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

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

Question from Gerda

 * Thank you, satisfied. I guess you are aware that you would have been in a minority then, but it could change ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, satisfied. I guess you are aware that you would have been in a minority then, but it could change ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, satisfied. I guess you are aware that you would have been in a minority then, but it could change ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Carrite

 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Ched

 * My mistake - apologies. — Ched (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake - apologies. — Ched (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake - apologies. — Ched (talk) 19:06, 12 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) 03:39, 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) 03:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Banedon




Question from Beeblebrox




Question from In ictu oculi

 * Well, the guideline is at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DISAMBIGUATION and your persistent activity against the guideline and for incomplete disambiguation can be seen at Talk:Tommy (album) and Talk:Thriller (album). You also just went up against US:PLACE here Talk:Orlando,_Florida. Your answer above shows that you don't understand WP:TITLE, so how can you be qualified to be on the Arbitration Committee when titling is a fairly important area. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the guideline is at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DISAMBIGUATION and your persistent activity against the guideline and for incomplete disambiguation can be seen at Talk:Tommy (album) and Talk:Thriller (album). You also just went up against US:PLACE here Talk:Orlando,_Florida. Your answer above shows that you don't understand WP:TITLE, so how can you be qualified to be on the Arbitration Committee when titling is a fairly important area. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Robert McClenon

 * User:Calidum - I think that is a very good idea. Would parties have the right to request a revote/rehearing by the full ArbCom, with the understanding that it would probably be declined (as with requests for United States courts of appeal to hear a case en banc)?
 * User:Calidum - I think that is a very good idea. Would parties have the right to request a revote/rehearing by the full ArbCom, with the understanding that it would probably be declined (as with requests for United States courts of appeal to hear a case en banc)?
 * User:Calidum - I think that is a very good idea. Would parties have the right to request a revote/rehearing by the full ArbCom, with the understanding that it would probably be declined (as with requests for United States courts of appeal to hear a case en banc)?
 * User:Calidum - I think that is a very good idea. Would parties have the right to request a revote/rehearing by the full ArbCom, with the understanding that it would probably be declined (as with requests for United States courts of appeal to hear a case en banc)?