Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Bradv/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Question from Gerda

 * , I've amended the statement above to include 2a as an option, which is what I meant to include originally. Without knowing the private evidence, I can't form an opinion on whether 2a or 2b was preferable, but I believe either would have been better than 2d. – bradv  🍁  22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supporting my view. Do you understand my doubts about the "broad" allegations of wrongdoings, and when you look closer you see nothing? - Did you read what the great SBHB wrote in a nutshell, about "broad impresiions"? - No need for more replies, just food for thought. Thank you for standing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your concern. This is why a public evidence phase is so important, and why arbs should be wary of operating from "broad impressions" rather than specific evidence. This is precisely what made the Fram case so difficult, and why I hope it never gets repeated. – bradv  🍁  22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supporting my view. Do you understand my doubts about the "broad" allegations of wrongdoings, and when you look closer you see nothing? - Did you read what the great SBHB wrote in a nutshell, about "broad impresiions"? - No need for more replies, just food for thought. Thank you for standing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your concern. This is why a public evidence phase is so important, and why arbs should be wary of operating from "broad impressions" rather than specific evidence. This is precisely what made the Fram case so difficult, and why I hope it never gets repeated. – bradv  🍁  22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Peacemaker67

 * I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Carrite

 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Cassianto



 * Thank you, you'll get my vote.  Cassianto Talk  17:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WereSpielChequers

 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from SN54129




Question from Banedon






Question from WBG

 * Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Piotrus

 * I thought the study was open access, but I guess it is not. You can find a copy at Library Genesis if not at my academia.edu. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and, I tried searching Microsoft Academic as often that service does a really good job at colocating multiple copies of scholarly journal articles, including those in obscure open access repositories. To , you might want to consider, for future studies, insisting on retaining the right to deposit your journal article in an open access repository. Nevertheless, I found a an unauthorized copy at Sci-Hub (when searching for the DOI).--Doug Mehus T · C  17:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and, I tried searching Microsoft Academic as often that service does a really good job at colocating multiple copies of scholarly journal articles, including those in obscure open access repositories. To , you might want to consider, for future studies, insisting on retaining the right to deposit your journal article in an open access repository. Nevertheless, I found a an unauthorized copy at Sci-Hub (when searching for the DOI).--Doug Mehus T · C  17:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)