Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Hawkeye7

Oblivion
In response to my question, Hawkeye7 asked a question of me - so I thought I'd carry on the discussion here, hopefully will join me  Hawkeye, you say that you were oblivious to the wider political implications, the "long term saga" as you put it, but I find that hard to believe. Your block reason was "long term abuse", acknowledging that there was history. You'd commented - four times    - at the ANI just prior to the block. To be clear - this is what the ANI thread looked like at the point that your re-instated the block. I'm concerned that you see a consensus for the original block in that discussion - I see a firm consensus against the block. Perhaps you could point me to where the "collective decision" was taken? I will point out that my name also appears in that block log as a blocking admin. though context matters. You'll also recall that I supported your 2016 RfA and suggested Arbcom made a "water under the bridge" statement. In the RfA, you were more clear with the community, you said "I misjudged the situation, and I mishandled it", I feel that your current attitude is one that holds less accountability. Now, to your point, on whether Arbcom should make decisions on a political calculus - I cannot remember arguing either way on that previously, though I may well have. To clarify, I'm talking about wiki-politics - i.e. the activities associated with the governance of Wikipedia - since Wikipedia terms are often... contradictory to normal language. Arbcom and its members are in the unique position of being able to have a genuine influence on the governance of Wikipedia, whilst we cannot create policy, we can interpret how it should be applied. In doing so, we should be able to hear what the community wants and make our decisions with that in mind. WormTT(talk) 13:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * To clarify: I was also talking about wiki-politics, the governance of the Wikipedia, and not the political situation in the outside world. Specifically in relation to the concept that ArbCom should respond to what the community wants and frame its decisions accordingly. ArbCom does not create policy, but definitely has a role in determining how it is interpreted, and consequently how it is applied. I apologise for any confusion here. Wikipedia often uses terms that differ from normal language enough to cause confusion: copyright violation, neutral point of view, original research to cite only a few I've had to explain this week. Confusion here is understandable, because this year for some reason there are a lot more questions directed to the candidates regarding the intersection between wiki-politics with those of the outside world. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not backing away from "I misjudged the situation, and I mishandled it", which I still feel very strongly. There was no consensus for lifting the original block, but my decision to block came after this statement which was after my comments at ANI. I was completely unaware of prior ArbCom cases. There were indeed red flags that I missed. I was neither the first nor the last to be staggered by a block log that scrolled off the page. The decision to select "long term abuse" from the drop down list was taken at that point and was a misstep as my intent was to block for a personal attack. The 2014 ruling was sought to clarify that I was eligible to run for ArbCom; at the time the eligibility criteria said that you had to be "in good standing". I remain grateful for your support then, and in my 2016 RfA.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Should ArbcOm decisions represent the judgement of the arbitrators, or the arbitrators' judgement of the consensus of the community? And to what extend should arbitrators represent the interests of the editors who voted for them? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that where the community has consensus, Arbcom isn't needed. I believe the community generally supports the committee - the thousands of voters in the elections in comparison to the 10s of naysayers - often who have experienced negative outcomes directly. That's not to say that the committee cannot be improved, our communication is often poor, our response often slow. There are reasons for this, but it is an ongoing issue. As for how much arbs should represent the interests - well, in cases where the community is struggling to be heard, the committee makes a good "voice of the community", as see by a few statements / open letters released over the past few years. WormTT(talk) 10:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Without reference to this particular issue, rarely does arb com lead the community--I cannot in fact think of any single case where it has done so.  rather, it seems to have followed the changes in community feeling and helped shape the feelings into practice.  DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that's a very good way of putting it. WormTT(talk) 10:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If one were to blindly rubber stamp the consensus of the community (which Arbcom occasionally appears to do), then Arbcom cases are unnecessary and Arbcom as a body can be deprecated. Also if one blindly rubber stamps the consensus of the community, one is left with the decision of a less structured venue such as ANI which is significantly populated by 'governance obsessives' who have neither passed the scrutiny of an RfA nor of an Arbcom election. There is a lot of room for serious reform of both places. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-Admin
I agree that having at least one non-admin at the table is warranted, you could almost say necessary. In fact, that's what probably impresses me most about this candidate: being bold enough to throw his hat in the ring without the 'perceived qualifications'. Being unfamiliar with past and present ArbCom members, it would be interesting to know how many have been non-admins. RandomGnome (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The answer is technically, one, but really, zero. (one member was voluntarily desysopped and asked for the tools back upon being elected.) It's not impossible but it is unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Good
I appreciate the way Hawkeye7 raised the desysopping and how Hawkeye7 addressed the concerns here. I am satisfied with the answers provided, which I take to be a pretty direct acceptance both of the initial situation ten years ago and of concerns people may have with them running for arbcom now. Frankly, I think it's commendable that Hawkeye7 is putting their name forward now and remains happy to serve. Nobody's obligated to agree with me, but Hawkeye7 has my support. --Yamla (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Re Dicklyon's question
Being a candidate, I wouldn't post my own question on your Q&A page (not verboten, but surely gauche). However, I have to suggest revisiting your reply to Dicklyon. (Though I s'pose that you not doing so would actually help me as a competitor! Heh.) Your response doesn't make much sense, actually bolsters his concerns, and ends with statements that are apt to be taken as unbecoming/disqualifying.


 * 1) He asked about your view that "Determinations made at MOS are strictly local consensus, and we [a wikiproject] can and do override them", and that stance's conflict with both WP:CONLEVEL policy and a decade+ of ArbCom rulings on this (e.g. very recently here). Your answer doesn't address this at all, and instead  on the same topic as the wikiproject.  You're simultaneously saying MoS is noise you will ignore to do what you want, yet flipping around to say MoS is the basis of what you're doing.  Just doesn't track.
 * 2) Nor does that MoS page, MOS:MILHIST, actually agree with what you claim is the right thing to do in that wikiproject talk page. Your quote is not about the MoS page you referred to in your reply, it really is just about ignoring the MoS guidelines at will. Note that MOS:MILHIST actually defers – on capitalization matters (the issue in that talk thread) – to MOS:MILTERMS (part of MOS:CAPS), which is the guideline cited in that talk thread against your viewpoint (i.e., it is the one you claim you can ignore with impunity). That's circular reasoning combined with obfuscation.
 * 3) In short, there's a strong appearance of you having made a mistake but of not owning up to it, instead hand-waving in hopes that no one notices the error. But they will notice.  In an ArbCom election, as in an RfA, a mea culpa goes a lot farther than a denial in vain.
 * 4) Next, "I'm not sure where ArbCom found the fact ..." and "My guess is ..." are not going to inspire confidence, since ArbCom's reasoning for such findings is always in the case pages (specifically the Workshop phase). An ArbCom candidate is expected to know this. Might also be expected to know that the statement of principle here is the same one (aside from minor wording tweaks) that has appeared in at least a dozen ArbCom cases, and is the basis for that finding of fact you were unsure of.
 * 5) There is no "Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style", other than a dead page; that abortive project has been defunct for years. Some editors had an interest in starting such a project and hosting a noticeboard there, but it never went anywhere (a WP:VPPOL or WP:VPPRO RfC concluded against such a noticeboard), and it has never had anything to do with MoS's actual content (which is determined by consensus discussions at its talk pages, at VPPOL, etc.).  MoS is a site-wide set of guidelines,  wikiproject output. In 15+ years here, this is the first time I've ever encountered anyone confused on that particular point.
 * 6) Many if not most of the ArbCom statements of principles on CONLEVEL matters are specifically about wikiprojects trying to defy MoS by "local consensus" fiat, believing they may impose their own style across a category of articles over which they claim scope. (Hint: they are wrong.) ArbCom itself knows MoS is not wikiproject noise, and your unusual belief that it is (and that your favorite actual wikiproject's views take precedence, despite MoS already have a guideline page on the same topic) is the  of all these case results.  I don't see how that can work unless you concede that you're in error on this and get up to speed on actual policy before becoming an Arb.  By analogy, I don't know many judges who aren't aware of the difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit.
 * 7) Finally, verbally attacking the questioner as ignorant and unreasonable (which he clearly is not), then doubling down on what seems to be a "fight against our WP:P&G pages" attitude, by calling compliance with them a waste of time, is highly unlikely to inspire any Support votes. As candidates, we can  that people who have had content disputes with us will ask us ACE candidate questions pointedly pertaining to those disputes, and that others are observing whether we lose our cool in response to them.

I'm not trying to start a "threaded debate" here (do candidates ever do that?), this is just a word to the wise, which you can consider or ignore. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)