Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Hawkeye7

Another attempted end run, disappointing but not unexpected
Sigh. In the last two years, Hawkeye7 has had 2 failed RFAs, a failed attempt to get one of those unilaterally overturned completely out-of-proces with completely bizarre rationale, and an attempt to get a 'crat to just do it anyway because reasons. If a new user was trying this hard to end run WP:PERM to get rollback or whatever, we'd probably topic ban them from asking for more permissions.

Yet this is fairly typical of Hawkeye7, who apparently still wants to just not act like the desysop never happened and maybe people will forget about it, and expects to just get the tools back somehow, anyhow, including by inventing processes that don't exist or running for a position that would grant home far more permissions than the ones the community has already repeatedly told him they don't trust him with. This kind of utter lack of self-awareness or humility is a terrible quality for an arb. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, #1 above was almost four years ago, not within the past two years. --valereee (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't decided how to vote in the upcoming, but I don't have any problem with Hawkeye7 attempting an alternative means of being resysoped.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, becoming an Arb would not mean an automatic resysop. OS and CU would be granted to the user but not adminship; this was discussed during the CUOS nominations a few years ago when non-admins threw their hats into the ring, and I suspect the same would be true in this case. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Primefac. The state of policy was outlined in a WPO thread, I think by NewYorkBrad, indicating that someone elected Arb does not get automatic Administrative status (and tools), but must first take part in a regular RFA. Now, admittedly, chances are increased that they would pass in that scenario... Carrite (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But he would have CU and OS, which require a high level of trust due to the real harm that can be caused by misuse. I'm actually bit hazy on one point here, if a non-admin gets OS, that obviously comes with the viewsuppressed user right. But does it also come with viewdeleted, or is it assumed (reasonably) that the user already has that user right in their toolkit? In other words, would they only be able to see suppressed revisions and not, for example, deleted articles? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Members of the checkuser and oversight groups have access to the deletedtext permission. See User access levels for details.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beeblebrox, this seems like a trait that isn't desirable for an arbitrator. It seems like Hawkeye might be trying to collect hats, which makes me think he might be inactive as an arbitrator, which is certainly not desirable. I will note that Beeblebrox is himself a candidate, so he might be trying to say this to make it more likely for himself to be elected. I wouldn't say that is a guarantee, or even likely for that matter, but it's still something to think about. Invalid OS (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I hadn't yet decided to run when I made my initial post here, in fact, I was sure I wasn't going to, but as the nomination period progressed (and a few people not-so-subtlety suggested I should run) I changed my mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Invalid OS (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)