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

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

Question from The Rambling Man

 * Ok, I'm not clear why you avoided mention of your admin status, the desysop, and the subsequent two failed RFAs in your nomination statement. I'm looking for openness in our Arbs and I'm certainly looking to put my trust in them, no matter how white/black their past actions have been.  You seem to have avoided even bringing that up in your nomination statement, which is an approach.  It's certainly your choice.  It wouldn't be my approach.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm not clear why you avoided mention of your admin status, the desysop, and the subsequent two failed RFAs in your nomination statement. I'm looking for openness in our Arbs and I'm certainly looking to put my trust in them, no matter how white/black their past actions have been.  You seem to have avoided even bringing that up in your nomination statement, which is an approach.  It's certainly your choice.  It wouldn't be my approach.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:31, 8 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) 03:42, 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) 03:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WBG
Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Robert McClenon