Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed following a bureaucrat discussion. Please do not modify it.

Hawkeye7

Final (191/95/14); ended 18:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC) after a 'crat chat ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Additional question from MSGJ

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

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

Additional question from Ritchie333

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

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

Additional question from Liz

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

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

Additional question from Ottawahitech

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

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

Additional question from Rubbish computer

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

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

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

A:

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

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

Additional question from Gerda

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

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

Thank you. They were blatantly ignored (literally, the user couldn't know them) in a recent case, starting with step one, and you gave a barnstar for the block. I like your content work and collaboration, but was not happy about that. Care to explain? (In case you don't remember: Kirill Lokshin blocking Eric Corbett for edits that were in no way detrimental to Wikipedia). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ArbCom decided that they were, and instituted what I would characterise as a punitive regime of escalating blocks with the aim of producing behaviour change. So I am hesitant to say that they were not indeed followed. (Especially the step about consulting with an experienced admin - Kirill Lokhin would have to fall into that category.) Just because I disagree with something does not mean that I am right and the people with a different opinion are wrong. Contrary opinions should still be respected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound like Jeremy Paxman, but I don't believe that answers the question. Whatever your intent, other editors clearly saw you making a statement that could be interpreted as "well done for that block"; a block that many, including myself, think was harmful and unjustified. I believe the concern here is that you have given the impression that escalating punitive blocks are okay, as long as you aren't the one making them, and that needs to be addressed before any more "oppose" votes turn up. So the question remains - why did you appear to give Kirill a barnstar for blocking Eric? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This should probably be considered Ritchie's second question, as it is not a followup to his first, but Gerda's. -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A: Because I opposed the concept of escalating punitive blocks in the original case. (And the even more draconian ideas that were floated.) At the time, I thought that ArbCom was going to desysop Kiril for following ArbCom's own instructions, and I felt sympathy for him about that. It was a personal thing, not a statement about policy; but I really, really want to make it absolutely clear that I am not in a feud with Eric or anything like that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Gerda back: I don't see any edit on a user talk page being harmful to Wikipedia, - edits to articles can be when facts are distorted. Would you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A: One thing I learnt about being an admin is that other editors do not separate that role from your regular editing. Or, for that matter, your Wikipedia editing and offline, real life activities. And readers do not separate the article pages from the talk pages. I was struck by this article from History News Network, which contained (for me) this eye-popping statement: "At Wikipedia’s "talk microhistory" link, the site’s editors explain why the work of "Kurlansky et al" is not microhistory." Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Caballero1967

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

A: I was not distraught over the ArbCom election results. One of the better aspects of the ArbCom election process is that you don't feel that you are running against other candidates. Rather, I was cheering for some of the others, voting for them, and hoping that they would be elected too. I hope that the editors who voted for me were not too disappointed. I wasn't expecting voters to call and tell me that they had voted for me. I had great support. Being desysopped was devastating. I don't blame anyone for quitting after that. And it is ongoing. Every week something happens where the admin toolkit would come in handy. But I had promised to help with the Paralympic articles, and I keep my word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Caballero1967

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

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

Thanks. I do appreciate your time. Just for clarification, is it that you are disappointed with your results in using the "Block" feature and thus think you would not use it (perhaps you have changed your mind about this)? There is uncertainty about this issue in a critical number of commentaries. The intent behind this question was to give you the chance to specify your position on this issue and to consider the consequences of a pledge in hampering your abilities to function effectively in the future. But since this is not a pledge, then, what is it? Hopefully, it would clear out some of the fog. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 16:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A: By "not a pledge", I meant that I am not giving it as an undertaking for the purpose of getting the admin tools back. I realise that some editors will see this as a drawback. Nor does it arise from from making a couple of bad blocks, as embarrassing and humbling as that was. What it is about is that while WP:BRI is both accepted and works really well with the vandals, I do not see that kind of overwhelming consensus on the merits of blocking editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Deryck

12. A real-life friend comes to you for help after they have been indef-blocked on the English Wikipedia. What do you do? (Feel free to expand on the various possibilities.) Deryck C. 14:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from User:Hallward's Ghost

13. While I'm unfamiliar with the particular scenario that Gerda describes above in her follow-up to your reply, if her description of that block is accurate in any way, giving a Barnstar for such a block seems an error in judgment. What was your thought process in deciding to give a Barnstar to a blocking admin for an apparently contentious block? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A: The problem with being unfamiliar with these wiki-dramas is that you might blunder into one unknowingly. I would like to see the Signpost ArbCom Report a little more frequently, along the lines of NewsHounds (who watch the Fox so the rest of us don't have to). The Cunctator considered the barnstar one of Wikipedia's worst ideas, along with WP:AfD and the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Today, it is like receiving a feather plucked from the wings of the Angel of Death. I got given it under more controversial circumstances. I am always willing to offer support to an editor who has tried to do the right thing. I frequently award barnstars, trinkets and thanks. I think people's efforts should be recognised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Northamerica1000

14. Any plans for work at AfD, and what is your opinion about the general present state of AfD nowadays?

A: I don't do a lot of work at AfD; most of my activity there is related to commenting on the notability of military articles. Occasionally I come in from DYK. An article that is at AfD cannot be run on DYK, so it will sit in the DYK nominations queue until the AfD is closed. But at the moment I can only perform non-admin closures. With regard to the general state of AfD, I think that the old conflicts between the inclusionists and deletionists have subsided into a broad consensus, although, as mentioned above, there is still the occasional jarring deletion. I remember nominating the article on Arthur MacArthur IV for deletion. It had gone through an AfD, and as a result of a verdict of no consensus to delete, it had been reduced to a redirect. That made no sense to me; no consensus to delete normally means the article should be kept. Another editor had subsequently re-created the article. So I re-nominated it for deletion in the hope of getting a clearer verdict. The decision was again no consensus, and the article remains. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from User:Winterysteppe

15. What edit gave you the most stress? and favorite edit? Winterysteppe (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A: The most stressful edit was in James Chadwick. Having discovered the neutron using an apparatus literally made with string and sealing wax, he then came up with an ingenious experiment to measure its mass by using gamma rays to split deuterons into protons and neutrons. The kinetic energy of the protons could be measured, so he came up with a figure for the mass of a neutron. So far, so good. Then I had to explain how this meant that a neutron could not be a proton-electron pair, but a particle in its own right. At this point, I went into a seemingly endless circle of rewrites as I tried to make this point clear. The wording has to be very careful, because a neutron is no longing considered a "fundamental" particle, but one made up of quarks. I think the final version works.

My favourite edit? During the FAC of Robert Oppenheimer, a reviewer suggested that the article should conclude with a quote. I thought about what Oppenheimer might say, and then selected one from the Bhagavad Gita:

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.

Additional question from NewYorkActuary

16. One of the Oppose votes noted a contradiction between having "no desire to become associated with high drama" and running for a spot on the Arbitration Committee. Would you care to comment on that? NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A: I acknowledge the contradiction. My candidacy was based on a sincere desire to reform the process to make it fairer, more transparent and more accountable. I realised that ArbCom would a nightmare; but I felt strongly about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from User:JuanRiley

17. How do you feel about a "clerk" editing comments below so that they may be "polite"? Juan Riley (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

[Note: Please see Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC#B1: Bureaucrats & Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Active RfA involvment. How the candidate feels may be considered irrelevant in light of the RfC, but I am obviously partial. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)]

A: This is a result of a recent RfC that found a clear consensus that "something needs to be done about hostility toward candidates during RfAs". I agree with that. We should give the new process a chance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky

18. Do you have any objections and if not, would you be willing, to responding to sensible "3rd questions"?

This would be considered a question "irrelevant to the candidate's suitability for adminship" as per A2 of Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC#B1: Bureaucrats. -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A

Additional question from Harrias

19. A number of users, myself included, seem to be reluctant to support your nomination as you appear to be avoiding answering straight questions about the situation that led to your desysop. In the nomination statement from HJ Mitchell it states that "He acknowledges the mistakes he made then and has learnt from them". Can you confirm that this statement is correct, and that you do acknowledge the mistakes that you made then?

A: Yes, it is correct. I acknowledge my mistakes. The block of Thieverr was a bad block. It was for 3RR; but I was under the (mistaken) impression that he was a sock puppet or meat puppet of racepacket. I spent a lot of time in 2013 and 2014 folding racepacket's socks. But dealing with them is best handled by the experts. I would like to comment on Dcs002's comment though: I was not an admin back then! It was not a threat to block, but a STOP! warning about going over the 3RR threshold. At the time, a couple of experienced admins had recently done this. I have met Graham87 a couple of times and I wouldn't do that to him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Raggz

20. You stated: "He was the third of several admins in a chain of knee-jerk admin actions and as such was technically "wheel-warring". If you are selected again what did you learn about associating with only other "knee-jerk" admins that you agree with? Was your error merely "technical" or was it substantive (and why)?

A: I didn't say that; Harry did. It was indeed technical, but my error was substantive. I misjudged the situation, and I mishandled it. The first administrator indefinitely blocked an editor he considered was behaving disruptively. The admin was admonished by ArbCom. The second lifted the block while it was still under review at ANI. Now, this is always a judgement call because it can take up to 24 hours before everyone can have an opportunity to participate in a discussion due to time zone differences; but on the other hand you don't want someone sitting blocked on a bad block just while we wait for the Earth to turn. Today this would be wheel warring, but the definition was different then. He was also admonished by ArbCom. That brings us to this, which I considered a personal attack, and for which I issued another block. ArbCom ruled this wheel-warring. I compounded my error by characterising the editor as a koala. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, but I now can see that his feelings were badly hurt, and I owe him another apology. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Ched

21. Do you often perform Arbcom clerking tasks such as you did here, and could you explain what part of that you considered a personal attack?

A: Not often. ArbCom called for someone to remove those comments, so I removed them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from SilkTork

22. In your answer to Raggz Q20, you state you blocked Malleous/Eric for this - which is similar to what you said at the ArbCom case: [1]. Now this is important, because if that is true then you were desysopped inappropriately, and I would apologise to you and withdraw my oppose in this RfA. Looking again at the evidence. 1) In an open discussion on admins, Malleous expresses a view (that some share) that a good number of admins are not honest - he adds a derogatory insult for which he has been warned previously, and is given an indefinite block [2] 2) The block is discussed at ANI and (with some developing but not yet complete consensus) is overturned [3] 2) You log on and support the indefinite block, feeling that the admin who overturned it was unjustified and should be trouted. 3) Malleous insults another user, using the same derogatory term. 4) You give Malleous a one week block for several reasons, all of which allude to the original block and ANI discussion, and none of which alludes to the direct personal insult. The evidence shows you reapplying the original block rather than imposing a new one: we have evidence of you saying you supported the original block, and evidence of you saying you disagreed with the unblock, and evidence of you saying to Malleous while blocking him "The consensus was that the previous indefinite block was too severe and should be lifted. A new one of one week has been substituted", and this sits squarely at odds with your statement to ArbCom that "Malleus was blocked solely for actions after being unblocked". How can you account for this evidence, and convince me that the block was for the personal attack, especially as you supported an indefinite block for simply using a derogatory term, but only applied a one week block for the direct personal attack using the same term? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A: Why didn't you ask this back then? This is the first time a rationale for the finding has been posited. The principle I followed was that I don't override another admin's actions. There was no way I would have imposed the original block myself. The discussion drew a very sharp distinction between applying a derogatory term to a group, and singling out an individual for a direct personal insult. I was under the impression that the unblock was made on that basis, and was therefore void. So this was not the same thing at all. I imposed a more limited block because of opinions that an indefinite block was too severe, even for a personal attack. I am not claiming that I handled the matter in the best possible manner. On the contrary, I handled it very badly. But ArbCom did not rely on the wheel finding, it also cited my inappropriate koala comment, per the Super Mario principle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your contention below that "arrogance and egocentrism" are the way to go about writing articles. Article writing is an intensely collaborative process. There is no way I can write articles without other editors copyediting my text, reviewing and commenting on what I have written, obtaining images and sources. Article writing requires humility, cooperation and compassion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2016 (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.

• Edits stats posted on talk page. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Sure, why not? By the sounds of it the desysop was very harsh, a long time ago, and I'm not aware of any accusations of troublesome behaviour since. Reyk _YO! 08:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
2. I don't always agree with Hawkeye7's opinions on some divisive issues. But for me there is no doubt that he is deeply devoted to the project and has contributed to it significantly. And as an admin, although he made mistakes, the good far outweighed the bad. I thought it was a harsh decision to desysop at the time and since then I have been convinced the project would have been better off had he remained an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Four years is long enough, whether you agree with the original desysop or not. His highly creditable result at the recent Arbitration Committee election shows he has been completely rehabilitated by the community. Hawkeye7 is a content creator par excellence and a doyen of Wikiproject Military history. He is a committed and clueful member of WP who wants the bit back so he can make our boat go faster. Good on him for putting his hand up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Support per no big deal. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 09:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Support I see no reason that Hawkeye shouldn't have the community's trust for these tools again. Sam Walton (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
6. Hawkeye7 was a better administrator than most of us; I trust he'll be so again. —Cryptic 09:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
7. Support We need more admins, and I don't see anything objectionable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
8. Support: I have worked with Hawkeye quite a bit over the past seven years I have been on Wikipedia and I am confident that he would be a net positive influence as an admin. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
9. Support I have only had positive experiences from Hawkeye's work on Wikipedia, they are an excellent content creator and have good sense when it comes to project issues. Four years is a long time and people change, a second chance with some forgiveness is in order. I am confident that giving the tools to Hawkeye would be a net positive to the project. Winner 42 Talk to me! 11:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
10. Four years is enough. —Kusma (t·c) 12:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
11. Support - hardworking, committed to WP, an excellent content record and experienced with admin tools. One black mark from 2012, which I'm sure won't be repeated. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
12. I've encountered the candidate several times over the years and am delighted that they are willing to pick up the mop again. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

    Support - no problems with understanding policy or communication, as evidenced by answers to the questions so far. A clear need for the tools (assembling DYK queues) has been given. Concerns raised in the original RfA (principally a lack of edit summaries) have long since been resolved. I have looked carefully over the Arbcom case, paying particular attention to specific diffs and their timing, and concluded their findings of fact on Hawkeye7 were wrong, his actions were justifiable and could be backed with policy, and that he should not have been desysopped. In particular I want to emphasise that unlike a number of desysopped admins, Hawkeye took it with good grace and has carried on editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC) (moved to neutral)

13. SQL^{Query me!} 14:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
14. Uncertain he deserved desysopping in the first place and feel recent ArbComs have been too harsh in desysopping with minimal process. In any event, he deserves the mop and certainly won't abuse it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
15. Support. Elephant first: The desysop was harsh, and the action that led to it was out of character. But I opposed Hawkeye7 in the ArbCom elections as the ArbCom desysop would have been a bit like Damocles and the pointy thing, and I thought it needed to be properly addressed via RfA first. Now that it's happening, I'm happy to offer my support to Hawkeye7, who has amply demonstrated his knowledge and abilities, his commitment to the project, his help for newcomers, and his generally kindly attitude. Quite an easy support, actually, the more I think of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
16. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
17. Support I remember the desysop and the circumstances surrounding it, and believe that Hawkeye has learned from both. I also trust HJ's judgement as nominator. Miniapolis 15:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
18. Support I'm going to park here, because of the DYK offer, in combination with his process knowledge. I will look a little deeper, but I will be highly surprised to move from here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

    Since my support above is not very definitive, I'm stating that I retain my support for this candidate. The issue regarding the de-sysop seems to be a non-issue at this point, so most of the opposes seem to be regarding temperament. This did not seem to be a significant issue when he was an admin, and overall the ratio of less-than-optimal behavior (and yes, it's there) to number of edits seems rather small. It comes down to trust, and I believe Hawkeye7 to be an editor of their word, that they will not use the block tool when INVOLVED. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

19. Support - Good editor, and will likely make a good admin. Mistakes are in the past. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
20. Absolute support - we've all done things we're not proud of. Deb (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
21. Support Four years is more than enough time to forgive past transgressions. Looks like a net positive to me. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 16:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
22. I was one of the arbitrators who voted for the desysop back in the day (my very first case, actually). It's time to make Hawkeye an admin again. Courcelles (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

    #Support per Deb - We all make mistakes here and we all (hopefully) learn from them, I can't recall ever seeing Hawkeye being in any drama .... Anyway the past is the past!, Great candidate, No issues, Good bloody luck! :) –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC) (Moved to Oppose.)

23. Support I am not wholly happy about the answer to Q.5 - although I feel both hypothetical editors should receive warnings, the answer did not so stipulate - but that aside, Hawkeye was an excellent admin, discounting the admitted elephant in the room, and I would be happy to see him reinstated. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
24. Support Well, Courcelles is convincing ;) It's been a long time, and Hawkeye has done a lot of good work since then. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

    About the barnstar thing: ehhh. I thought that block was a bad idea, and said so at the time, but I can't fault someone for offering support to a colleague who did something they thought was necessary and got a lot of shit about it. Even if the thing they did really was a bad idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

25. Support Per HJ Mitchell and Courcelles .A clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
26. Support Obviously familiar with the tools and not likely to misunderstand how to use them; absent the desysop situation, I can't imagine a solid reason to oppose. Given the time since the desysop, and Hawkeye's consistent contributions to the project since then, I think he can move, and has moved, beyond that event. Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
27. Support per WP:NETPOS and WP:NOBIGDEAL. I see no reason to not give admin rights to a trustworthy, long-term contributor such as Hawkeye. —  dainomite   18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
28. Support as appears thoroughly suitable, including when the desysopping is taken into account. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
29. Support One mistake years ago does not outweigh his other, considerable contributions. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
30. Support Call me biased but HJM's noms have proved to be worthwhile (and I don't need any more reasons to support). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
31. Support I have expressed concerns over a few things with Hawkeye7 directly but unreservedly I have great respect for them and their work at Military History. Regrettably I don't think I ever shared this with them at the time of expressing a few concerns but it was done as I would with any of my respected colleagues. The issue around the ArbCom desysop was quite some time ago and I would trust Hawkeye7 with the sysop tools. Mkdw^talk 19:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
32. Support Class455fan1 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
33. Support has a clue and won't delete the main page. The problems are a few years old now so I'm confident that giving Hawkeye7 the bit will be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
34. Support. I don't think we should hold a four-years-old brief lapse of judgement against Hawkeye. I'm quite certain he has learned his lesson and will not do that again. Biblio (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
35. Support A good admin, being desysoped for blocking an abusive person in no way disqualifies this candidate in my view. If it is arbcom's view that they can come back after passing RfA then welcome back!. HighInBC 22:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
36. Support: I'm confident he will be a good addition to the admins. --Mirokado (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
37. Support The past is the past, and they're clearly here to contribute massively positively- just look at the article/content creation stats. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
38. Support: I thought he already was; as for past indescretions, Wiki is one of the two interweb sites I haven't been banned from, so I can't complain. Keith-264 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
39. Support - More than ready to pick up the mop again. Thparkth (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
40. Support I reviewed his contributions and it's good to see that they are so focussed on building the encyclopedia. This review reminded me that our paths crossed briefly at James Chadwick where he seemed a bit prickly but it was no big deal. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
41. I'm pleasantly surprised to see this RfA. I had hoped that Hawkeye7 would run for adminship again if he received over 50% support in the recent ArbCom elections and he indeed achieved that. I don't always agree with Hawkeye7 but I trust his judgment and I think he'll be fine if he receives the tools again. I supported him in his first candidacy many, many years ago and I don't regret that support. Acalamari 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
42. Support. I trust him to do the right thing for the encyclopedia, and I don't think the ArbCom ruling should be held against him after so much time doing so much good work. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
43. Support - Hawkeye7 has been a good front-line editor for a long time. I have seen nothing that would disqualify him. I have not investigated the ArbCom ruling, but I trust the combined judgements of certain other editors on this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC).
    
44. Support. I was not aware of Hawkeye's demotion from admin at the time it happened. Unless his actions affected me, it wouldn't have been the kind of thing I would have been paying attention to. I can tell you that Hawkeye is a really, really good editor, and I have learned many editing techniques from him personally. I've interacted with him for years on WP MH and on various review processes. He's pretty valuable at WP MH, and he's been trustworthy over there. Let him be an admin again. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
45. Support. I think has enough experience to be net positive. I think if any problems arise then they can be reviewed then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
46. Support. I know of him from the Wikiproject Military history section, where he has been elected a Coordinator; he has done very good work there. I believe in giving him a second chance with adminship. Kierzek (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
47. Support as per well-reasoned comments from many above, including HJ Mitchell. Quality article contributions and their past issues have long since been made up for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
48. Support, should make an excellent addition to the administrative staff. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
49. Support. Nobody's perfect, and four year old mistakes in the middle of a decided cluster-F shouldn't constitute a permanent stain against a guy who has done great work in all forms over the years. oknazevad (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
50. Support. Even as someone editing in topics far from military history, I've seen Hawkeye's constructive contributions and tireless efforts. On the content side, I love that Hawkeye remembers to pitch major articles at the right level, spinning off article details into their own articles as they need them. Leadership in content creation is extremely helpful to proper usage of the tools and in setting precedent for admin mop use in the future. No problems since the desysop that I've seen; admin is no big deal; he can be desysoped again if there's a problem, but I highly doubt there will be one. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
51. Support Your desysopping sounds very harsh, besides people change and you deserve a second chance. I reckon you can be trusted with the mop. Good luck!--5 albert square (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
52. Support Top tier contributor and been a long time since the desysop with no disqualifying issues since.--MONGO 02:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
53. Everyone deserves a second chance, and I see no reason to distrust Hawkeye at present. They've shown themselves to be trustworthy and denying them the tools would only hinder their ability to further contribute to the project. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
54. Support Would make a good admin, I am unconvinced about past occasions as they date to 2011 and 2012. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

    Support Ordinarily, a previous desysop for civility/possible misuse of the tools would be something I would oppose, but it has been a long time, and the candidate does indeed seem to have learned from it. I have frequently been annoyed at the DYK queue myself, and I would be very glad if more eyes (and more mops) were on the job. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Enough editors that I respect have dug up enough recent concerns that I am going to go sit in the neutral section for now, and dig a little deeper. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

55. Support Would be a good admin. Laberinto16 (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
56. Support - No worries here but, give him a new mop :P . Mlpearc (open channel) 03:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
57. Support I have weighed the arguments against Hakweye's candidacy in the balance and found them wanting.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
58. Support. I see no problems here. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
59. Support without hesitation. Net positive, excellent content contributor, and I'm positive the candidate has moved on from past issues. --Laser brain (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
60. Support. Four years has a long time. I took a look at the edits he has done and seemed to have made some good edits in good faith. seemed good for another RFA. Winterysteppe (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
61. Support. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
62. Support. I can't believe I've had no interactions with Hawkeye, but in reviewing his contributions, I believe it would definitely be a net positive. I rarely feel compelled to !vote in these things, but, from what I've seen, Hawkeye is a real asset to the project and just wants the ability to help out more. As for the past, admins are humans too; they're going to make mistakes. Four years is a long time to think about them, grow and learn from them, all the while continuing to make many valuable high-quality contributions with no disqualifying issues. I am willing to trust him with the tools again.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
63. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

    #Support A week Four years is a long time in politics on Wikipedia. I believe Hawkeye has learned from the events of the past and have no problems supporting.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Moving to oppose.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

64. Support - if we seek admins who are 100% perfect 100% of the time, we won't have any. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
65. Support - Another fine admin candidate, and another fine example of how people honestly can and do learn from mistakes and improve! -- samtar ^whisper 09:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
66. Support Long time, people change & mature; quite sure that the candidate will be well aware of eyes all over his actions; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
67. Support I have had several interactions with this candidate. I find the candidate even tempered and intelligent. I see no reason to believe this editor will delete the main page. On the contrary, this editor often finds themselves directly improving the main page through their contributions. !Voters who demand a high level of editing competence and a history of strong page improvement should find no fault with this person. About time to hand them the mop; they have been helping out here for quite a while. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
68. Support Desysopping was the correct course of action at the time, three years of further good quality editing is commendable and combined with past experience, including the hard won experience of ArbCom, makes Hawkeye7 a good, experienced and well versed candidate. Nick (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
69. Support GELongstreet (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
70. Support this is a high quality editor. From personal experience I believe he has worked in the best interests of Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
71. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 12:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
72. Support, it'll be good to have you back in the admin corps. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
73. Support --DHeyward (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
74. Support - Ever since "the incident," Hawkeye7 has remained a valuable part of this community. I trust that they have learned from any mistakes made and that the bit will not be misused in the future. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
75. Support - Clearly a content person. Not sure on the face of it why tools would be needed (and I'm sad seeing content people move into the world of janitorial drudgery as a general statement of principle). Nevertheless, as a candidate for ArbCom on a reform platform last time around the ancient desyssop loomed large, so even if he didn't intend to do a single thing on the administrative front from here on out revisiting and removing that black mark is 100% valid. Looking at him as a new candidate: more than 60K edits, more than half to mainspace, and an absolutely immaculate, clean block log. I looked at one of his main articles and found Hawkeye to be a productive editor. Green light here. Carrite (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
76. Support Seems like he has moved on and improved over the last four years. Ayzmo (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
77. Support I believe in second chances.--agr (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
78. Support. Very deserving of a second chance. Especially now. -- œ^™ 15:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
79. Support - one of my very last statements as an arbitrator was stating that Hawkeye7 should run through an RfA again and even stating that Arbcom should make a water under the bridge statement. I'm glad that Hawkeye has decided to run, he certainly has my support. Worm^TT(talk) 15:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
80. Support per Carrite. shoy (reactions) 16:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
81. Support He's got what it takes to become reputable admin talk--JoeSakr1980 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
82. Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
83. Support. As an arbitrator in 2012, I opposed Hawkeye7's desysopping for the reasons stated there. (I was outvoted 8 to 1.) Since I didn't feel that Hawkeye7's conduct warranted desysopping in 2012, I certainly don't believe it should be an obstacle to this RfA in 2016. More importantly, I don't think the mistakes Hawkeye7 made in 2011-2012 are likely to be repeated now, given his statements as to how he plans to use his adminship if he regains it and his continued high-quality participation in the project. While I respect many of the points made by the opposers below, overall I find their position unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
84. Support per outstanding contributions and no big deal. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
85. Support. I trust Hawkeye7 with the tools; seems to have the interests of the wiki at heart. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
86. Support. I have examined Hawkeye's behavior of the last four years. I think he would make a good admin, notwithstanding his quality contributions. I would elect him !vote for him as president of the United States admin, because it's been a day four years since his last scandal, so to speak, and he's done pretty well to deserve another chance. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
87. Support - he talks sense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
88. Support: excellent content contributions. If it only takes a few sins for ArbCom to desysop, then there is little risk in supporting. Esquivalience ^t 21:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
89. Support: Trustworthy and definitely capable. Cloudbound (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
90. Support - I am all about giving second chances. He is an excellent editor and an asset to this project, no doubt about that. As noted by Harrias, the lack of acceptance of his mistakes do worry me. Considering the good work he did as an admin (ignoring the one or two bad incidents), and the great content work he has been doing, I would like to give him an another chance. I hope that Hawkeye7 has learned from his mistakes and that the mistakes of the past won't be repeated. Yash! 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
91. Support All of my own interaction with Hawkeye7 has been uniformly positive, and I can see that he has consistently been doing excellent content creation and article improvement based on reliable sources for a long time. We need more volunteer editors like him, for sure. I was an editor in 2012 but am not aware of the background of the case in which he was desysopped. I see from the other comments here (I read them all, pro, con, and neutral) that there is editor consensus that he has been a net positive for the project, which is consistent with my observation of his behavior on-wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 22:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
92. Support - The benefits outweigh the risks. Aeonx (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
93. Support - I was rather opposed to give you the admin rights as bundled with an Arbitrator seat, but I fully support to give you these rights as an administrator. Pldx1 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
94. Support with the understanding that Hawkeye recognizes the problems that lost him the bit previously, and will not repeat such actions or engage in similar conduct. Hawkeye is a smart guy; beyond that, I don't think we need to belabor the point. Good luck, and don't break the wiki. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
95. Support Is a help to the project.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
96. Support Because of his valuable contributions to the project. Dead Mary (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
97. Support. I've interacted with this editor a few times at FAC and I trust them to do the right thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
98. Support. Truly outstanding contributor, not just a great writer. I think that Hawkeye 7's desysop was harsh. He undoubtedly has learned to be especially cautious in sticky situations because of it. Four years of good contributions and interactions is more than enough to show he has made up for some unfortunate blundering. He is articulate and has the best interests of the project at heart. His judgment is first rate. I am confident he will be careful in his writing in interacting with others, since that is where he is getting the most criticism. Such criticism seems to be of quite old interactions and some of it seems to be based on misinterpretation of euphemisms for the most part but it still recommends care. HJ Mitchell's nomination statement and well stated supports from Ritchie333, User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:Dirtlawyer1 also are persuasive. I do hope Hawkeye 7 will continue his content and editing contributions. Donner60 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
99. Support. Just gonna be general about this. Based on what I've seen and know about Hawkeye7, I think he'll make a fine admin. (N0n3up (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC))
100. Support. The point here, to me, isn't "look at this guy, he did bad things a long time ago", it's more like "look at this guy, he wants to help get DYK done on time!". What someone will do is more important to me than what they did. Eman235/talk 05:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
101. Support Aside from being an outstanding and highly collegial editor who takes an interest across Wikipedia, Hawkeye has done a great job as one of the Military History Wiki Project's coordinators. I'd be very pleased to see him back as an admin, and am confident he'll use the tools well. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
102. Support – Hawkeye7 is clearly a very experienced editor with a broad understanding of processes and policies. From personal experience over a long period I know him to be a NETPOSITIVE, and diffs from 4 years ago (i.e. before he was desysopped) don't seem compelling against the weight of his strong contributions across many aspects of the project in the period since then (which seems to me to be a far more relevant metric). Given the range of different opinions on the rights or wrongs of the events of 2012 it all seems fairly subjective anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
103. Support -Good editor and i will make a good admin Parthimurugesan (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
104. Support - I've seen this editor's interactions and good work, including at AFD. Four years is long enough to forgive his past difficulties; also many of the diffs in the oppose column are old. I think promoting him to admin again will be a NETPOSITIVE. - tucoxn\^talk 15:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
105. Support ColonialGrid (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
106. Support As an admin he/she can be helpful in assisting other editors/admins and Wikipedia itself. I support him. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
107. Well, obviously. It's interesting to see how this RfA has progressed. It's significantly calmer than I'd anticipated, for which all participants should be commended; it's good to see that we can still discuss things and disagree respectfully without getting personal. It's also encouraging to see less drive-by voting and lots of well thought-out rationales. As the nominator, I of course support Hawkeye's candidacy. While I respect the opposes, I'm confident that Hawkeye has learnt his lesson and will not be making the same mistakes that landed him at ArbCom's door four years ago. I believe he genuinely wants to help, and that he would be more helpful with the extra tools than without, so I think a second chance is absolutely in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

     Re "it's good to see that we can still discuss things and disagree respectfully without getting personal", perhaps you overlooked a user's ad hominem bad faith presumptive bogus logic badgering/baiting comments under Eric's !vote!? IHTS (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

     It's a shame that the tone has lowered in parts of this RfA, but it's still much more peaceful and feels much less personal than many RfAs I've been involved with. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

     [Working on it. -- Avi (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)]

108. Support Should have never been desysopped to begin with. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
109. Support Return the mop - happy to support Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 19:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
110. Support - time for a 2nd chance. GiantSnowman 19:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
111. Support Good admin when he had the tools before so I believe that he will be a good admin again. The wheel-warring is not likely to be repeated.
      — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
112. Support Very well equipped to deal with complex issues; wide range of editing experience at a very high level of quality. Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
113. Support. I looked into him when he stood for ArbCom due to the issue of the desysop, and was happy to support then. I think he will do fine with the tools again, some years on Fences&Windows 21:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
114. WeakFull support I agree with a number of the opposers, especially Hammersoft and Beeblebrox, but, ultimately, see Hawkeye as a net good (or, at least not a net negative). I have concerns about his temperament and his responses to questions about his desysopping, but I have yet to see something that convinces me he will be a bad admin. So I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and hope Hawkeye acts becomingly of the great faith and trust the community is putting in him. Wugapodes (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Caballero's general comment below really swayed me to give my full support. While I respect SilkTork's oppose (and all the others), the question I'm asking myself is will the candidate make the same mistakes. I believe, if anything, all this will lead to him being less likely to make mistakes than others because of his history which is why I don't find the arguments about his desysopping particularly swaying. Wugapodes (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
115. I think Hawkeye7 deserves a second chance. He's not perfect, and to be honest I'm not 100% sure that he has owned up to his past mistakes, but I doubt he'll screw up like that again. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
116. Support -FASTILY 23:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
117. Support - Having worked with you recently on content, I am willing to go here. I have reason to think, and I certainly hope the temperament issue will be managed appropriately, but I ask you, and even expect you, to tread lightly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
118. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
119. Support The desysop was harsh and a long time ago. I understand the desire for greater contrition, but it is not unreasonable for Hawkeye to feel a bit harshly treated. As for other issues, the comment about Eric strikes me as an (unwise) attempt at humour, while I see nothing wrong in giving a barnstar to an admin who is getting a lot of flak for a block if you think it was a good block. The content work and dedication is impressive and he strikes me as a thoughtful editor. Neljack (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
120. Support. Content work is quite good, and reviewing some of his AfD work, it also seems solid. APerson (talk!) 04:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
121. Strong support -- with great pleasure; pleased to welcome a dedicated content admin back to the corps, trusting he has learned from prior mistakes. Go Phightins! 04:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
122. Support I've always respected Hawkeye, and I also trust the nominator's judgement here, so I see no problem giving them a second chance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
123. Support based on actions observed at and around WP:MILHIST. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
124. Support in my past interactions Hawkeye has been polite, reasonable and responsible editor, exactly the kind I would like wielding the mop.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
125. Support. As for past missteps, I certainly don't feel qualified to cast the first stone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
126. Support Looks good to me. LK (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
127. Support Is he perfect? No, of course not. Will he make mistakes? Very probably. Does that matter? No, not at all, because the only question that matters is this: do I trust him with the tools? Yes, I think I do. WaggersTALK 15:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
128. Support After four years of reflection and going through this process,I think Hawkeye will be extra careful issuing a block.Also agree with his comment that some AFD decisions are "jarring."Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
129. Support One word: yes. JAGUAR  20:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
130. Support (Despite his questionable ideas about Bill Mauldin.) Anmccaff (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
131. Support John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
132. Support Has knowledge covering multiple areas within Wikipedia, and is sound on AfD issues. Collect (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
133. Support. Strong editor, motivated, trustworthy. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
134. Support - WP is about creating articles, editing for accuracy and copyediting for improvement. This candidate's track record speaks loudly to the purpose of WP, and clearly to reducing and/or helping to eliminate the disruptions that prevent the latter. Atsme^📞📧 04:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
135. SUPPORT - because this editor deserves another chance, and to offset some of the appalling hypocrisy in the oppose & neutral vote sections. - ^theWOLFchild 05:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
136. Support - Wikipedia is about creating and improving articles and Hawkeye has really achieved in these. An admin willing to work on some of the administrative backlogs is always welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
137. Support -I see a consistent and uniquely strong admin in Hawkeye. It took me a while, but I finally read through the 4 year-old case and tracked the candidate’s key contributions afterward—mostly the ones raised by the opposes. I also followed every single diff submitted in this forum, reviewed other cases for comparison, read plenty of WP-essays on the subject, and tallied all the sysop guidelines I could find. Then I requested counsel from trusted veterans on both sides of the aisle (who gave me even more to read). Finally, I slept on it. I had to (WP:RFAV). Sensible editors had planted doubts on this forum, others had been splitting hairs, and I had no contact with the candidate before. The point I found was that there is no point against him. See the discussion section, please. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 05:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
138. Support - a sensible content editor, whom I'd trust with the admin toolset. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
139. Support. Resysopping an editor who was desysopped by Arbcom isn't done lightly, but I am persuaded that he deserves the chance. I also find Newyorkbrad's analysis of the arbcom case compelling. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
140. Support. What an ideal record! I wish more sysops would strive for quality content. Hawkeye7 2 is also well-equipped and experienced. The opposes do not strike me as reasonable…[Clerked. Point that opposition does not seem reasonable remains clear. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)] This position, after all, is for an unpaid volunteer. [Unnecessary for point. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)] A failed RfC based on thinly masked personal attacks would not send a positive message to newcomers. !voters should focus on the broad record and professionalism rather than on petty accusations. Rosario (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

     Is this sort of impugning the motives of fellow editors because you disagree with them acceptable? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

     Never mind, Kevin. If people want to show themselves in a poor light, let them. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC).

     [Note: "A failed RfC based on thinly masked personal attacks would not send a positive message to newcomers. !voters should focus on the broad record and professionalism rather than on petty accusations." is not a personal attack but a statement as to value of responses at RfX. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)]

     Striking my own text above. Did not mean to offend, only to express a concern. My apologies. Rosario (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

     Thanks for doing that, Rosario. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

141. Support: Long time editor, great contributor, clean block log, done some mistakes in past which will make him more sensible admin this time. Best luck.--Human3015 ^TALK  19:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
142. I find the responses above reasonable, and the contributions of the candidate are quite impressive. Many of the concerns raised seem to stem from ancient grudges based on ArbCom drama, but in such cases, in my experience, there's often less than optimal conduct on both sides of a case. At least Hawkeye7 appears to have learned from the experience – I don't know whether others have.  Sandstein  19:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
143. Support In my humble opinion, Hawkeye7 seems like the ideal admin candidate. I support him! PigeonOfTheNight (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
144. Support, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

     Comment I see that several oppose Hawkeye7 because he gave a barnstar to Kirill, just after he had blocked Eric C. Now, one can agree with that...or not. But I think we should judge admins by their admin actions.(...and not by barnstars they have given out.) I trust Hawkeye7 has learned from past mistakes, there, Huldra (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

145. Support GailLeenstra (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)— GailLeenstra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dave Dial (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
146. Support I believe that this editor possesses the experience, knowledge, and temperament to be an admin, despite past mistakes. Mamyles (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
147. Support Hawkeye7 is a levelheaded, sensible editor whose content contributions testify to his impressive commitment to Wikipedia and his deep understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I think he would make a fine administrator. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
148. Support Wikipedia needs more administrators. I am willing to support any decent candidate. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
149. 4 years is a long time and this user appears to have learned the lesson. Andrevan@ 05:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
150. Support I think we can trust them to go slow at first and avoid drama. I would tend to attribute much of the problems raised to stress. I am very reassured that the candidate seems to be making good use of humour to evacuate stress. I would just encourage them to be less obscure when dealing with editors they don't know as well. The fact that they persevered after a desysoping speaks to their dedication to the project. Happy Squirrel (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
151. Support. I write this as a former arbitrator who is probably more aware of the Arbcom issues in which Hawkeye7 was involved. In my opinion, I see someone who has, in fact, matured and mellowed in the ensuing years. I also see someone who knows acutely that Arbcom can, and will, yank the bits if he messes up. The behaviour of that time was not what I would have classified as "unforgivable" even back then (if it was, he would have been banned, not just desysopped), and I think Hawkeye7 has shown enough of a change in wiki world view to be a net positive in routine admin gruntwork. I do urge him to take things slowly; there's plenty to do without heading into areas where he's had some controversy in the past. Risker (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

     A net positive. That is all I have to say. sst✈ ^(speak now) 10:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)_{withdrawing vote sst✈ ^(speak now) 05:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}

     Question: To arrive at a verdict of "net positive", you must have weighed some things. Can you share what they were? Begoon ^talk 13:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

     Other editors have raised issues regarding this candidate, but I think overall the community would benefit from Hawkeye7 receiving the tools. sst✈ ^(speak now) 15:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

152. Support - Overall, this user's work for the project has been too good to allow ghosts of the past to continue to hover around it all. Orphan Wiki 13:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
153. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
154. Support I am inclined to agree with the nominator's assessment of the circumstances leading to the desysop: while the candidate did display poor judgement, the violations in question were mostly technical and they were unlucky enough to take place in disputes which ended up in front of ArbCom. Aside from that the candidate appears to display good judgement. Given this and the passage of four years I am comfortable with giving them a second chance. Hut 8.5 16:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
155. Support It's easy to get things wrong, but Hawkeye7 clearly gets more stuff right than wrong and is prepared to acknowledge mistakes. Relentlessly (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
156. Support I think Hawkeye7 has changed a lot since the arbitration case and I support his candidacy. I also think that if this RfA is successful, there will be eyes on his admin activities and I doubt there will be much hesitation to hold him accountable. I think this is a risk worth taking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
157. Support Graham Beards (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
158. Support - Although I echo the concerns expressed by Dennis Brown, Ritchie, and Drmies, Hawkeye has said enough at this RFA to make me moderately confident that he would be a net positive with possession of the mop again. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
159. Support Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
160. Support: This is a hard one. I'd like to see the candidate acknowledge more clearly what lead to the ArbCom action and talk about his response to it, and there have been some questionable judgements, but I'm not waiting for a perfect candidate. We have a solid content contributor who has used a lot of good judgement in making the encyclopedia and wants to help further using the tools available as an administrator. I hope he has the opportunity.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
161. Support -- Per Harry and others. Net positive, and might have voted for ACE if they had tools at the time. Judgement and independence. As much as I respect some of the opposers, that is not a reason to oppose. Group-think is not a positive attribute. Dave Dial (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
162. Support I'm all for giving a second chance. It been a long time since the desysop, I'm sure that it was not meant to be for life! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
163. Support. His overall record is good. While he's made some mistakes, I don't feel that they're enough (nor frequent enough) to disqualify him from adminship. --Aquillion (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
164. Support -- Yet to be convinced that desysopping was warranted for what I saw as an error of judgement and no more, while the "koala" episode generated disproportional noise, proving that no good witticism goes unpunished. Ancient history out of the way, the guy is not just a great content writer but has proven his dedication to the smooth running of the project through his MilHist and FAC bots, among many other things. I've had nothing but collegial dealings with him, and if he's happy to have the mop back, I'm happy to give it to him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
165. Support , yeah he did bad, but I've seen far worse by current admins who still retain adminship, and regardless, four years is certainly enough time. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
166. Support – moving back here from Neutral. Whlle there are a handful of editors I respect in the Oppose column, none have expended too much effort explaining why Hawkeye7's "temperament" is so very problematic as to prevent him from ever regaining the kit. (I need more than the three or five diffs provided out of Hawkeye7's tens of thousands of edits to decide such a thing.) I don't believe in life sentences, nor in courts without appeal; I'm not satisfied the Opposes have effectively made their case. Here's hoping the Bureaucrats who will ultimately render their pollice verso will understand that the watchlist notification may have given this RfA a lot of piling on from the peanut-crunching crowd. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
167. Per Carrite and NYBrad. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
168. Sopport - Will the first person who has never made a mistake on Wikipedia please put up their hand. I believe he has apologized. Should he be permanently barred from being a Adminstrator?....NO SethWhales ^talk 11:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
169. Support - Will give him a second chance. Snappy (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
170. Support. I believe in second chances. Several oppose-voters discussed things that Hawkeye7 had done before he was desysopped 4 years ago, which in my opinion is double jeopardy. What Hawkeye7 had done to restore everybody's confidence in him since 2012 is commendable and I think he should be allowed to regain his mop. Deryck C. 12:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

     In relation to the actions that led to the arbcom case, not really. Raising one's past actions which rendered them unsuitable for the bit is hardly related to double jeopardy, which involves a retrial for the same crime. This would be like saying a police officer, having formerly been stood down for misuse of power, should not be judged on their past actions if they attempt to reapply. Quite to the contrary, it seems rather relevant. Perhaps a more suitable comparison would be an admin having been stood down over action X, reinstated by the community, then stood down again over action X. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 14:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

     I write on this thread as an anon because of the risks of voicing opinions in a divisive environment being a simple user. Few of the comments have appeared vindictive in nature, and I can just imagine what would happen to me if I say something that the opposition would find disagreeable. It is easier for me to ignore the disputes, but I think that silence would come back and bite us all. What is said here will leave a critical precedent. This is one occasion, then, where anonymity is reasonable given that some has already been cleverly censored (and I am not talking about clerking). Please, try to read my arguments without bias. I hope the effort will prove valuable:

     In my opinion, your use of the “police” analogy reveals the way some in the opposition perceive the sysop position, and explains in turn why some have taken the temperament issue to levels I think are unjustifiable. Would temper and personality-type be the measuring stick from now on? If so, what are the metrics? This RfA debate is not so much about the candidate as how we think of Wikipedia’s future. Some are saying that the past is relevant. But which past? If we shall pretend that we can gauge temperament (and assume it is unchangeable), your analogy of the police and your insistence that the candidate has a temperament problem may easily make you unsuitable for clear-headed judgments as well. Such is the emotional weight of this reasoning that it is beginning to approach the point of personal attacks. I am new to this, but the more I read the diffs and the more I read the opposition, the less convince I am that we are assessing the candidate with the right rubrics. 166.170.32.33 (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

     [Moving to talk; neither necessary nor helpful vis-a-vis this discussion. -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)]

     I don't really see the purpose of going anon. I really don't mind if you disagree with me. But anyway, regardless of your impartial stance, it is a profound misunderstanding on my comment to read it as equating being a mop as being a policeman. That said, I knew someone would as I hit save. The point I was making is that this has nothing to do with the concept of double jeopardy. That is, there is no reason why past actions should not be used in evaluation of future performance as an administrator, especially when those actions involved the mop. Whether or not appropriate time has passed, and whether the candidate feels they have understood from, learned and will not repeat such errors, along with a judgment of the seriousness of them leads to an individual determination of whether a nexus exists between the candidate's past actions and potential future actions, is what this discussion primarily revolves around. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 17:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

171. Support Agree with Aquillion. Hal peridol (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
172. Support Based on his good content work and general dedication to Wikipedia in many ways where admin tools can come in handily (See Ian Rose above). I have noticed in some of his comments that he has sometimes been frustrated by not having the tools necessary to help out, for instance at the DYK project. The fact that he misses having the administrative tools for maintenance work and has been frustrated by this for a long time it seems, make me believe that he will handle the tools in a disciplined and careful way if/when he gets them . Some of the complaints against him is related to the longtime Eric Corbett conflict, and I would recommend Hawkey never comment on that user again. But I have seen so many administrators with sub-par behavior in that area that has escalated that conflict without consequences for themselves, so it doesn’t seem fair that Hawkey should be singled out to be permanently denied the tools for his involvement. Iselilja (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
173. Support per Ian Rose etc. Answered questions, won't abuse the tools. zzz (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
174. Support Excellent contributions throughout his tenure as an editor, especially as a content creator - we need more of them as admins. The desysoping was four years ago, which aught to be ancient history in internet years. Four years is over 25% of the entire time Wikipedia has existed! This man gets my support. schetm (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
175. Support per all above, with some hesitation over apparent previous misuse of tools in a content dispute.--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
176. Support Having looked through many of the diffs and arguments presented here, and having seen Hawkeye7's contributions in multiple capacities around the project, I think he'd make good use of the tools. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
177. I've been watching this RfA since it opened, and I am certain that it will be unsuccessful. It would probably be more accurate for me to put myself in the neutral column, and I want the closing Crat to understand my comment that way. But I do recognize that the candidate mostly wants what is good for the project, and I do believe in second chances, so I am putting myself here, partly as moral support (whatever that may really be), partly as a sort of ROPE offer to not make future mistakes, and partly per Newyorkbrad and Risker. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
178. Support. The candidate has a clear commitment to Wikipedia and has make a huge contribution to improving the encyclopedia. Over their many years of service they have had a few problems, and Oppose votes claiming that the candidate has grudges are unconvincing. It seems more like there were arguments years ago and the candidate is now being convicted of not having been apologetic enough for these years-past disagreements. In short, it is the opposition that seems to have grudges, not the candidate. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
179. Support. Solid user with strong background. Regarding the possibility of "failure", I think this is something everybody is susceptible to, and anybody can be de-sysoped, so I don't see that as an issue. Let's not sysop anybody? Much rather, a great opportunity for such a committed user to continue in his hard selfless work for this project. C679 23:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
180. Support. HTD Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
181. Support, and thanks to Hawkeye7 for giving me (i.e., the community) the opportunity to voice this support for WP:CIVILITY.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
182. Support I have read the questions above and the various oppose rationales below. Whilst there is some validity to some of the concerns raised, I think that Hawkeye can, on the whole, be trusted to use the tools appropriately moving forward. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
183. Support – because I think it's important that this one go to a Crat Chat so that the 'Crats can assess the merits of this case. (Also, my brief interactions with Hawkeye7 have been positive, so I have less fear of his getting Admin rights than others do...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
184. Support I think a second chance is a good idea. Learning from past mistakes is something everyone should do. AlbinoFerret 03:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
185. Support: I think that people's core personalities don't really change, but they can learn from their mistakes. I did read the oppose !votes of some people I respect a great deal and urge Hawkeye7 to take their concerns very seriously. I !vote support in part because I've long had issues with the concept of a "temperament" for adminship, we need a variety of people with the mop. I also have issues with the "wiki never forgives or forgets" problem -- a few screwups should not be given an eternal punishment: The late user Dreadstar was someone I considered a friend and one of the best admins when you needed someone with a spine. He sometimes also could be a bit intemperate or speak strongly in a good cause but his insights were usually in the right direction. I think Hawkeye7 has learned to not be baited or to gravedance when someone is blocked. Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
186. Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and this user is clearly dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. kennethaw88 • talk 05:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
187. Support For me the rewards outweigh the risks and I believe that Hawkeye would be a net benefit to the project as an admin. Spencer^T♦C 05:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
188. Support Was a strong candidate for ArbCom, a user who clearly has experience and good ideas, and the criticism does not impress me. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
189. Support, based on knowledgeable replies to questions—Wikipedia needs the experience and history since desyopping—it's not as if there won't be eyes on future performance. — Neonorange (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
190. Support, even though only ten minutes or so are left. Wikipedia has an admin shortage, and Hawkeye has proved himself capable, asides from questionable civility standards, but I'm inclined to give him a second chance. Dschslava (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
191. Support as I feel a second chance is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I had front row seats for the Netball debacle that ultimately lead to the candidates first admonishment mentioned in the nomination statement. The issue for me was not just the involved block of the now banned editor, but the somewhat forgotten block of Thivierr for violating the 3rr (they didn't actually violate 3rr although edit warring was involved). Hawkeye wasinvolved in the Netball article[4] and with the other editor edit warring, including being involved in the edit war. I know this happened four years ago, but after Hawkeyes response to a question at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Hawkeye7/Questions#Questions from Beeblebrox where Hawkeye7 says he didn't consider himself involved, I feel he still doesn't understand WP:involved. I don't know if I could trust this editor with the block button despite them saying they will only use it for obvious vandalism. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose: First, I don't find Hawkeye has no desire to become associated with high drama as an admin,... to be comparable or compatible with running for Arbcom. Second: the stewed koala comment does not appear to be a one-off, although it may have weighed in the desysop of Feb. 2012. Hawkeye7 had been admonished by arbcom 8 months prior to that for blocking an editor; in violation of WP:INVOLVED at a June 2011 case. I haven't researched further; but, when I weigh all this together and I feel I can not support. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  16:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

   Well, I do find this, and more importantly, this, so I think I'll stand by my oppose since my perception is that not much has changed in approach or attitude. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  00:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

   I find the use of AfD stat's utterly absurd. I can go to AfD any day for a week, pick twenty AfD's, vote on them, and get a 100% accuracy. I don't do that. Instead, I read the comments, I google the subject, I check into whether there is a vendetta against any editor there . . . and then I make my decision based on that info. I don't expect to get a 100% rating because I don't play follow the leader and I don't believe in holding grudges. So those editors with a 65% accuracy is much more to my liking then some editor at 90%! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

9. Oppose I look at 4th question's answer, and expect to see some sort of contrition and acceptance at these two questions...and don't see it. I also see "The root cause of disputes can be dealt with by ruling in favour of one side." (answer two), and am quite concerned. You don't fix a root cause this way at all. All you would have done is put out a fire. Real solutions require more advanced discernment of underlying problems. When problems get a head of steam to them, it is quite rare that all blame falls on one side, and thus ruling for the other side fixes the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
10. Strong oppose, he's a great writer as proven by his featured articles and other accolades, but I'm deeply concerned about his temperament issues, which I've encountered while working with him on sports articles. He threatened to have me blocked for trying to improve an article and tried to reinsert blatant trivia, both of which were highly inappropriate knee-jerk reactions. More recently, I didn't appreciate his pig-headed attitude in this discussion about categorisation on the netball talk page. The length and depth of his association with LauraHale, whose many, many problems with editing have been well-documented,, points to a lack of judgement in my mind. I rarely oppose, particularly with such veciferousness, but I feel I have to in this case. Graham87 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

    Since threatening to block appears to be such a huge objection, Why doesn't Wikipedia make it a rule that any admin who threatens any editor with a block become permanently desysoped? --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

    I looked at the diffs. I saw "2012" on a number of them and tossed them out as ancient history. The LauraHale topic ban thread is from 2014 and has no edits from Hawkeye; the Netball thread is also from 2014 and my interpretation is simply that Hawkeye disagreed with everyone. Have you got anything more recent? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

    @Ritchie333: Nope, but it's the general pattern I'm concerned about. Per Stfg, basically. Graham87 09:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

11. Absolutely not. WP should have no place for administrators who brag about their blocks and call other editors "stewed koalas". And as Debresser observes, there's no way to enforce partial adminship. Added to which, if my restrictions can last for four years then so should Hawkeye7's desysop. Eric Corbett 18:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

    Maybe your restrictions have something to do with the length of your block log? Only one entry there, out of 50+ or so, is from Hawkeye7 [clerked; point is still made] jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

    How about we don't unnecessarily antagonize people during the RfA? [clerked; point is still made]  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 22:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

12. No, I don't think so - per Eric, but mostly per the diffs provided by Graham. Threatened to block over what appears to be a content dispute? No. Temperament issues galore.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 20:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
13. Oppose, with regret. What people who write of forgiving and rehabilitating may be overlooking is the difference between forgiving and forgetting. If someone has been caught with their hand in the till, when they've done their time you (I hope) forgive them, give them a job, invite them to dinner, whatever you like, but you don't give them the key to the safe. That isn't a failure to rehabilitate; it's just common sense. Hawkeye is a grown-up, not a nine-year-old who got out of his depth. He is a great editor, but it's no great offence to even a great editor to deny them a block button. There are plenty of great editors who shouldn't have one. Here, I'm not persuaded that the issues are sufficiently resolved to give it back. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

    To add to that, I think that this, in an ArbCom case from October 2015, doesn't look like the writing of one who has left those events behind and moved on. In that light, the reply to Q4, stating "So I ran for ArbCom on a platform of reform. It became clear that some people felt that I should not have been editing, much less running for office, without a successful RfA. Which brings me back to here", seems to me an alarming hint of what is really going on here, and to belie the stated intention to steer clear of drama. --Stfg (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

14. Opppose. Wrong direction (attitude) for WP admin culture (e.g. giving barnstar for a block is aggressive nastiness and a turn-off). BTW "Opposes are unconvincing/unpersuasive" is a thoughtless cliché that seems to have reached institutionalized status on the WP to blindly oppose anything. "Supports are unconvincing/unpersuasive." (See how useful/informative!?) IHTS (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
15. Strong oppose, regretfully.Given the most recent answers to questions, in which he issues a "sorry your feelings were hurt" non-apology for his "stewed koala" remark, my oppose is no longer regretful. While the editor is a net positive, based upon the concerns above, and my rationale for staying neutral (when I almost always support good editors who ask for the bit), I must oppose. If the tools could be unbundled, and the block/unblock button removed from the toolset for Hawkeye7, I'd likely support. As is, no. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 02:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Answers above do not indicate a significant change in attitude since Arbcom case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
17. Good editor, not a good candidate for adminship. No one should cheer after a block made on a positive if controversial editor. Really, no one should cheer after a block in the first place. Doing so trivializes the most powerful tool in our toolbox and celebrates a power that should be handled with care. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

    What swung me from "neutral" to "oppose" was his answer to my question, in which it seems he doesn't realize that giving a barnstar for a contentious block is not a very good idea. Also, I worry that someone who was deadminned for misusing the block tool might forget "campaign promises" once the "campaign" has been won. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

    If block logs of a "positive if controversial" editor look like this [5], [6], I cannot help but wonder how many entries do the "negative if controversial" editors have? You yourself have reversed another admin's block, in these very same logs that led to Hawkeye7's desysopping, after the block was in effect for only 25 minutes. [clerked; point is still made] jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

18. per Wisdom89 --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
19. Oppose 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) 18:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
20. Oppose A great editor and fantastic asset for Wikipedia. I think an administrator should feel a bit saddened when long-time contributors are blocked or even banned. However, this sentiment was clearly not expressed in the past and continues as the appearance of a long-term grudge expressed more recently. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
21. Oppose, largely per Stfg. I've pondered this for a couple of days - great editor, but there are just too many red flags for me. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 19:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I am troubled by the editor's lack of acceptance that their previous behaviour was wrong, indicated by the evasion of the subject in their responses to questions, and also the relatively recent apparently congratulatory barnstar to Kirill. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
23. Oppose. My experience with the candidate is reinforced by what I read above: an editor responsible for a lot of high quality content but one with a temperament I would prefer not seeing in an admin. Juan Riley (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
24. Strong oppose: Oppose: I also base my decision on temperament, which is my usual deciding factor in RfAs. I shall echo Drmies, Dennis Brown, the discussion in question 9 with Gerda, the sad historical context of involvement with Eric. Most especially I am concerned when I see Ritchie333 move from support to neutral and I affirm agreement with their concerns. I am not getting further into specifics, since the 'oppose' and 'comments' sections are beginning to look like a redacted governmental document. (How did I miss that recent RFC?) Since I do not always describe my thoughts in precise, pristine language anyway, please take my meaning. I do not wish anyone to become an administrator who has a littered temperamental history. Fylbecatulous talk 12:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC).... amending to strong oppose because of the additional comment 2 by Coffee and related diffs by Stfg and their comments in entirety. I find it incredibly necessary to state that my strong oppose is my reiteration of how much I do oppose....... Fylbecatulous talk 14:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Espresso Addict. J3Mrs (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Graham87. I'm all for forgiving mistakes as many of the supports have been based on, we obviously all make them. Yet after the arbcom case & diffs linked in the oppose rationales, I cannot support, even after substantial time has passed. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
27. Oppose An admirable editor but one whose judgment and manifest self-regard is incompatible with adminship. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
28. Oppose Hawkeye seems like he's produced some well-sourced content. His record of user interactions, on the other hand, does not give me the impression that granting him adminship will result in a net gain for Wikipedia. Comrade pem (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
29. Oppose per answers to my questions. I liked the first one, but can't accept a "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar for an admin who blocked without a warning when there was no imminent danger to Wikipedia in sight. It's not fair to those who really deserve it, and shows a lack of perspective. - In my questions, I expressed how much I enjoy collaboration with the candidate,- that's a different topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
30. Oppose. I was going to sit this one out as a silent neutral, but some issues have been churning in my mind, so I'll come here. The candidate previously had the bit, so the community has judged he was qualified once. The bit was revoked, so I'd expect the candidate to raise that issue/elephant without prompting. Even if it's been 4 years, details of a desysop are relevant here. HJ Mitchell expected such comment: "He acknowledges the mistakes he made then and has learnt from them (I'm not the person to tell you about what he's learnt, I'll leave that Hawkeye)." Hawkeye was silent in the opener. Instead, there are comments about his user name. Q4 raises the issue explicitly, but it is an unsatisfying response; it does not indicate what was learned; it describes a secret trial with evidence he was not allowed to see. I don't buy it, but even if that were true, I'm not getting what HJ Mittchell observed. I'm getting ArbCom did a bad thing. Other !voters have characterized the revocation as unfair or overreaching, but I do not know that. An unjust decision should have been handled back then. Hawkeye acknowleges a troublesome inconsistency in Q16 about avoiding drama and running for ArbCom(?!). That inconsistency is the thing that has had my mind churning the past couple days. HJ Mitchell tells us "Hawkeye has no desire to become associated with high drama as an admin." Hawkeye apparently confirms that when he tells us, "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." However, Hawkeye then says, "I spend a certain part of each session reading through ArbCom and the drama boards". The contradiction bothers me. Especially for someone who holds a ticket. Glrx (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
31. Oppose per Dennis Brown. -- KTC (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

    Oppose "Touch the articles again and you will be BLOCKED" I'm sorry, but that's a gross abuse of the power admins have. That alone should mean an immediate desysop. There's no excuse. Maybe if he took the initiative and apologized, or in some way showed some courage publicly in attempting to right what he has publicly done wrong, but I'm not seeing it. How can I infer he has changed? Why hasn't he taken on the mistakes he has made and addressed them directly? (We all have to do that.) Why do others need to bring them up? I can understand the Barnstar issue, when he believed someone had done the right thing under difficult circumstances, he let her know. I really have no problem with that. He stood up for what he believed, knowing it would make him rather unpopular. (I have sympathy for all involved - there were no easy answers anywhere in that whole mess, and wise minds did disagree.) I have a problem with stubbornness and bullying that has not been addressed by this candidate for admin. I don't care if it happened 4 or 40 years ago if he hasn't done his best to make things right. Time excuses nothing unless it is accompanied by obvious change. He has shown he is capable and willing to abuse his admin tools, and I see nothing to show he's reformed his ways. He should have apologized publicly as soon as he cooled down. He should have addressed it head on when it was brought up here. We all have to say we're sorry sometimes, even to people we might not like. Dcs002 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

    @Dcs002: To be fair, he did apologise for the threat about blocking, and he'd been desysopped by then; however, I didn't appreciate his tone during the discussion, and those points don't invalidate the other arguments you made. Graham87 13:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

    @Graham87: To be fair, if you criticize a candidate for past behavior, you should tell the whole truth in a forum like this. It's not cool to say he did something wrong and omit the fact that he tried to make things right. I have stricken my comments and my !vote. I was appalled at the threat he had posted, but more appalled at the idea that he would still think it was ok. Now you're saying he knew it wasn't ok and actually did own up to it. I can accept and forgive just about anything if I believe the person understands and admits to their wrong, learns from it, and does something about it. This was my first participation in an RfA, and I don't know the candidate. I just saw things that upset me (not just this threat), but now I don't know how much of my decision was based on half-truths. I no longer believe I have a solid basis to !vote. Going by what's posted here doesn't seem reliable, even when I follow the links and read up, because it can be (and was) out of context. I don't like stubborn editing or taking credit for entire, major articles like this candidate does (which smells of ownership and dismisses collaboration), but these aren't admin functions, and not reasons to !vote against the candidate. Dcs002 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

    @Dcs002: Fair point, but I didn't even think of his apology until you mentioned it; I did say above that they were kneejerk reactions ... I'm concerned about how he'd react in a situation like that if he'd had the tools available to him. Also see his comment in the questions section regarding your !vote. I've indented it for you so it doesn't appear in the tally now. Graham87 16:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

32. Oppose similar reasons as per Ched. --Ekvastra (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
33. Oppose Over zealous and protective of anyone he perceives to be in power. Giano (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
34. Oppose I was one of the Committee members who voted to desysop Hawkeye7. We took the case in part because of Hawkeye7's wheel-warring, which in itself is usually grounds for opening an ArbCom case. On looking at the evidence the consensus was that Hawkeye7 deliberately wheel-warred, that he was the third mover in an admin battle, and joined in without consensus and without good cause. That he had previously misused the tools and was admonished by a different Committee, meant a removal of the tools was pretty mandatory. It was not punitive; the desysopping was done because Hawkeye7 had shown poor judgement in his use of the tools, and could not be trusted with them at that time. Now, we all make mistakes, and we all have a rush of blood to the head. This is natural and understood, so there was no time-limit put on the desysopping. He could reapply for the tools after four weeks, four months or four years. All that is required for a return of the tools is the confidence of the community that Hawkeye7 has learned from the experience, has moved on, and so is unlikely to make similar mistakes again. I am not seeing evidence that he has moved on. Despite requests, there is no clear explanation for the actions, nor an apology to the community or those involved for his involvement in the incident. We hear that Hawkeye7 was devastated to lose the tools, but no word to the editor he blocked. I suspect that being deprived access to all editing tools would be a little more disquieting than deprivation of a few. Instead, just a few months ago he gives a barnstar to an admin who blocked the same editor. At the very least this is poor judgement, at worse it indicates someone carrying a chip on their shoulder who is looking at others to blame for his desyopping rather than himself. That he says he won't get involved in drama or use the block tool indicates that he doesn't quite trust himself. I would much rather he reflected openly on what happened, acknowledged his own involvement, and moved on so we could all trust him again. I would wish that he applied even half of the care and research into his admin activities that he does to his editing. I have noticed over the years that, with some very notable exceptions, prolific high quality content producers tend not to be temperamentally suited to being admins. There is a confidence bordering on arrogance and egocentrism that drives some of our best contributors. This certainty means they can move quickly and decisively and with intense focus to build an article to high standards - standards that they drive and maintain. But those same qualities means that they can sometimes act too rashly in admin situations which require the sort of consideration and consensus that can slow down and inhibit the making of featured articles. I would like Hawkeye7 to be an admin again, and to use some of his intellect and his research skills on admin activities, but until he can show that he is over the incident, and that he is able to understand why he was desysopped, I don't have confidence that we won't see another regrettable incident. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
35. Oppose Comments on recent arbitration cases show that he is still keenly interested in the fate of editors he was desysopped for blocking. Too many grudges on this project are held over a span of several years, and these are toxic. Half a decade should be enough for anyone to move on, but apparently not for the candidate. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
36. Oppose. Per Graham87 and SilkTork. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
37. Oppose per many of the above, especially User:Graham87. I have encountered Hawkeye7 in discussions over the years (things like AfD and DYK), and don't trust his judgment or impartiality enough to want him to be an admin. Fram (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
38. Oppose—By temperament one of the most unsuitable members of the community to become an admin. "Crawl back under the rock you live under and die", he once told me; we've since come to a better understanding of each other, though. I think what happens is that he has a tendency to spiral negatively (perhaps defensively?) in difficult personal situations; that's the pot calling the kettle black, but I'm not the one applying for adminship. I've grown to really appreciate his writing and editing skills, and the sheer energy and good faith evident in his content work. He's a great asset to WP. But unlike many people who frequent the RFA comment sections, I don't think good content work qualifies one to be an admin. Tony (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
39. Oppose A history of questionable online behavior is difficult to overlook. This individual is not the right person to be trusted with administrator duties. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
40. Oppose per Ched, SilkTork and Tony. No such user (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
41. Oppose - Even leaving aside the 2012 incident, the above comments reveal what is, to my mind, a rather unhealthy set of genuinely relevant concerns around this candidate. I also leave aside the tendency by the nominator to airbrush the past (“mis-steps” is a metaphor for something). An admin candidate who cannot resist angry jibes at the general editorship (or even at specific individuals who have upset the candidate) is, simply put, not healthy for the project, no matter how capable the candidate himself may or may not be in content building. To put it another way, if they make a questionable decision it is going to be taken to ANI faster than a fast thing and I can be reasonably confident that the subsequent discussion will be focused on the candidate’s past record. To the extent that AN/I discussion is ever productive, here, I get the feeling that there would be a lot of kneejerk reactions to criticise the decision of a guy at least 40 people above have expressed genuine concerns about. Too much of a circus. Finally, the desire to work in uncontroversial areas is not comforting. Even if more broadly supported, I still don't see the candidate limiting themselves to intervention in uncontroversial matters without causing controversy down the line. Leaky Caldron 14:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
42. Oppose per SilkTork and Aircorn. In 2014, Hawkeye7 is still POV-pushing in Netball against consensus that "Netball is an Olympic Sport." Hlevy2 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
43. Oppose per Chet, D. Brown and especially Silk Tork and Leaky caldron. Great content contributors do not necessarily make great admins. Some of the retorts and edit summaries presented as evidence show a "mean-ness" that the Admin Corps can do without. Buster Seven Talk 14:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
44. 0o cygnis insignis 14:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
45. Opposeper Aircorn and Silktork. While undoubtedly one of the most prolific editors I have ever interacted with, being an admin requires a very different set of skills and character traits, only a few people possess. I also find some of the more recent behavior quite fishy.--Catlemur (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
46. Oppose Per Dennis Brown, Drmies, and SilkTork. Temperament displayed when previously entrusted with authority is likely to return. Scr★pIron^IV 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
47. Oppose Per Silk and several others. I don't think this user has the correct temperament for an admin, and they tend to create distraction with administrative actions instead of reducing it. Good editor, bad fit for the tools. Chuy1530 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
48. Oppose. I agree with Drmies and Giano. Many of the problematic actions are from years and years ago, but the barnstar to the admin who blocked Eric is recent, and really very telling. Temperament, as many people have said above. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
49. Oppose per SilkTork and others. It's important to be sure that we're getting the right people for this bit. Rcsprinter¹²³ (confabulate) 19:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
50. Oppose: His history of precipitous actions - particularly his comment to Graham87 (one of the most outstandingly collegiate editors on our project), even though it was some time ago - leave me unable to trust him with the block button. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
51. Oppose - I've thought about this quite a bit, and I have to say I was severely drawn aback when I saw that Hawkeye7 did not even touch on what caused his desysop, 4 years ago, in his acceptance statement or answer to Q3. That was the original red flag for me. But what's made my mind up, isn't that Hawkeye gave a barnstar to an admin for blocking Eric (which, although isn't necessarily becoming of an administrative candidate, isn't the biggest issue here) it's his overall failure to address properly or consistently what he did wrong originally. And what I would call the nail in the coffin, so to speak, is his response to SilkTork's question. It's completely contradictory to what he claimed at the ArbCom discussion regarding the block, and even to what he's stated here (in his answer to Q20). You cannot on one hand say "That brings us to this, which I considered a personal attack, and for which I issued another block" and then say "I imposed [the] block because of opinions that an indefinite block was too severe". I'm sorry but that simply doesn't add up. Therefore, I have no choice but to oppose this adminship request. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Additional comment - There is also this glaring discrepancy that I failed to point out in the candidate's response to SilkTork's question: How can Hawkeye state "There was no way I would have imposed the original block myself" when he supported the original block? Why would an administrator unilaterally support an action that they themselves would not have done under any circumstances? The candidate has lost all of my trust in them being able hold the bit. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Why, you ask? Because it is two separate issues. When reviewing another's act for which they have been given discretion, the standard of review is 'could a reasoning person do that', not 'that is what I would do'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    No, that's simply not true. Perhaps in the case of an average editor (of course even there, if we were to review things by a standard of "could a reasoning person do that" instead of should a reasoning person do that, I think we would find that almost everything except literally incomprehensible text would be supported), but not in the case of administrators reviewing administrative actions. Administrators are required to act with good judgement, and are therefore required to judge administrative actions (and other items as deemed necessary) in a manner in accordance with policy. If an administrator supports an administrative action completely, this means that they find the action to be completely correct per the community's policies. If this is the case, then they too should be able to carry out said action. If they are unwilling to carry out an action that they fully support, then they either have no backbone, have an involved interest (in which case they shouldn't be commenting at all), or have a lack of trust in their own judgement. None of those outcomes are satisfactory for someone who is "expected to lead by example ... to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    That would be true only in a case where policy dictated that there was only possible action that could be taken; but in many cases our policies provide for multiple actions that can be taken. Q8 provides some examples of these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Indeed, there are quite a few different avenues that policy permits administrators to go down to handle issues. But, you didn't support other various actions being taken nor did you present "multiple" other actions as a potential option, you supported one very specific action: an indefinite block. And you supported it so fully that you found the reversal of that specific action to be "unjustified". So, I find your point to be moot. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    Additional comment 2 - My oppose is getting a bit long at this point, but I find it incredibly necessary to state that the additional note that Stfg just made is incredibly unnerving; and the evidence in it I too find alarming. This completely unapologetic statement, from Hawkeye just three months ago at ArbCom, seems to completely refute the ideas presented by some supporters that "Hawkeye has learnt his lesson", that "Hawkeye recognizes the problems that lost him the bit previously", or especially that "the candidate has moved on from past issues". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

52. Oppose Per Ched, and several others above. TheOverflow (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
53. Oppose per Graham87 JarrahTree 06:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Oppose changing to neutral many people whos judgement I trust have commented here in both ways in this RFA, my initial reaction based on my own experiences and knowledge oppose. Anumber of people have already articulated the reason like Graham87, Bishonen, SilkTork even Tony1. To me what I see is not a need for the tools but desire to be vindicated for past actions and cleared to collect further hats. Gnangarra 07:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

54. Oppose per Drmies and Tony particularly. HolidayInGibraltar (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
55. Oppose per SilkTork. Katie^talk 08:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
56. Oppose Leaky's oppose is closest to my own feelings here, and Coffee's resonates with me too. The content contributions are excellent, but the temperament, even now, is too worrying for me. You don't need the buttons for the content. Sorry. Begoon ^talk 10:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
57. Oppose regards from I'm so tired (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
58. Oppose, too many serious concerns to support. Second chances are sweet, but to get back the mop after losing it for poor judgement, the circumstances must be truly extraordinary. I can't support at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
59. Oppose primarily per SilkTork and Coffee (including having thought about this quite a bit). The temperament issues which have been brought up (for example the diffs from Graham87) are also a strong negative for me, being an admin is hard and having a short temper just makes the job harder for everyone. That said Hawkeye's content contributions are awesome and I really hope he stays around to continue them! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
60. Oppose per SilkTork, Bishonen and Coffee. If there is an elephant in the room, ignoring it and throwing a dead cat on the table doesn't make the elephant disappear. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
61. Oppose Although I previously supported this candidate on the grounds that any transgressions were long in the past, there are too many people in this section whose opinions I respect and who see things differently.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
62. Oppose We reject a lot of people for admin because we're not sure they won't abuse the tools they're given, so I can't see that giving them back to someone who clearly has abused them in the past is a good idea. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
63. Oppose After a review of the candidate's past administrative actions.→StaniStani 18:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
64. Oppose per Wisdom89 and Leaky caldron: candidate appears temperamentally unsuited to adminship at this time. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
65. Oppose per Ched and Drmies and several others Aparslet (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
66. Oppose Mainly per the personal attack described by Tony1. I'm surprised that the candidate doesn't attempt to explain the context. As a sidenote, I'm wondering why Q12 is left unanswered without a reason being given. Gap9551 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
67. Oppose Great content, but his recent descriptions of the old arb cases raise many concerns about temperament. Kanguole 01:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
68. Oppose not a suitable candidate due to serious concerns over temperament. --ℕ ℱ 02:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
69. Oppose, though sorry. Graham87 and Silk Tork raise issues I can't ignore. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
70. Oppose With all due respect I think this is the appropriate course...Modernist (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
71. Oppose There's far too much drama behind this user. I am sure that he competent enough in all other fields, but too much drama is the dealbreaker for me. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    I find that one of the strangest opposes so far in this RfA. Sure, Hawkeye made a couple of errors of judgement a long time ago and has done some things in the meantime that he's not necessarily proud of (who hasn't?). This isn't a candidate who constantly finds himself mired in the controversy of the day. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that makes him unsuitable for adminship, and are disagreeing reasonably. There's remarkably little drama, so an oppose on the basis of "too much drama" puzzles me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

72. Oppose. As a matter of principle I think it is unwise to give admin tools to someone who has already had them removed for cause, and I find persuasive the comments from SilkTork and others indicating that this time around is unlikely to turn out differently. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    I find that a rather odd rationale as well given that arbitration remedies typically say "may regain the tools via RfA at any time" rather than "may never hold administrator status again", and that several current and former arbitrators have participated in this RfA on the basis that the proposition is not absurd in and of itself, rather than on the basis that a desysopped editor should never regain the tools. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    I feel you're responding to arguments I haven't made. I agree that ArbCom didn't ban this editor from ever becoming again, and I never described that possibility as "absurd." What I said is that I personally think it unwise in general, and I cited concerns raised by others about whether it is a good idea in this particular case. As a member of the community, I'm entitled to do this. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    On the question of principles, {{U|Starke Hathaway}, you may be entilted to it, buton other WMF Wikipedia projects you won't even be qualified yet to be voting on an RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

73. Oppose per SilkTork. BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
74. Oppose. I would like to thank the candidate for running; their willingness to endure this gauntlet in order to keep DYK on track speaks to their dedication to content creation. However, far too many questions have been raised about this candidate's temperament for me to support. The incidents Graham87 and Gerda mentioned do not give me confidence in the impartiality of this candidate's judgement. Altamel (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
75. Oppose Coming out of retirement to state that this would be a bad idea of the highest degree. The temperament shown when someone challenges one of their actions, statements, et al. does not lend it self to administrator status. We have too many admins that are already belligerent and/or burned out. We don't need more driving away editors. spryde | talk 16:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
76. Oppose Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
77. Oppose (Moved from Support) per Graham, Dennis STFG, Drmies and SilkTork - I'm all for everyone giving each other barnstars for hard efforts etc etc but giving one to an admin who blocked an editor is IMHO childish and isn't really the wisest of choices to make either....., and then there's the temper side - Saying you'll block someone over a content dispute is again not a wise choice and both incidents are something I cannot ignore, You're a great editor and writer but I don't think being an admin again would really go well for you or us sorry. –Davey2010^Talk 17:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
78. Per Silktork Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
79. Oppose for the many reasons already highlighted by others in this section. Diffs supplied by Ched and others, particularly this from October mentioned by Stfg, are damning and all support the maintenance of ongoing grudges against other editors. Couple these with the non-apology and obfuscation utilised in answering questions here plus as recently as last month overturning an admin’s close of an AN discussion [7] [8] completely misquoting ArbCom as the reason [9] with an edit summary described by another admin as "baseless and rude" and you have someone who, in my opinion, is not suitable to be an admin and is more likely to incite drama than reduce it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
80. Great content contributions, but I'm not convinced the past issues won't recur in the future. --Rschen7754 17:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
81. Oppose. The candidate dug themself into an unpleasantly deep hold by failing to squarely confront matters related to the desysop, and the many well-reasoned oppose statements above reinforce my opinion that they haven't done so satisfactorily during this discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
82. Oppose The candidate doesn’t demonstrate the judgement, smarts, or temperament that make a good administrator. Writegeist (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
83. Oppose This has been a very difficult decision for me, as I support second chances. There have been persuasive arguments made on both sides by editors I greatly respect and those I don't know as well. The deciding factor for me is the fairly recent evidence of holding a grudge and ongoing emotional involvement with old battles. My advice is to ponder the opposes, give it up completely, move on, and come back in a while with another try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
84. Oppose "ArbCom is not empowered to determine facts, although it can create its own ones." Hawkeye7 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Say what? Arbitration decisions include a case component "Findings of fact" which summarizes the key elements of the parties' conduct. I don't like reverts with the rationale "edits by suspected sock". Such edits should only reverted if sock puppetry is confirmed, or if a more substantive rationale is given. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
85. Oppose per issues of temperament, lack of contrition, and the inability to drop the stick over long term grudges. Stephen 22:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
86. Sorry. SilkTork's rationale is incontrovertible. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
87. Life's too short. Townlake (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
88. Oppose moved from neutral not satisfied with candidates ownership of their previous desysoping. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
89. Oppose per SilkTork. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
90. Strong oppose I agree with (a.o.) Drmies. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
91. Oppose - per the collective sentiments of those who opposed before me. And ultimately the candidates own words here, where he says " I've heard that one of the definitions of insanity is repeating the same process in the expectation of a different outcome." We've tried admin Hawkeye7 and I find the sane expectation of a similar outcome to be unacceptable.--John Cline (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
92. With my luck I'll edit conflict with the close. I've spent the week deciding whether to just not comment or oppose. Ultimately, I'm in this section because it's been shown time and time again that candidates cannot be held to promises made during an RFA. If I truly believed Hawkeye7 would not block established editors (as promised in Q1), or if I believed that such blocks after that promise would result in a desysop, I'd support; he would obviously be helpful and clueful in DYK/RFPP/AIV/etc. But he's recently demonstrated a willingness to continue old grudges, and - while I trust him with every other button - I am not comfortable with him using the block button. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
93. Too many issues raised above. --Andreas JN466 14:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
94. Floq has summarized this very well so, per Floq.--regentspark (comment) 15:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
95. Oppose per SilkTork, et al. As Floq notes, there is quite a bit of clue here - but it's gobbled up by the holding of grudges and the indications that this candidate would hop straight into drama. Nope. Not gonna have it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, at least until Gerda's question is answered.Regretfully moving to oppose. I am probably leaning oppose (which I rarely do) on this one, simply because misuse of the block button is almost a lifetime ban on adminship, in my view. Blocking another editor should be an absolute last resort, and it's hard for me to recommend giving the admin buttons back to an editor who lost them because of misuse of the admin-equivalent of the nuclear button. Hawkeye7's editing history is such that I could certainly be swayed to support, but I'm not there... yet. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 01:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards Oppose; The nomination bring up a lot about the ArbCom case with multiple negative findings, but the acceptance barely touches on them. I'd expect a much more thorough response in light of the past findings. May revisit this as additional q&a sections evolve. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Moved to oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral. I need to research more about this editor first, but he seems like a good guy, and I am inclined to !vote in support. epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Moved to support. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Neutral: I've come across this editor plenty, and there is no doubt that his work as content creator is top-notch. What concerns me slightly is how he appears to be distancing himself from the actions that led to the desysop. While I think Hawkeye7 would almost certainly make a good admin again, I don't see an acceptance that mistakes were made before, which worries me a little. Harrias ^talk 11:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Neutral, leaning support. Four years is long enough to forget a troubled history but as I'm trying to be on a Wikileave at the moment, I don't have time to do my usual research of his collaboration over the past 12 months - which is the period that really matters - and that's why I cant offer an objective vote in either of the other sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Neutral, leaning towards Support. The person seems more than qualified (probably overqualified) for what they say they want to do, and hopefully once bitten means twice shy of getting involved in controversial actions. However, the editor's response to User:MSGJ doesn't fully explain to me exactly what happened that led to the past desysop, and seems a little suspect, so I do not feel 100 percent comfortable voting Support.TheBlinkster (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Neutral, for now (hopefully). Leaning towards supporting largely because I trust the nom's judgement, but I would like some more time to look more in depth at the oppose rationales before I fully commit. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I'm sorry to move here, I thought this was an obvious support but the replies to questions, and particularly Beeblebrox's comments bring up a very legitimate point that you do seem to "move goalposts" and try and rewrite events, dodging your away round them, rather than saying "hands up, I screwed up, sorry". As everyone, including numerous opposers, have said, you're a great editor and communicator, but I'm concerned that as an admin you will get stuck in a nasty situation and accidentally make it worse. Even if you pledge never to use the block button, these situations can arise from something as innocuous as closing an AfD as "keep" which require no tools at all. Sorry, but there seems to be too much of a risk, and this comes from events in 2015. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
6. Neutral, leaning to support. – I haven't encountered this editor often enough to have formed a personal view, and I can see that those who have scrutinised the candidate's history, including editors whose opinions I have come to respect considerably, have reached sharply differing conclusions. I suppose the bottom line is that if the supporters turn out to be wrong, the admin tools could again be removed if necessary. – Tim riley talk 09:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
7. Neutral moving here for now; enough editors I respect have dug up enough recent concerns that I need to look closer. Beeblebrox' comment, in particular, is worrying me, even as I am constantly more amazed by the quality and quantity of your content contributions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC) I'm "moving" from a "neutral pending further investigation" to a very firm "neutral because I see too many arguments on either side." Credit; immense content contributions, generally even tempered, long time since previous drama, willingness to update DYK queues (a big one for me, that!) and a willingness to forego the block button in many cases. Debit; essentially, after reading through all of the reams of diffs provided by people !voting oppose, and the questions (particularly Q20), I am unconvinced that Hawkeye has figured out what went wrong. I don't expect Admins to be perfect; of course not. But I do expect, as Ritchie and SilkTork have also stated, that they acknowledge their mistakes. I want to hear something along the lines of "Here's what went wrong. Here's what I learned, and here's why it won't happen again." Hawkeye has made some half-statements in that direction, but always combined with some denial/defensiveness. Even now, I would switch to support, if this point were addressed. Once again, I salute Hawkeye's mighty content contributions; we need more like them, admins or otherwise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

   Let's give it a try then, with a list of what I learned, and what I have tried to do about it:

   1. Don't make a bad situation worse

      As Ritchie333 points out, even innocuous administrative action can trigger this if it is part of a larger controversy

      Corrective: Read through the ArbCom and ANI notices and be thoroughly familiar with the ongoing controversies

   2. Avoid knee-jerk reactions

      Corrective: Avoid quick closes and try to ensure that as many editors as possible have the opportunity to weigh in with their ideas and opinions

   3. Provide detailed explanations of what you are doing and why'

      Actions can easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

      Corrective: Provide a clear rationale for every edit and action. Double-check appropriate the policy or procedure (in case it has changed), and reference it. By doing it for everything, doing it for admin actions becomes second nature.

   4. Be on your best behaviour all the time

      People don't distinguish between actions that are admin actions, and those that are not. Tony1 referenced an offline incident in 2012.

      Corrective: Treat each person as you would like to be treated, and each interaction as if it were the first.

   Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

8. Neutral. This drama is too confusing to understand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
9. Neutral great content writer over many years but the complicated history Hawkeye has had with many contributors on the project make me unsure as to whether he will provide an overall net benefit if granted the tools (especially the block button). Driving other goods editors away could offset his own contributions in building the encyclopedia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
10. Neutral per Gizza. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
11. Neutral There's too much drama and history here for me to make a fair assessment. clpo13_(talk) 18:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
12. Neutral while I support the idea of giving second chances and commend Hawkeye's efforts to explain here how he has changed since his losing his mop, SilkTork's comments leave me unsure if enough time has past for him to be trusted again with the mop. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
13. Neutral from an outright oppose though I still lean that way based on my original comment but two things I question one: is why people who been in retire have come here to pass judgement(especially negative judgement) over someone who has continued to work for the betterment of the project. The other if we say its possible for a person to learn from their mistakes then its also possible for that person to be trusted. My reservation is still as what I said in opposing that is this looks less like a real need for the tools and more like a request for vindication to enable further hat collecting in the future that me is why I cant support at this time, but given the amount of opposes if Jawkeye was ever going to bite the comments here have been enough in the past to draw a poor response so maybe he has turned things around and little but add a bit more distance. Gnangarra 02:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
14. Neutral, not very good and bad. 333-blue 08:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

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

• Comment on terminology in the answer to question 2. Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, and even Robert Oppenheimer are not sub-articles of Manhattan Project, just as Manhattan Project is not a sub-article of their articles. These people are primarily physicists, who happened to have worked on the Manhattan Project. Gap9551 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Response I noticed the same thing and agree with your observation, Gap9551. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I have not been here a very long time, and am not extraordinarily familiar with the editor, so I can't justify voting. But I did want to leave my comments. A desysop is harsh, and something that shouldn't be overlooked (not like anyone was anyways). But, four years is ancient history on the internet. After something like that happening, for Hawkeye7 to not only continue editing, but to continue to be a great editor, with a mind boggling amount of FAs, great contributions, and what seems to be a great attitude..well, that is something worth commending if you ask me. Thank you for your contributions, and best of luck in this RfA. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Are we really at the point where we'd hold something which happened four years ago against someone? Yes, it was pretty darn bad, and if it had happened last year I'd understand - Hawkeye clearly understands that they need to be held to a higher standard, otherwise they wouldn't be trying again and putting themselves up for an inquisition RfA. Those who voted oppose, I completely understand your positions, and respect them - but can't we apply a little bit of thought to the idea that they can always try? I'm certain our current admins would step in should the very unlikely happen and Hawkeye was to repeat their actions. -- samtar ^whisper 09:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - As someone who's relatively new around here, it's a bit mindblowing to me that a humongous resume, years of content creation/ editing/ other involvement, and a discussion about some insular past drama that many people don't know anything about and the ones that do know say it's too complicated to explain, are necessary to allow somebody to "pick up a mop". It's no wonder you don't see people standing in line to grab mops with this level of detail/ scrutiny needed before one is deemed OK to volunteer for relatively mundane tasks. TheBlinkster (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• This one, (so far), is nothing compared to one that introduced me to adminship! I also, if I recall correctly, believe Liz said somewheres that they would recommend no one ever go through a request for adminship. Personally, I believe everyone should just automatically get the mop after like 6 months and 2,500 edits. Do a massive grandfathering in of adminship's, and create a simplified means to take away those tools if abused. But the Cabal is here to stay so doing anything of that caliber would require an innovative metamorphosis of ideology. This is won't occur because the Cabal brings only those like minded into power . . . while at the same time successfully running off anyone with a difference of opinion. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• @MurderByDeadcopy Close, but slightly more complicated, there is no one single cabal, but several overlapping "philosophies" amongst the Opposse. One view, and one you would trigger with your 6 month, 2,500 edit threshold, is that we have some longterm problem people and it takes a bit longer before we can be confident that a newbie isn't one of them in a new guise. Another relates to the block button and the fear that some have of block happy admins who might use the block in situations that could be defused in other ways. A third relates to admins discretion over deletion, some members of the community see RFA as our best defence against getting more admins who would be heavyhanded with the deletion button. This isn't a complete list, but I hope it gives you an idea of the pitfalls in the process, and an explanation as to why auto promotion won't get consensus, even if the WMF didn't veto it because for legal reasons they need us to have a vetting process for people who get access to deleted edits. ϢereSpielChequers 22:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problem I have here with all these issues, is that it completely ignores the aspect of WP:AGF which seems to be one of Wikipedia's stock sticking points. [Clerked, point made is still clear. -- Avi (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)]…assume good faith are the new editors. One of the best things about new editors! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• AGF is not a suicide pact. If I check through a candidate's contributions and see something that I consider merits an oppose I will oppose with diffs and usually an explanation as to what I would like to see change before supporting a future RFA. In this particular RFA I am supporting because I haven't seen an oppose reason that I find sufficiently convincing; However I wouldn't accuse those in the oppose section of not assuming good faith, they all seem to have an objection to this candidate, we just disagree as to how stale or fresh the evidence is for that objection. I suppose you could argue that some of the other common reasons for opposing that we see in some other RFAs lack AGF, but even the ones that I don't share tend to be of the "not yet qualified" type. We have in the past seen RFA Opposes that I would consider lacked AGF, but opposes without diffs usually don't sway the community. ϢereSpielChequers 08:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• [Clerked, Point made is still clear. -- Avi (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)] I would say, however, that the majority of the oppose in this particular AfD looks more a Rah-Rah of cheerleading for Eric. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  Please explain to me how this sort of explicit assumption of bad faith regarding fellow editors isn't a personal attack on those of us who, for whatever reason, don't wish to entrust Hawkeye7 with the administrative toolset after he was previously desysopped for misusing it. [Clerked; Previous statement is actually not personal attack but observation that oppositions are more in support of Eric than against Hawkeye. -- Avi (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)] Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

[Clerked; Next give-and-take moved to talk; unnecessary here. -- Avi (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)]

• @The Blinkster We had 21 successful RFAs last year, and quite a few were uncontentious near unopposed appointments of candidates less qualified than this one. The difference between this RFA and the bulk of those 21 is that here we have a candidate who has previously had the mop taken away, and not just for inactivity. Personally I'm in the support camp, and likely to remain there unless the opposers start citing diffs from 2015 that indicate past mistakes might be repeated. I appreciate that some !voters are less forgiving than I, but they haven't convinced me that we need to be so cautious about giving out second chances. As for other potential candidates watching this, I hope that those of you who aren't former admins will look at some of the recent first time RFAs rather than this before considering whether you are ready to run. ϢereSpielChequers 22:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wait there were only 21 success RfAs last year? And there are hundreds of active admins? Hope they don't leave... --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes 21 last year and 22 the year before, so most of our 584 active admins were appointed before this decade began. Luckily it turns out that if you make someone an admin there is a good chance of them staying here many years. But at some point we will have to fix RFA and recruit a lot more admins, with the editing community now growing again it is even stranger to have a dwindlind admin cadre than when the editing community appeared to be stable or even declining. ϢereSpielChequers 08:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the diff at hand, MurderByDeadcopy but what I meant in my statement is that I wouldn't encourage an editor go through an RfA, or, at least, not to make the decision to do so lightly. But there have been some recent RfA candidates who sailed through so maybe August and September last year were particularly grueling months to go for the bit. Bottom line is that RfAs are unpredictable...one can expect questions about the rough patches in ones editing career but some opposes just seem to come out of nowhere and are impossible to prepare oneself for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe it's like that ol' saying, You never forget your first doctor. You never forget your first intro to requests for adminship! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment: As I'm looking deeper into this candidate, I think Hawkeye7 is a candidate for whom I wish the tools could be at least partially unbundled. If they could, I would certainly support giving him every tool except the block/unblock button, basically without reservation. While I believe that right now he honestly believes he will refrain from using the block button, it still gives me a lot of pause to recommend adminning a former admin who lost his buttons because of misuse of that tool. I'm very interested in Hawkeye7's reply to my question in re: giving a barnstar to an admin for an apparently contentious block. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbundling has been discussed several times before at WP:VPT, even multiple RfCs were held. It will simply not happen. So, if you're willing to vote for someone as admin, it has to be without any reservations. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

---

• Discussion moved to the talk page. QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Maybe a dumb question: what's a stewed koala? Googling it, I mostly just see articles about koala as food. (Has anyone else noticed Google being much less helpful than in years past?) --BDD (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Drunk --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

    No, no, no! It is Australian Army jargon. A koala is a protected species. During WWII, the volunteer AIF and RAAF referred to soldiers of the Militia, who by law could not be sent overseas, as koalas because they could not be shot or exported. Today it is often used in a more general sense, for anyone who is for some reason or other regarded as a special case. A stewed koala is someone who has got into trouble despite the special status. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Having Australia / Army / Jargon / Koala / Stewed in the same sentence is really dangerous. There are people that dislike Australia. There are people that dislike Army. There are people that dislike Jargon. There are people that dislike Koala. There are people that dislike Stew. I am not suggesting that US / Painter / Slang / Diplodocus / Boiled would be a better choice. There could even happen that someone will interpret "boiled diplodocus" as implying "substance addicted" or any other double entendre meaning. Nevertheless, the RfA process is better than before. Isn't it ? Therefore Hawkeye7 will be selected. Pldx1 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite how you tried to explain it at the time Hawkeye. "Stewed" has another meaning here, of someone who is troubled ("near boiling") and prone to outbursts ("boiling over"). And I did search for "Australian slang". [10]. My problem is my inability to match up the things you say. I honestly do admire your editing skills, and appreciate all you contribute in so many positive ways, but I just can't support at this time. — Ched :  ?  04:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment What I dug up from days of research (look my voting comments) has been the image of a fine admin trapped in the midst of a glorious mess (a “revolú” in Puerto Rican parlance), dragged down by issues that can only be understood well in retrospection, and thus implicated by default. Seriously, go back and look at the diffs more closely, with new eyes and self-doubt. Try putting yourself in his position and assume no prior knowledge. Try deciding for him only with the knowledge you can absolutely prove he had at the time. And take his explanations today at face value. Won’t you want the same for you?
• 1) The exercise helped explain his apparent reluctance in coming out with a broad heartfelt confession to wrongdoing. As a third party, there were instances when I think he should have stayed home, could have worded arguments better, and perhaps showed a kinder side, but such accusations are subjective, and they hang over everyone older than 25. In essence, I found no case against his candidacy, but only evidence of hard work and talent. And the fact that the candidate has gone through a controversial desysopping and remained could ultimately render him more judicious and thus valuable than less experienced ones.
• 2) I value quality human interaction, so I reviewed the diffs also with an eye on possible temperament problems. What I found was an editor that could be construed with a lovely persona by a group of co-editors intimately involved in a content project. Virtual-colleagues that are more distant, however, could see him as dry and coarse, but could only claim so marginally. This type of muddied perceptions of online personalities, in fact, should be more common than mosquitoes in hot Minnesotan Augusts. If we would be choosing a nurse’s hands or a child’s tutor, we should scrutinize for tenderness and temper—and purchase an airline ticket too.
• 3) The anxiety about a happy-blocking sysop, for me, has been settled with his answers, particularly the ones he offered to my questions. They were better than saying that he had learned from his mistakes or that he is pledging to exercise constraint, though these points appear also implied. The capacity to recognize the presence of consensus and to distinguish when it is wise to follow it are two essential traits for a good administrator.
• 4) An inability to “get” what the candidate’s supporters “see” in him should not be cause for distrust. It may well be a sign that without research we cannot supersede the limitations imposed by indirect interactions. This may be the reason AGF pumps from WP’s core. I know, I know, AGF is not a suicide pact either (WP:PACT), but you get the idea. -- Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 06:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Comment Hawkeye 7, you wrote "ArbCom called for someone to remove those comments, so I removed them." Unless I'm looking in the wrong place, the specific comment in question (using the diff supplied) from GorillaWarfare reads "Perhaps a clerk or arbitrator will remove (or ask you to remove) your (Giano's) baseless attacks since you've failed to back them up, but either way I doubt they will be taken into consideration here, so no harm no foul." Since you were not a clerk or arbitrator, I think it was poor judgement to remove another editor's comments, particularly since the target of them had just effectively said they were like water off a duck's back. As your standing on this RfA has now dropped to 80%, I urge you to look at any further questions with great care and attention to detail, making absolutely you understand what is asked, as there is now a serious risk in my view of this RfA failing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In my view, it is also a problem because it at least seems a bit deceptive to characterize it as Hawkeye7 did. A simple, "Yeah, that wasn't my finest hour--I shouldn't have done that" would have been much better, in my opinion. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 14:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that might have been a better answer. Are you a Ghost writer? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

---

General comment - As we approach the scheduled end of this RfA, I would urge the neutral voters to re-evaluate their postions and, if at all possible, to move into either the "suppprt" or "oppose" columns. Neutrality has always seemed like a bit of a cop-out to me, and I'm not sure if the 'crayts take them into account at all if the !voting falls into the discretionary range, so it would be better to get a clear-cut response from the community rather than a bunch of wishy-washiness. Of course, if you really can't decide, that's another thing altogether. BMK (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I appreciate my position being described as "wishy-washiness". Most of the users who have positioned themselves as neutral have done so with far more explanation that many who have supported or opposed. Harrias ^talk 17:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I could have phrased that more diplomatically. My apologies, no offense was intended. BMK (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I know what you mean, anyway. I keep coming back, intent on pinning my colours to a mast. But each time, I'm just too torn to vote either way! I guess you did make an exception for that though. I fully expect and accept that "voting" neutral is about as effective as not voting at all. Harrias ^talk 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm leaning towards oppose. Personal attacks and wrong blocks are among the worst things an admin can do and I see too much of a risk here of something similar happenening again. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Usually, I'll go neutral to add the RFA to my contribs and watchlist, as a reminder to re-evaluate later. Sometimes I even do! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:23, 1 February 2016 (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.