Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 3

"The elephant in the room"
While I hope we will consider Hawkeye's RFA with an eye primarily to his contributions more recently than 2012(!), to the extent the Arbcom sanction is perceived as relevant background, it is worth reading the arbitrator's discussion at the proposed decision page, in particular the clearly-worded opinions of NYB and SilkTork arguing con and pro the desysop given the context at the time, rather than just the final outcome.

It's perhaps also worth noting that Hawkeye's summary of the mess is approximately the same as the summary by his nominator in RFA 2, 3.5 years ago.

This is not meant as a sneaky support or oppose; I haven't formed an opinion yet, behind an appreciation for a contributor active over a many year period who, whatever might have happened, has taken his lumps and continued contributing with enthusiasm. Just as references for others who are left uncertain what import to give to an event many years ago based purely on the dry outcome alone. Martinp (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure exhibiting opinions anywhere is fine, so even if this is somehow construed to be a sneaky support or oppose, that's alright. -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 17:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, good golly. We are talking about something that happened over 7 years ago?  Seriously?  In 2012, I was still just a regular contributor with no special privileges. I bungled my way through a lot, hoping I'd never offend enough to get blocked or deleted (the latter happened a few times).  All I can say, is that my personal experience with Hawkeye7 was positive and constructive, in what were at times some editorial mis-steps of mine that would have gotten me bit in the jugular by other seasoned editors. Wanna see my virtual bite scars from editors who were less than patient? My experiences with Hawkeye7 were productive and helpful, then as now.  One thing I do know, is that WP:MIL has greatly benefited from his contributions there. Hawkeye7 was one of those who helped make me a better editor, to the point I would be helpful as an administrator myself. — Maile  (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

RaptorJeremy's "Oppose"
The user just started editing 30 minutes ago, via an account that was created in April. Isn't there an exclusion of people who are brand new? At any rate, this editor needs to be CUed and possibly blocked. Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Has now been blocked as a sock. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved from comments

 * Comment - Since at this point, with the !vote at 61-61 or 50%, it would take a net increase of 53 support !votes (i.e. 53 supports with no additional opposes) to simply push this into the discretionary range, might want consider that this RfA is not going to pass and withdraw it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. I can personally attest to his temperament, which seems to be the sticking point. When I started on Wikipedia he couldn't have been kinder as I blundered my way through Manhattan Project articles. In the course of this the son of one of the project's officers began editing, adding original research and family recollections in an aggressive manner. Hawkeye was tolerant and kind to a fault while upholding policy. He had every reason to behave otherwise. Just putting it out there. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think will withdraw: he has taken note of Maxim's suggestion that it has also been somewhat customary, for better or worse, to extend somewhat of a leniency with respect to the numbers, for editors with a longer history on the project, which of course he sees as very much applying to him (even though on that occasion the candidate was at the top of the discretionary range). He then assumes that because it's for a good cause (paralympic coverage on the main page), and everything that happened in the past was very long ago (although some of it was relatively recent), and that that will get him a Carnildo moment.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt so, even Carnildo's RfA had some supermajority, speaking in the sense of consensus. This RfA shows "no consensus to promote" at best, and alternatively, a consensus against. RexxS' "consensus to promote" at 64% already shook up the level of discretion extended to crats when making a call, most people agreed with it, but with a condition of here, but no further attached. Expecting crats (if they are) to extend it here is a definite impossibility. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No-one is suggesting otherwise. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since his last RfA closed at 66% and was "no consensus", I think it would be a brave 'crat who found consensus to promote at 52%. GoldenRing (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

SPI
Noting a sockpuppet investigation I started on three suspicious new accounts that !voted on this RfA here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this; good move. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)