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

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

Question from Gerda

 * Thank you. I still think that they should not have based any decision on secret evidence, in the name of transparency, and three supported that, but fair enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the issue wasn't that the evidence was secret, but that the accusers were unknown. Arbcom has received confidential information in the past, and no one seems to be arguing that such information is always inappropriate. I understand you are taking a stand on principle, and I respect you for it, but to ignore that part of the evidence regardless of what it contains is the equivalent of not even reading it, and I'm sufficiently pragmatic that I would want to have all the available evidence.- gadfium 22:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been reminded that admins can no longer unblock themselves, so my answer above was partly based on a false premise.- gadfium 01:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * About reading evidence: do you read anything on the talk of LouisAlain which needed a desysop? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators don't usually go looking for cases; they are presented with evidence including diffs, and the other party has a right of reply. You've directed me to a lengthy talk page with no indication of which issue concerns you. Perhaps it is your exchanges with user:Justlettersandnumbers about notability, or it might be posts and blocks by user:Fram (which mostly predate this version of the talk page). On the current version of the talk page, I see nothing amounting to harrassment by either admin, or any other issue which might be considered abuse of admin rights.- gadfium 03:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See, I also don't know more. I know only that LouisAlain's name was dropped on meta in the allegations regarding Fram. I don't know who complained about what, but I see no evidence of adminning mistake in the interactions. If this so-called evidence (which is open) looks baseless, I have severe doubts about other (secret) evidence in the matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So which remedy would you have supported? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind my answer above about not having seen all the evidence, I would have supported 1a, 2e, and 3. I have not made up my mind on whether I would have supported 6.- gadfium 18:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, works for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind my answer above about not having seen all the evidence, I would have supported 1a, 2e, and 3. I have not made up my mind on whether I would have supported 6.- gadfium 18:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, works for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Joe Roe
Hi Gadfium. Thank you for putting yourself forward to serve on the committee. I have two questions relating to your nomination statement and one which I intend to ask all candidates. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)



Question from GeneralPoxter

 * To enlighten you, I present to you the following article: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. GeneralPoxter (talk) 00:26, 4 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) 03:33, 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) 03:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

 * Thank you. —t /// Carrite (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've since realised that there is a suitable photo of NYB in the article about him. I would like to see the picture on Anthere as my first choice, and of NYB further down in the article if there is room for a second picture.- gadfium 01:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. —t /// Carrite (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've since realised that there is a suitable photo of NYB in the article about him. I would like to see the picture on Anthere as my first choice, and of NYB further down in the article if there is room for a second picture.- gadfium 01:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Cassianto

 * You've not answered my question, merely skirted around the issue. But I thank you for at least taking the time to answer it, of sorts.   Cassianto Talk  09:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll put it in more general terms, not specific to infoboxes. Yes, Arbcom certainly needs to deal with causes rather than symptoms, but as it cannot rule on content issues, sometimes all it can do directly is address editor behaviour. Calling for an RFC is probably the most Arbcom can do to get the community to sort out disagreements over content.- gadfium 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and please allow me to be more precise. The disruption is caused by individuals starting RfC after RfC after RfC until they get the answer they want. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility through sheer frustration - we are, after all, only human.  Apparantly, the last committee dealt with the "incivility", but we still have the cause, the repeated starting up of infobox discussions and RfCs, as seen on Stanley Kubrick.   Cassianto Talk  17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The arbitration case you linked to above did have a proposal to limit infobox-related RFCs, but the proposal did not receive support. See Restrictions on infobox RfCs. I find the opposition to the proposal to be persuasive.- gadfium 19:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. If you're easily persuaded by that then clearly you're not up to the job. Thanks for taking the time to respond.  Cassianto Talk  21:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. If you're easily persuaded by that then clearly you're not up to the job. Thanks for taking the time to respond.  Cassianto Talk  21:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WereSpielChequers

 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)