Wikipedia:Editor review/Hawkeye7

Hawkeye7
STATEMENT Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My contributions are mainly in my field of expertise, which is military history, but I occasionally work on other articles. I have made over 30,000 edits, and have written or substantially contributed to 23 Featured Articles, 54 A Class Articles, 65 Good Articles and 74 DYK articles, for which I was awarded the an Alexander the Great triple crown. I was tickled pink that my peers chose to award me a Golden Wiki for Military Historian of the Year in 2012. There are some articles that I am very proud of the way they turned out, such as the Admiralty Islands campaign, Manhattan Project and Robert Oppenheimer. I try to help out. I am a coordinator of the Military History Project, and I pitch in at DYK when I have time. I was selected by Wikimedia Australia and the Australian Paralympic Committee to attend the 21012 Paralympic Games in London. As part of this, I improved a large number of articles on disability sports. I participate actively in my Wikimedia Australia chapter and have attended a number of events and workshops, and have organised meet ups. I ran unsuccessfully for treasurer last year.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * I became involved in three ArbCom cases. In the first arose from a campaign of POV pushing and harassment against an editor that I was informally mentoring by a well-connected sock puppeteer. ArbCom admonished me for blocking the culprit while involved to keep him out of the way while I repaired damage he had done to GA reviews. Some months he made a series of slanderous remarks about me and two other editors that saw a second ArbCom case. In the third case, I blocked a popular editor for gross incivility. ArbCom admonished me, and then desyssopped because I had been admonished twice.
 * 1) What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
 * ArbCom required me to submit to another RfA. This would be an unusual "straw" one in that ArbCom could reverse the verdict. I don't know if this has any chance of success. So I am seeking review comments.

 Reviews 


 * I admire the fact that you are willing to do this, especially after being involved in a few controversies. I know we have not always agreed, but I am willing to offer my thoughts. First your contributions are amazing. I don't think anyone could doubt your commitment and skill when it comes to article writing. However, I think a request for adminship is unlikely to succeed. I am not really familiar with the Malleus blocking incident, but I would think that it would get you a steady stream of opposes and likely sink the RFA straight away. I was however around for the Netball fiasco (the first ARB case, didn't know about the second one). Unfortunately I remember that quite a bit differently than what you have said above. If you ran for RFA I would have to say oppose based on how I saw your involvement in that incident (especially if you provide the description you have given here). AIR corn (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, WMF does doubt my commitment and skill when it comes to article writing. I am very grateful for you taking time to review. It is very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hawkeye, I have the highest opinion possible of your editing - the military history articles you write are excellent and deservedly cruise through to FA level, and your more recent work on sports topics is great. You're also one of the most enthusiastic and helpful contributors to the functioning of the military history wikiproject; your reviews of articles are great, and you're probably the most productive of all the coordinators. I agreed with your block of Malleus (though, in retrospect, it could have been better explained), and feel that I should have stepped in to the Racepacket thing as it was at least initially within the discretion of an uninivolved admin to sort out given that it was focused on a single editor acting poorly, leading to flow on effects. All that said, I'm afraid that I agree that if you stood for adminship again it would turn into a drama-fest and would probably not be successful. If you do choose to stand, I'd suggest that you provide a good explanation of what you'd use the tools for as part of the nomination statement. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)