that may have been an error on my part... Somehow, after the page was deleted, its talk page remained behind as an orphan. Someone noticed this, and I was now able to move the talk page back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please link the relevant page for me? I just want to understand what's up here. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it might be 41st Infantry Div. (United States), from parsing the move logs of User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox. Tim Song (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Olaf Davis

13. Clearly some people find your lack of edit summaries when working in your own sandbox or articles on which you're the primary contributor a problem, and some don't. Although you obviously fall into the latter group, will your use of summaries change as a result of this RfA if it closes unsuccessfully? What if it closes successfully?

Regardless of the outcome, I shall make a habit of always providing an edit summary from now on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I switched on the "prompt me" option in my settings. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Unionhawk

14. Your answer to Q5 is unsatisfactory to me; it shows that you can locate the appropriate policy, but it does not show that you understand the policy on cool-down blocks. Please explain to me in your own words, when an angry editor should be blocked.

A. The sole purpose of blocks is to prevent damage to the pages. An angry editor can be blocked in order to prevent damage to the pages. An editor should not be blocked as some form of punishment for damage already done. A block is not the "naughty corner". My personal interpretation of the rule is that if a block is likely to make someone more rather than less likely to damage the pages, then a block is inappropriate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Triplestop

15. Suppose that an AfD has no consensus. Both sides have reasonable-sounding arguments however a significant number of the votes from one side or the other are transparently motivated by political reasons. How would you handle this situation?

A: If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, then the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article should be kept. People do have motivations, and some are more transparent than others. People have cognitive dissonance and therefore a tendency to rationalise their motivations. In the end, it has to be the reasonableness of the arguments that matters, not the motives behind them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• 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 Special:Contributions/Hawkeye7 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to the talk page. JamieS93 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Last year, my sandbox was moved by error by another editor and it took months to get it and its associated talk page back." Emphasis mine. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The copy and paste answer clearly shows you are not a type copyist and may not even be a touch typist! You may even use "spellcheck" to cover your lack of literacy. And who knows what other tools you secretly use. Not to mention that your edit summaries have been weighed, measured and found wanting. You think being a polite editor with awesome content contributions makes you fit for tools. Do you really think being intelligent and kind to newcomers will sway me? (not to mention your history of constructive editing)!! I will be watching you carefully to decide if you are worthy of Support or Strong Support - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating to all of us the constructive use of sarcasm to calm rather than inflame a situation. Really, really, helpful remark. No really, I really, really mean that because sarcasm is so helpful. Seriously. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was wondering, Hawkeye7, when you said "...sadly the image is now irretrievably and permanently lost" - do you know images can't be deleted that way? They were years ago, but I assume it was File:Liz Cosson (MAJGEN).jpg from nearly two years ago. -- Mentifisto 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thankfully, that image is not irretrievably lost. I took the one of her as a BRIG down to replace it with the MAJGEN shot but image use policy had changed in the interim. Now I cannot find the BRIG shot anywhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• I don't get why people are saying that copy pasting fails to show understanding. I would think you'd have to understand it if you can copy paste something that answers the question (unless it's pure coincidence?). I don't see how the ability to rephrase a sentence in your own words shows a more-than-trivial amount of greater understanding. It's not that hard to rephrase something. Are people criticizing the candidate for having done this on GFDL grounds? Why does it 'scare' people? In other news, I frequently use pretty crap-tastic edit summaries in my own userspace, e.g. '+ info' or '+' and no one has ever brought this up as a problem. Should I stop doing that? I mean, does the community really feel like this is a big deal? delldot ∇. 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Same here, I use "z" as the edit summary for all maintenance work in my userspace. I'm not aware that's a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Although I use edit summaries for every edit out of habit, they really aren't necessary in most cases unless you're making a substantial or contentious amendment. For example, if you edit the "Support" section of an RfA, it's all but obvious that you're leaving a comment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the opposers, but reducing it to "edit summaries = oppose" isn't entirely fair, at least in my case. Even for the most gnomish gnome, admin actions will lead to questions and the expectation of conversation. tedder (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm not trying to paint all the opposes with the same brush, but I wanted to get explanations from people who do feel like that characterization fits their position. I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're saying here, are you saying that not using edit summaries has a dampening effect on people's willingness to ask questions or have conversation? How so? delldot ∇. 02:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Delldot, perhaps if I expand on my reasoning, that can shed some light on at least a few other oppose !votes. In my view, the salient issue is communication. The edit summary problem is just one example of what I see to be insufficient communication. In my opinion, adminship depends heavily on communication, collaboration, and transparency. I just don't find satisfactory evidence that this candidate has the communication skills I think are necessary. On the upshot, this is all fixable - if the candidate made an effort over the next few months to show that he does indeed possess these skills, I'd be more than happy to support a next RfA. Tan | 39 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that communication and collaboration is important but I find plenty of positive evidence in that respect. Hawkeye has experience in peer reviews and FA/GA nomination debates and from what I checked there, he's level-headed and clueful. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you have told quite a few people how you feel on this issue. Feel free not to reiterate it to me anymore; I am well aware of your stance. Tan | 39 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support — Intelligent contributor of content; about 60% of edits in article space and 11% in article talk; collegial. Kablammo (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   Comment on edit summaries: Many of the candidate's edits are in his sandbox, and many more are in articles primarily edited by him (and many history articles, especially on narrow subjects, are the creations of one person). Use of edit summaries in those circumstances amounts to talking to oneself, and under such circumstances, failure to use them is not as great a concern as it would be in multi-author articles, or those on controversial subjects. Kablammo (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   Support. Seems like a good candidate. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to Neutral

2. Support Keepscases (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Support, very good mainspace editor. --Aqwis (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   Support per contributions to military related articles. Very impressive.--Coldplay Expert 00:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to Neutral

4. Strong support. This editor has contributed so much to Wikipedia under the auspices of WikiProject Military History, and his handling of strong disagreements in Albert Kesselring is a great example of his abilities outside of article writing. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Wikipedia needs little more at the moment than dedicated mainspace contributors; while adminship isn't and shouldn't be a reward for such editors, I find it hard to imagine that the user will go berserk with the bit. Edit summaries are a very minor aspect of the project, though please do try to provide explanations for anything less than routine! Support with full confidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
6. He's here for only the right reasons. ceranthor 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Support No concerns, but work on the summaries. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - Excellent contribs - please work on edit summaries though. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong support also a lot of admins stop using edit summaries anyway when they become admins, or leave fake ones YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   Uh, fake ones? Where? I didn't notice this trend, if it has become so, but it shouldn't be acceptable since it goes against the whole collaborative editing idea, nor can others' behaviour justify any future disuse (IMO he should just be reminded). -- Mentifisto 11:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

10. Support Hawkeye is an excellent editor who has a good history of working cooperatively with other editors and providing advice. As such, he can clearly be trusted with the admin tools. Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong would have been a nominator support - if a low percentage of edit summaries is what is holding you back from supporting... well, doesn't that seem a wee bit trivial in view of the many other positives? Hawkeye is a polite editor with awesome content contributions; this is combined with an answer of "yes" to the question "would I trust him with the tools". —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. While the circa 10% edit summary usage is shocking to say the least, there is a net benefit here, I feel. There's nothing here to make me feel concerned that the tools would be abused. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. No concerns, net positive. henrik•talk 06:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Full Support. Hawkeye is a friendly, helpful and communiactive editor who I think would make an excellent administrator. The lack of edit summaries is a minor concern at best, and one I'm sure he'll pick up on. Skinny87 (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per above and question 9. I trust this user from what I have seen. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
16. There's been a small shift over the course of this year in the direction of a 6-month wait after a failed RfA; three months used to be not uncommon. That's fine with me, but that trend is influencing my vote and my rationale. I'd like to see more edit summaries from Hawkeye and a clearer idea of what kind of admin tasks he has prepared to take on, and I'd be tempted to oppose or go neutral if I thought that the net effect of a failed RfA would be positive: that is, Hawkeye would be motivated to address our concerns, and come back quickly, get the mop, and get to work. But six months is a long time away, and this candidate has already found his niche, his way of contributing, on Wikipedia; it's unlikely that he's going to cut back on the article work that he does so well just to address concerns of RfA voters, in the hope that 6 months from now, we'll change our minds. So for me, the trend towards 6-month lag times between RfAs means that I'm not so interested in using my vote or rationale in the hope that it will have some impact; I'm just voting to either accept the candidate in their current state, warts and all, or reject them. Hawkeye is clearly here for the right reasons, and he's trustworthy and competent. So, on balance, yes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Support No concerns. Warrah (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
18. Weak Support - The relatively low amount of communication and lack of edit summary usage gives me pause in my support and I gave a lot of thought before offering it. I would very strongly encourage Hawkeye7 to improve that in the future. Since the editor proposes to use the tools for gnoming and non-controversial purposes, I'll tentatively suggest that it should be okay. -- Atama頭 00:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Are people really making a big deal that this user doesn't use edit summaries? That's funny. iMatthew ^talk at 02:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Not persuaded over the opposes, you should use edit summaries but I'm not going to oppose over it alone. Davewild (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong support Clueful, experienced editor. Opposers arguments are just plain sad. I'd like them to realize that a) copy-pasting policy to answer the question "what's the policy on X" is a very reasonable thing to do; b) Hawkeye can check the "force edit summaries" box in his preferences; c) editors are volunteers and actually have a real life so they can't be expected to have a steady monthly edit-count; d) the project needs admins. I hope the bcrats will see through the insanity of rejecting a candidate because he's not jumping through the RfA hoops. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

    Pardon us sad, insane opposers for seeing things differently than you. Tan | 39 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

    Pardon granted. I'm a generous soul. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

    Pascal, I might be more forgiving if Hawkeye had said "The policy on cool-down blocks states: '....' ". But copying words from somewhere else and presenting them as your own, no matter whether they are 'free' or not, is irresponsible. Coupled with the fact that it leaves me unconvinced that the candidate actually understands the policy, I was not hesitant to oppose; I don't see anything sad about that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

    Pascal, you've also falsely represented the question. The question does not say, "What is the policy?" The question asks when they should be used, and why. If the question was just asking if the editor knew where to find the policy, simply answering the question with "WP:CDB" would be acceptable, but it's not (and it's not). -- Atama頭 17:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

    WereSpielChequers' comment just below is spot on. I would also add that most admins don't even need to know about the subtleties of ban vs. block or cool-down blocks. I've had the bit for two and a half years and I don't think I've ever taken an admin action that required it. I don't know how to do a history merge, I'm not up-to-date on the latest formulation of BLP, NFCC or 3RR. But as an admin, I'm not active in these areas so who cares? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

    Here you go, Pascal [1]. Now get to WP:RM immeeeeedddiaaattly. Keegan (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

22. Support. Copy pasting a boilerplate answer to a boilerplate question is stylish, and shows you know how to process many queries an admin gets, I'm happy to judge your ability to answer tailored questions from other parts of the question section. Q9 shows a commendable innocence, I'll take it on faith that when you see behaviour that merits an instant block you'll act appropriately. As for edit summary, I would seriously suggest setting your options to force it. Edit summaries in your own userspace can feel like your talking to yourself, but though sometimes seen as a sign of madness it can be quite useful. If you are trying to work out which book a fact was sourced from having edit summary notes to remind you what you were doing in various edits can be useful, especially if they are along the lines of update after reading x. ϢereSpielChequers 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
23. Per WereSpielChequers, and the fact that I see no major flaws with Hawkeye after a quick review of his contributions. NW (Talk) 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Looks good. The stock answers to stock questions are funny, not a reason to vote against, barring any sign the editor actually has trouble understanding plain English. The questions in this case, are not of policies frequently subject to misinterpretation. Ray^Talk 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Impressive contributor, seems unlikely to abuse the tools. The answer to Q13 established that a) (s)he'll now use edit summaries in future - it seems unnecessary to wait the traditional 3-6 months if we trust Hawkeye to stick to the change - and b) Hawkeye is willing to make changes based on feedback and consensus even in areas where (s)he doesn't personally see a problem. That's the sort of thing we need from admins especially. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Triplestop x3 03:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Hawkeye is an asset to the Military history project. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
28. Support We need more admins who approach things from an article writing point of view. Is more interested in content than edit summaries? Spends his time writing articles rather than chatting about the bureaucracy? Well, that's why I'm supporting him. Nick mallory (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - trusted user, valued contributor, not seeing any good reason to oppose. The lack of edit summaries is unfortunate, but Hawkeye7 has pledged to always use them from now on. Robofish (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
30. Strong Support: This is a near perfect Candidate - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. Olaf Davis captures my sentiments, here. I think the candidate is a good editor who will bea net positive to the project as an admin, and I agree that having another article-focused admin is helpful. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per Olaf Davis and WereSpielChequers. If Hawkeye7 is not doing deletion work now, and - as far as I can see - is not planning to work there, I don't see a big problem with lack of XfD and CSDs. Tim Song (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
33. I reviewed this user's talk page and contributions and found no evidence of incivility and all first class work. After doing this review it's clear to me that the user has no trouble communicating with others and works closely with some, and has no problem understanding policy (at least the ones I saw discussed in looking over the contribs). I can't figure out what the big deal is about copy pasting answers or about not using edit summaries in your own userspace. delldot ∇. 21:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
34. As far as I know, no one has been desysopped for not knowing policy enough: as Pascal.Tesson said below, the people who have been desysopped knew policy but just didn't care about it. I'm not bothered about copying-and-pasting of answers either: that shows (1) Hawkeye7 is not an RfA regular, and (2) he actually read the policies and copy-and-pasted the appropriate parts. Lack of edit summaries isn't too much of a big deal either: it really is no more annoying than something like "+1" or "+o". Acalamari 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
35. Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
36. Support, User seems to have great intentions. Hawkeye have tremendous contributions to articles related to military history. Richard (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
37. Support; all the elements discussed below can easily be improved by a clueful editor, dedicated to the main purpose of this place. This person fits the bill. --Slp1 (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
38. Strong editor, good answers to questions. No serious issues raised by opposition. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
39. Support I have thoroughly gone through the opposes and believe that there is little substance to really oppose on. I hope this candidate gets enough support so that a crat who can see the weakness of the opposes can pass this. This is obviously an editor who is well able to obtain the answers (e.g. question 5) even if they haven't memorised all of the policies in advance. As Juliancolton says I cannot see this editor running wild in AfD. Polargeo (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
40. Support- No worries here. Obviously clueful editor who does a lot of good work, and who I cannot imagine going berserk with the tools. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - No issues apart from the edit summaries. Not enough to oppose, though. User has my trust, and has a good grasp of policy, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Don't see anything to not support. -SpacemanSpiff 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Opposes are not fully convincing. Opposing adminship because of too many mainspace edits is not a rationale is see often. —Finn Casey * 01:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. Does not behave like a dick and seems unlikely to do so. Quality editor that is amply intelligent and mature enough to work out how to use the buttons well, and has been around long enough to know most of the right usage already. Peripitus (talk)- 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Basically agree with WereSpielChequers. Ceoil (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Keep working on improving your communication skills, good user name...Modernist (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Good editor, and knows many of the Wikipedia policies. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  ^Talk 04:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. I have seen only good from Hawkeye7. While the lack of edit summaries is not wonderful, I agree with others that it's something which can be changed easily (there's even a preference setting so the system will remind you if you forget). Adminship is not a big deal, and I foresee no issues here with abuse of the tools. I think there will be much more than a net-positive with the twiddled bit here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
49. Samir 09:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, the thing that put me over on this was the willingness to accept constructive criticism and improve regarding the edit summaries. The ability to listen to others just may be the most valuable skill an adminstrator (or any editor here, for that matter) can possess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
51. Prodego ^talk 17:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
52. Support good editor.--Staberinde (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
53. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as I like what I see at User:Hawkeye7#My_Contributions (a host of DYK, FA, GA, etc. credits, which means editor is here to build an encyclopedia and therefore understands/appreciates what goes into accomplishing that objective) and as candidate has not even been accidentally blocked. Moreover, the candidate has a PhD which takes a good deal of hard work and approval from fellow academics and demonstrates a degree of expertise. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
54. Support A wonderful content contributor who has indicated that the tools will be used sparingly. AniMate 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
55. Support per Seraphimblade.--John (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. Good content contributor. I'd happily trust them with the tools. -- Avenue (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. I fought my side, but my mind was changed by arguments on this page and some comments here, especially this comment by Hydnjo. Good candidate, will advance the aims of the project. Tan | 39 15:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - Good contributor who I feel will use the tools wisely. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
59. Support per above, notably WereSpielChequers. Rd232 ^talk 20:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. I notice that among the list of current nominees Hawkeye7 is unique in that he is primarily a content creator. All the others are editors mainly in the sense that they make generally minor modifications or are primarily outright deletionists. Denying Hawkeye7 basically sends the signal that people who are primarily editor creators need not apply for administratorship and that full editing is a separate and completely different skill set from administratorship. The flak Hawkeye7 is getting for his low edit summaries is symptomatic of a bias against editor creators and in favor or editor modifiers or editor deletionists seen in this RfA approval process. Lambanog (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Why not? Looks good to me. Btilm 00:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
62. support Content is good. Answers to questions are good although he may want to review the details of the blocking policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
63. Support I trust that user will use the admin tools conservatively and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. About the issues raised by the opposes: I too suggest that the Hawkeye7 should use edit-summaries more regularly, but that's not reason enough for me not to trust his abilities or judgment. And as for the cut-and-paste answer: I have no concerns that an academic who has written FAs on wikipedia, will not be able to read and follow our written policies as and when needed (if indeed that were not the case, it's are policies that need to be rewritten!) Abecedare (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Now using edit summaries (and where many sequential edits are made in building an article, the efficacy of summaries is uncertain, in any case). Strong contributor. As for using article talk-space v. number of edits, when building an article it seems very few writers find controversies needing lots of talk edits. In his last 6K edits, moreover, he has a 15% rate of article talk space edits. And we need more folks as admins who are interested in articles, and not in authority. From what I see, he is unlikely to become an "authority figure" in WP, which is a "good thing." Collect (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Can't see why not. A large number of opposes seem to be bothered by the copy-paste from policy pages but, in a sense, the copy paste is the only correct answer. If there is a 'spirit' rather than a 'letter' to the policy, then that accurately interpreting that 'spirit' would depend on the circumstances. Since no circumstances are provided, copy-pasted policy is not a bad answer. Other than that, I'm sure other issues (edit summaries, for example) will disappear over time. Politeness, over almost anything else, is a good quality in an admin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Basically a case of the positives outweighing the negatives. I'll also note that the candidate's edit summary usage been much improved over the past few days. AlexiusHoratius 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I look at the answers, and the opposes, and I just don't see anything objectionable. Edit summary use? Might be a realistic oppose if the editor has made WP:REICHSTAG statements about the evil of edit summaries, but his response seems quite reasonable and consistent with people simply not hassling him about it before. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Opposes aren't convincing, given the positive aspects that I see in the candidate. The sock that should not be (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Candidate will be net positive to the project. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - good mainspace editor who will benefit from toolery. Fears about copy/paste Q5 issue do not concern me. If this editor cocks it up, what hath been giveth can easily be taken away. This editor seems to want to focus on the content-creation side of things, rather than blockery and drama. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. User doesn't use edit summaries and doesn't appear to spend much/any time on talk pages (10% on article talk pages, a trivial amount of time on other talk namespaces). Certainly a very valuable contributor, but being an admin is mostly about conversations, not mainspace edits. tedder (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   "being an admin is mostly about conversations, not mainspace edits" – err, doesn't this go directly against the purpose of Wikipedia...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   Admins aren't needed to build content, content-builders don't need the admin bits. Making contributions is the "noblest" thing that could be done on Wikipedia, and admins should exist to support these editors. Editors shouldn't be "promoted" to admins, but admins should be the foundation that supports strong editors who are reason to be here. It's hard to think of many admin tasks that are truly about contributions, they are mostly about collaboration with editors, refereeing issues, and so on. tedder (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   Every single action an admin makes should be made solely with the intent of improving the encyclopedia, even if indirectly. The entire purpose of Wikipedia is to build encyclopedic content, so I find it hard to imagine that admins, the folks who run the place from behind the scenes, shouldn't be promoted to further that goal. Obviously this isn't an excuse for all article writers to obtain the bit, but it seems a bit odd to me to suggest that too much mainspace activity is a bad thing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm forced to disagree. Administrator's can edit pages to add to their content, make an article, copyedit, etc, however an admins main job is to help "maintain" the encyclopedia. Of course they are improving the encyclopedia, but they do it in a different way than a regular editor would; which is why I've always disagreed with people who opposed due to lack of GAs or FAs, as what really matters is how you can deal with other editors, and comprehend policy and consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   It is extremely difficult to contribute to articles at a high level, for every sentence, every paragraph, every section requires writing skills, copyediting skills, proper spelling and grammar, paraphrasing, proper use of the WP:MOS, proper reference tag use, an eye for proper image placement, AND a dedication to completing it all despite the long hours. I compare all of that to holding conversations and patrolling pages, which takes a far less amount of precision and skill. I would say someone who can do both, but who has done more of the former than the latter, should receive far, far more latitude unless they are uncivil or bellicose. To reduce the efforts of a dedicated, skilled contributor over a smaller number of 'conversations' is something I cannot agree with. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Per: [2], Hawkeye7 uses edit summaries less than 10% of the time. This is a very low rate, especially for an admin, for whom it is empirical to effectively communicate their actions. The fact that it took months to get their sandbox moved back into their userspace is also troubling, as that would not have been particularly difficult to accomplish, especially for an editor with the tenure of Hawkeye7. That this did not take at most an hour to accomplish, brings into question how well this candidate understands how Wikipedia works, and thus I cannot support this user gaining the bit. The recent fluctuations in monthly edit counts, with no accompanying explanations on the user or user talk pages is a more minor issue. You're an amazing content creator though. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   Being away doesn't invalidate a RFA YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   The whole sandbox thing was last year. I'm sure he has learned by this time. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   Another editor moved my Sandbox. As the page had been edited before I caught up, rather than just move it back, we decided to merge the new page with the old by hand, and then RfD the new page. So I merged the pages then re-created my Sandbox. Somehow, this left the talk page of the Sandbox pointing to the deleted page. An admin fixed it up for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   My job requires me to be interstate and overseas for a certain amount of time each year. When I am away, I don't have access to my books, and so my edit count drops. I still have access to the internet though, so I am still able to answer questions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Answer to Q5 is copied word-for-word from WP:CDB. Sure, questions 4 & 5 are stock questions and often get stock answers, but copying-and-pasting doesn't demonstrate to me that the candidate actually understands the policy he's copying-and-pasting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Rjanag and SoWhy. Copy-pasting answers, and lack of edit summaries worry me.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose as some one who has be admonished for their voting record for this stuff, i feel as if for this particular vote, as this is basically what it is, i should go into why i am doing this. Pretty much it's self serving, after using Soxred93's tools i found out i had 99 votes in the no section, and since we are so concerned about number here, i determined that 100 would be nice rounder number for my self, so after looking threw who has been nominated i decided that Hawkeye7 would be the intended victim. Now with that being said that doesn't mean i dont have my reasons for going against the user. First off i dont believe in self nominations, especially when we are talking about the amount of power that is given to administrators on this site, if one is that good or well situated to the the non administration janitorial work, you know stuff like vandalism reversion, change patrol, article tagging / clean up (particularly when they are outside of your main scope of editing) then would guess that some one in the community would nominate a a user for a admin post instead of doing it oneself. See i see it as when you do it your self, it's pretty much self serving, and not for the community as a whole, which is what i would want admins to be looking out for. Their is nothing in the users request that states why or how he would use is admin powers to assist in the community as a whole. "Very occasionally" to me sounds like he just doesn't seem to interested, if so let some one else be an admin. Their are also phrases in his questions that cause me problems, "I intend to use the tools to allow me to continue to improving the encyclopaedia without having to bug the admins." and then the 2 reasons he gives afterward show me nothing then the user intends to use admin for the users own self serving interest, i had a problem and if i was an admin i could have fixed it. It would be nice if we all had that ability, but that's not what being an admin is all about. That along with his discussion about conflicts, in which i would have hoped that he would have came out said he conflicts but then went into saying that when i get (sic) admin i will stay neutral in conflicts i am not directly involved and i will refrain from using my admin privileges in conflicts that i am involved in, but being that was not said, leads me not to have confidence in the user being an admin (matter of fact the response the user did give, while i commend the user admitted to having conflicts, seem to me to be a bit well self serving, i was harmed give me admin). The user also seems not to want to get involved in what i see as an important admin function, the fighting of vandalism, which would involve blocking, so i guess the question should be raised, what does the user plan to do with their admin privileges, which the user never adequately addresses, which in a self nom you got to come out and say from the start. More then likely the user will get his admin, mostly because he is a "popular user" or has a support base that has been drummed up, but just because you make good edits or really good in certain subject or have great counter numbers or whatever, doesn't make a user a admin or a admin candidate. I dont know Hawkeye7, maybe i seen an edit of his, never been to his user page, but i just dot see this user as what i would want as an admin on this site, and that's just my opinion, if you dont like it tough s***. So I'll leave it at that, you folks an argue amongst your selves about what i have to say, but dont expect a response or follow up from me. Good luck in you election, congratulations on my own 100, because we all know, but we won't say it, the consensus is in the numbers.--Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   Congratulations on your century then! I have 165 pages (almost all military history related) on my watchlist and from time to time some of them get vandalised. I find prompt use of the "undo" command does the trick. The nature of the vandalism is such that the majority of the vandalism is sporadic and childish in nature and usually comes from an IP address that tracks back to a school. The main exception on my beat is Kokoda Track campaign, which occasionally attracts someone who is upset about seeing Old Glory on the page, or who thinks the battle would have been far more glorious had the Allies been heavily outnumbered. So I feel that I am involved in the fight against vandalism, even without being an admin. It was merely that fighting vandalism wasn't my reason for seeking to become an admin. I see tackling vandalism as a part of improving the quality of the wikipedia as a whole, which is the responsibility of all editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   I realise that you are not going to reply but have you considered the perspective presented inWP:SELFNOM or the slightly expanded WP:WHYSELFNOM. Self nomination at RfA exists primarily in response to many valuable contributors being overlooked by others. I do see you have additional concerns but to oppose primarily because it is a self-nom seems contrary to the spirit ofWP:BEBOLD. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

   Although editors are given extremely broad leeway in supporting or opposing candidates and providing rationales, achieving a personal milestone by hitting a round number of opposes cast is not in any fashion a rational or acceptable ground for opposing an RfA candidate. Unless you confirm that you would have cast this vote apart from that consideration, I am going to determine as an administrator that it is intentionally disruptive and strike it out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Is this a serious no vote? I'm honestly surprised to see someone vote oppose basically stating "I had 99 opposes, and wanted 100." Phrases like "it's self-serving" and "Hawkeye would be the intended victim" are shocking to say the least. Also, not every admin has to be involved in every admin function (such as vandalism blocking). This is well-established. The remarks about self-noms is also contrary to the spirit of them, wherein editors who have been (for whatever reason) overlooked are encouraged to self-nom if they can help the project. Lastly, "congratulations on my own 100" caught my eye. I wouldn't normally comment here but this really stuck out to me and I felt that it merited a response. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   With a userpage like that, I don't suppose this opposition has anything else in mind except to grab attention. Either he's exceptionally self-serving, or he's trolling, or both. —Dark 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Although we recognise that the closing 'crat will make up his own mind as to the value of comments posted, and recognising also that a struck posting remains legible, I agree with Newyorkbrad; that posting should be struck. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 09:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Per Rjanag. Copy and paste answers and a lack of edit summaries are never a good sign. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. The copy and paste answer to Q5 shows a lack of experience and knowledge in my opinion and coupled wirh the low edit summary usage, I am not certain that Hawkeye can be trusted with the tools, due to the lack of communication in this. Sorry. AtheWeatherman 10:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
7. You're a benefit to this place, don't get this wrong, but blatantly copying some text to answer a question posed to check for your understanding should obviously not be done... we're not checking whether candidates are computer literate and know how to use ctrl-c, or necessarily whether they know how to find the information needed, although that's indispensable with a site this big. Also, I don't think you know exactly what adminship entails; deletion, blocking, and protection are the main tools that assist admins, and you didn't say you needed any of them. Q1 is vague at best, and when it mentions specifics it's still vaguely admin-ish. -- Mentifisto 11:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   OpposeMoving to support. per weak answers. I waited some time on this one to see if I could shake the hesitation, but I have to come firmly into the oppose camp. Communication ability is an important requirement for admins, and I just don't see evidence of that. Keep up the good work, improve your edit summary usage (i.e., 100%), and in the event this one doesn't pass, take a bit more time on your answers in the next RfA. Tan | 39 14:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Tedder and for your sporadic edit summary usage (for an admin, this is a VERY important step), and for your copy-paste A5. ArcAngel (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   A real concern: Here we have a long time editor with many many solid edits to his credit. He has shown himself to be an educated person of superior intellect. He is a polite editor with awesome content contributions. None of his "copy-paste edits" or his "edit summaries" have come close to breaking Wikipedia guidelines (and I am convinced he make longer "edit summaries" etc. if asked). He is to an ideal candidate. I would humbly ask the 10 Opposes to reconsider their position. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   No reconsidering for me. Copying-and-pasting other peoples' words, passing them off as your own, and not acknowledging the problem is not something I am in a hurry to support. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

   We're not questioning his intelligence or other attributes, and 'awesome content contributions' doesn't automatically translate into ideal admin. I'm mostly under the impression he's not entirely sure what adminship consists of, and it might possibly not be that helpful for what he does. -- Mentifisto 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, "I want to be an admin so that I can stop bugging admins" is a pretty solid answer to Q1. Even you seem to agree that Hawkeye is an awesome content contributor with three years of participation in the project, successful collaborations at FAC and no history of incidents. This is the ideal admin, the kind of admin we don't even notice because they're not cracking heads with their mop, just quietly using it every now and then to keep the project running smoothly. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

   No, these are the types of editors that get the tools, and then about 6 months down the road end up in a controversy and block people. Why? Because we didn't realize that they didn't seem to understand the policies. Yeah that might seem like a stretch, but considering how hard it is to desysop someone nowadays we need to make sure that we don't just pass the tools to someone, because they just don't want to "bug admins". --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

   The most serious problems are not with admins who misunderstand the policies but with admins who knowingly choose to ignore them. I'd rather not single out anyone but a quick look at Wikipedia:Former administrators should provide plenty of examples. Given the rapidly declining number of active admins, "not bugging admins" is a sensible aim. The question is "are we likely to be better off with Hawkeye as an admin?". Some of the opposes are citing irrelevant trivialities as if they are deal-breakers. Sure, edit summaries are a good thing but then again many of us who do have a pristine 100% edit-summary use oh-so-useful summaries like "r", "+1", "nope", "rv". If you want to know how well an editor understands the project, you have to go beyond the RfA answers and silly edit-summary stats. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose - None of the editor's answers are satisfactory to me, especially the answers to mine. Cut and paste answers don't show if you actually understand the policies. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose I cannot support someone who does not use edit summaries essentially all of the time. RP459 (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose No offense to the candidate, you appear to be a solid contributor. But the lack of edit summaries, talk page conversation (aka collaboration), and policy experience don't see fitting for an admin. I'm impressed at the solid portion of articlespace edits, but a higher edit count would be nice too, you've had your account since 2005. No prejudice at another RfA down the road. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

    It's true that you'll find only limited collaboration in the talk namespace (though there is some) but in Hawkeye's case, a lot of the collaborative work happens to be in the Wikipedia namespace since peer-reviews, assessments and FA/GA discussions end up there. It might not change your mind but you should take a look. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose, concerns about lack of edit summaries and talk page experience, and questionable answers. Cirt (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose Absolutely love this editor, strong content contribution, and I have no qualms whatsoever for not wasting time not using edit summaries when working solo on article drafts in own sandbox. However, if you become an admin, you are also given privileges to speedy articles and to close XfDs. Scanning your contributions for 2009, I see no XfD contributions or CSD work at all. I'm simply unable to judge if I can trust you in these critical and conflict-ridden areas. Sorry. Keep up the good work. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

    He indicated in Q1 he wasn't going to actively pursue matters, so he would likely just use it when things interfere into his sphere, like a vandal, rather than proactive intervening in places. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    CSD and XfD work reveal skills and general principles of reasoning when he encounters topics that fall outside his highly specialized sphere. It is essential to assess a candidate on these matters, because he will eventually come into such situations. He has not expressed interest in CSD and XfD work, but this may change in the future. He has also not expressed interest in blocking users, yet he has been quizzed on these issues as well. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose because I can do nothing but LOL at copying/pasting. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose with great regret. Hawkeye7 is a seminal contributor, and the encyclopedia is absolutely better off thanks to his great article work. For me, the edit summary issue is no big deal, and while the copy-and-paste answer to Q5 certainly doesn't look good, I can tell from his later responses that he understands the policy on cool-down blocks, and copy-and-paste wasn't a dealbreaker. But I have to oppose because Hawkeye7 has yet to give a convincing reason for why he wants adminship. He hasn't indicated an interest in working in any admin areas, and his experience with CSD and deletion discussions is minimal. His tools would merely be self-serving, and while there's nothing wrong with that per se, I would much rather see the mop given to a candidate that is going to use it in admin areas on behalf of the community. If Hawkeye7 is that candidate, he ought to have a gameplan ready by now. If he did so, it would be my pleasure to support his RfA. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

    "I would much rather see the mop given to a candidate that is going to use it in admin areas on behalf of the community." If you have someone in mind, then please nominate him. Giving Hawkeye7 +sysop does not mean that we can't give it to other qualified candidates.--chaser (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, my awkward wording above appears to lend itself to confusion. Allow me to clarify. I do not have anyone specific in mind; I was merely comparing Hawkeye7 as he appears now to Hawkeye7 as he might appear if he had explained which admin areas he would work in above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

    He might only do it to be "self=serving" but his work on WP is to write FA/A and this only makes it more convenient for him to write FAs, and doesn't harm anyone, only helps WP. Other people, while using their tools interactively and ostensibly help other people, acquire admin and other ranks to engage in gimmicks to make themselves more famous and acquire cermonial paper thrones and sometimes end up just causing scenes and other unhelpful patter. This is not the case here. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    I agree wholeheartedly with you in that I hold Hawkeye7 and other content contributors in the highest esteem. I think they are the most important part of Wikipedia, and that some admins tend to forget that we are here to write and edit an encyclopedia, not engage in endless drama. If Hawkeye7 wants to help the community by working in various admin areas in addition to just continuing his (absolutely awesome) article work, then I would say, "By all means, give him the mop!" But he's not really interested in adminship so much as he is interested in continuing his present work with a few extra buttons to help him out when needed. I'm fine with that, but he doesn't need the mop if he's not going to take on admin duties. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose BLP answer is wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose. While the edit summary issue strikes me as trivial in context, the candidate's answers to most questions are just too generic and uninformative to satisfy me, and some appear inappropriate -- eg, in Q9 the candidate would not summarily block an apparently hijacked account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

    Nothing wrong with sending them a message first to ask them why they are acting in such an odd way. A lot of folks always make a token warning first. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    If you badger a few more of the opposers, maybe they'll switch to support. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

18. Oppose Admin tools are granted to editors to help the community as a whole, and while it may benefit this editor to have access to the privileges, there simply aren't enough cases where we can look at this editor's record to see how those tools will be used if granted and what benefit it will have to the community at large. This user has great contribs to mainspace, but that will not be greatly affected by adminship.Mrathel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

    But there's also no indication that granting him the sysop bit will be detrimental as a whole. Even if the sole benefit is making Hawkeye's life easier twice a year, that's still a plus. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

    This is just about the weakest support argument I have heard long. Making his life easier twice a year. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    Not that I expect that to be the sole benefit. My point is that such a minuscule impact would still a net positive for the project. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    Agree, and with precisely that argument many, many editors could become admins. I'm absolutely convinced that he will do good to the project, however, within very critical areas I'm unable to assess the risks, and this imbalance concerns me. With the current high treshold for removing dysfunctional admins I prefer to be cautious. Wait until he does some work in those areas -- with this quite unusual carte blanche other Wikipedians are prepared to hand him, plus improved perfomance on the truly marginal issue of using edit summaries when working solo in own sandbox -- I'm sure he'll pass comfortably (although it appears that he's well on the way to pass already). Power.corrupts (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose I was ready to support despite the less-than-inspiring answers to some of the questions (especially the BLP question). But answering a question by copying text from a policy page is incompatible with what we expect from admins. I like the fact that you're content oriented, but feel you lack the depth of understanding needed for an admin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose, mainly per Hipocrite and Boris. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Candidate has only given personal reasons to become admin, ("I intend to use the tools to allow me to continue to improving the encyclopaedia without having to bug the admins") instead of community-based reasons. Also, copy and pasting of policy is disturbing, since we, and especially admins, are supposed to respect the spirit of the policies more than the letter of them. Angryapathy (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Move to OpposeNeutral, leaning Support. "Last year, my sandbox was moved by error by another editor and it took months to get it and its associated talk page back." Months!? This worries me a bit in that the user may not understand policies or how to contact other users. If you can offer a detailed explanation, I might consider changing my !vote. Otherwise, no other issues. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to the diff where he says that? I don't see it on this page anywhere. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's in Q1. JamieS93 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As JC said in the discussion section, take a second look at the first two words: "last year, my sandbox ..." :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral I do not mind that this user has varying degrees of activity or the lack of any need for admin tools but I cannot support a candidate who doesn't use edit summaries. Communication and transparency and vital for any editor and much more so for admins. Editors who do not use edit summaries force others to review their contributions individually to find out what changes they made, thus creating more work for no rational reason. Regards SoWhy 07:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Answer to Q1 is disturbing; firstly, not even admins can rename images here (unless they've changed it very recently), and secondly, I am failing to understand the userspace issue. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   They have changed that 2 months back. See bugzilla:15842#c35. Regards SoWhy 11:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, scrub that bit. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral I agree the answer to Q1 is a little concerning. The candidate has given no reason for actually wanting the tools, or what they would do with them. Angryapathy (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Angryapathy (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral Per SoWhy. I'd prefer an admin who utilized edit summaries. A8UDI 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose Neutral Have to agree with SoWhy, good edit summaries is an essential thing for an admin in my opinion and shows a lack of communication, which is another essential skill in an admin IMO. AtheWeatherman 18:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral. Per the above, and cursory response to questions.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Regretful Neutral - SoWhy said it; You have to use edit summaries. Smithers (Talk) 02:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Leaning Oppose pending answer to Q14.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Neutral - Q14 has been answered to my satisfaction, but edit summaries are really important in the mainspace, even if you're the only one who edits the article.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - I only gave a weak support, and pointing out the copypasta of question 5 pushed me to revoke that support. I'm not opposing yet, pending an answer to question 14 and in hopes that answers to other, new questions will show some more clue than previous answers. -- Atama頭 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

   The answers to new questions are fine, and show some real thought. I'm restoring my (still weak) support. -- Atama頭 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

7. Neutral leaning support I like you contributions alot but your copy and paste method of answering question 5 scares me.--Coldplay Expert 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral Seems like a pretty nice guy. Would support, but I feel that the user lacks a fine-tuned understanding of policy and procedure. Would oppose, but fine-tuned understanding of policy and procedure can (and, with this guy, I think will) be learned on the job. [flaminglawyer] 02:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral - great article work, and I too have been guilty sometimes of cut-and-paste. But the edit sumamry issue rankles me. I've long been an advocate that edit summary usage is essential. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral - I'm leaning towards support, but the lack of edit summaries (they are used roughly half the time in the mainspace, even) worries me about how well communications are going to go, especially while performing admin duties. Hawkeye7, don't get me wrong; you're a great editor. Please come back in a few months if your RfA doesn't pass. For now, good luck :). Airplaneman ^talk 03:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral, I don't feel I can oppose such a wonderful content editor, but the lack of edit summaries and the response to my question don't exactly inspire confidence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC).
12. Neutral. While I think many of the opposes are a bit silly—in my opinion, a "copy-paste question" at RfA almost deserves a copy-paste answer—the sincere responsiveness to criticism is definitely a positive (however off-base I may think those particular opposes to be). I'm still a bit worried about the nearly complete lack of XfD participation, or participation in any other admin-related activity. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral, leaning Oppose. Sorry, but barely any XfD participation, less than 10% edit summaries, the copy-and-paste answer to Q5, relatively little participation in admin-related activities, lack of any good or featured material, and showing little need for the tools in Q1 are enough to prevent me from supporting this candidacy. Good luck though, and make sure you always use edit summaries and get some experience in admin-related capacities. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.