Wikinews:Accreditation requests/Hawkeye7/Archive2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsuccessful re-accrditation request. --Pi zero (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk)

Name: Ross Mallett

Location: Canberra, Australia

Areas of interest: Sports, Military, Australia

Reason: To facilitate ability to cover international sporting events, particular Paralympic events.

Accomplishments: Dozens of articles including:

I have a previous, successful, request, which is archived here

Contact information: hawkeye7@gmail.com

User ID: 180828

Applied on: 10:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Comment Given that much of the circumstances surrounding accreditation being resigned were non-public, and are now salient to this request for accreditation to be restored, what are you prepared to say regarding the circumstances leading up to that resignation? In particular, how such might relate to representing Wikinews in a professional manner? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel constrained in what I can say. It was not related to my Wikinews activities online or offline in any way whatsoever. ~~I understand that some have taken my resignation as reflecting poorly on Wikinews, as being proof of their criticism of Wikinews as being run by a small clique for its own benefit, but~~ it was not my intent that my resignation should be damaging to Wikinews. I can assure you that if my accreditation is restored, nothing will prevent me from representing Wikinews in a professional manner. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something happened that caused a resignation. It appears to have happened off-wiki; no explanation was given on-wiki, as a duty to the community. When re-applying, not only it wasn't mentioned in the application, it was also not presented in an answer to a direct question further than «I'm sure it would not happen again». The repeated lack of open-minded approach and frankness is disturbing. Gryllida 23:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was completely off-wiki, and completely unrelated to Wikinews. It's related to a sadly deteriorated personal relationship with another person. I simply asked a third person and how my former friend was doing, something that many, many people asked me. (I would say I did not know.) The whole purpose of the Wikimania in Hong Kong was meeting people and putting faces to names known only online. I introduced myself to many people, and many introduced themselves to me. I had no reason to believe that this person would be anything but friendly to me, and I was not trying to pry for information. Although I identified myself three times by name and online userid, not to mention was wearing an id card around my neck, this person did not recognise either. This happens sometimes. I then gave a detailed description of my relationship with my former friend, and was told that my former friend would not like us talking. We therefore shut the conversation down. I later received an email from PiZero, saying that my former friend had complained to ArbCom, and he suggested that in view of the fact that Wikinews was under attack at the time, that I consider resigning my accreditation to avoid a public fuss. This came as an unpleasant surprise to me, as I failed to see how it was a matter for ArbCom. Nonetheless, I chose to do so, and asked him to convey my apologies. It was not related to my Wikinews activities online or offline in any way whatsoever. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling you out on that hand-wavey non-answer. "some" being who? Who chose to interpret your resignation as reflecting poorly on the rest of the Wikinews community? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not what I said, but I have struck this comment, as it was second hand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of several off-wiki things we're talking about (okay, talking around), none of which I would describe as completely unrelated to Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The faux pas above is the only thing that caused my resignation, and the connection to Wikinews is tenuous at best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The potential repercussions for Wikinews are themselves a not-tenuous connection. --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Pi zero here; and, to a lesser-extent, with Bddpaux's slightly caustic characterisation of this. We all screw up, and personal screw-ups can have professional repercussions. It's not just a matter of saying 'will not happen again', it's the requirement to acknowledge certain behaviours were unacceptable. I can certainly say I've been there, and I still get kicked for using my 'weapons-grade' Scottish swearword vocabulary on a naïve USian highschooler. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Certain behaviours are unacceptable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Let's work off what you said. If this is personal, why did you expect «public fuss» at a wiki? Wiki policies discourage personal drama being brought; if the other party did it first, would it not have been handled by wiki sysops with removal of sensitive data where needed? Gryllida 09:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pi zero would be better able to answer this than me, but by "potential repercussions for Wikinews" we were not talking about myself or any other parties on Wikinews, all of whom have Wikinews' best interest at heart. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I parsed that as "no, not I and not another party would put Wikinews into trouble". I doubt it answers the query, which, as I understand, was a reason for you to resign:

Why did you expect «public fuss» at the wiki?

I hope for some, if not transparency (as it seems unreasonable in a personal context), at least open-minded intercourse which would give a rough idea. Gryllida 10:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was Pi zero's judgement call, but I accepted it. It came at a time when Wikinews was under attack by a group of people from Wikipedia over whether the project was worthwhile and viable. Jimmy Wales had just given a speech where he had announced that he was considering what should be done. (This was one of the reasons why I prompted to talk to the person referred to above.) Remember that there were large numbers of Wikimedians together in an environment where rumours and accusations could travel very quickly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I conveyed to Hawkeye7 a request that he resign his special privileges (admin and accreditation). Though I've studiously avoided judgement calls on all this (on the theory that regardless of whether I'd be asked to recuse myself from an ArbCom case, I should conduct myself as a neutral Arb anyway), I admit I felt his resignation would be preferable to what would likely ensue otherwise. It may well be that his decision to comply with the request was influenced by the anti-Wikinews campaign (that would be the one based on false claims about what Wikinews's core mission is), and by Jimmy's speech. However, I think it probable the request would have been made without the campaign or the speech. --Pi zero (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being a journalist means attending large public events at some points. Sometimes this goes unwell and you make mistakes. You have to handle them and the possible rumours. Ignore anonymous accusations, ignore unproductive information. Wikinews would help you, you should not be afraid of public fuss on this wiki, nor on a sister project. I hope that your future contribution — with time — helps you to regain your access. If that's your thing that you can do well there shouldn't be a problem anyway, in principle. --Gryllida 10:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose The circumstances surrounding resignation involved things of various natures with potential to reflect poorly on Wikinews if Wikinews were extending special status such as accreditation. I've been given to understand Hawkeye7 did not perceive the difficulty, which offers no reason to expect the difficulty not to recur. --Pi zero (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that circumstances will not recur - I can guarantee that they cannot and will not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: not yet: at this moment, per the discussion above; I may re-consider once the situation is cleared. Gryllida 23:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmmmmmm, just seems like you could slip the word "Prom" in place of Wikimania and this sh&t sounds just like the 10th grade all over again! All this talking around what you said, or did, or what someone else thought you might've said or did or what someone might think about who you might be talking to at some meeting I WASN'T EVEN AT makes me dizzy, so I'm out of it. I'll just say what I always say (that, oddly, doesn't get said enough 'round these parts): you can do LOADS OF JOURNALISM AT WIKINEWS and not be an accredited reporter here. Pick up a pen and paper and go be a citizen journalist. Heck, it's early enough....you might even catch a cat fight at a nearby Prom! --Bddpaux (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Oppose till it's resolved. --Danger^Mouse (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Sadly deteriorated" during the course of a Wikinews accreditated original reporting event. Extremely relevant. Raystorm (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.