Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Richwales/Questions

Questions from Rschen7754
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.


 * Perhaps I should clarify this - this isn't the same as last year. I'm asking about when you would vote to accept any case related to admin abuse, or dispose of it by motion. --Rschen7754 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It would depend. To give a couple of examples touching both extremes, if a specific scenario seemed to be a pretty obvious matter of flagrant misconduct by an admin, I would be inclined to deal with it expeditiously via a motion.  On the other hand, if there seemed to be a reasonable likelihood that the real fault lay not with the admin being accused of abuse, but rather with the user who was doing the accusing, a full-fledged case might be needed in order to sort out the mess.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should clarify this - this isn't the same as last year. I'm asking about when you would vote to accept any case related to admin abuse, or dispose of it by motion. --Rschen7754 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It would depend. To give a couple of examples touching both extremes, if a specific scenario seemed to be a pretty obvious matter of flagrant misconduct by an admin, I would be inclined to deal with it expeditiously via a motion.  On the other hand, if there seemed to be a reasonable likelihood that the real fault lay not with the admin being accused of abuse, but rather with the user who was doing the accusing, a full-fledged case might be needed in order to sort out the mess.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should clarify this - this isn't the same as last year. I'm asking about when you would vote to accept any case related to admin abuse, or dispose of it by motion. --Rschen7754 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It would depend. To give a couple of examples touching both extremes, if a specific scenario seemed to be a pretty obvious matter of flagrant misconduct by an admin, I would be inclined to deal with it expeditiously via a motion.  On the other hand, if there seemed to be a reasonable likelihood that the real fault lay not with the admin being accused of abuse, but rather with the user who was doing the accusing, a full-fledged case might be needed in order to sort out the mess.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It would depend. To give a couple of examples touching both extremes, if a specific scenario seemed to be a pretty obvious matter of flagrant misconduct by an admin, I would be inclined to deal with it expeditiously via a motion.  On the other hand, if there seemed to be a reasonable likelihood that the real fault lay not with the admin being accused of abuse, but rather with the user who was doing the accusing, a full-fledged case might be needed in order to sort out the mess.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I'm done with the above answers, assuming I don't see something egregious when I re-read it all after getting a good night's sleep. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Slight addition to answer #9. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions from Collect
I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter three were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.



Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Single question from Go Phightins!



 * Thanks in advance.  Go  Phightins  !  14:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions by Gerda Arendt
Thank you, precious candidate, for volunteering.

Thank you, passed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Question by Wizardman
I am shocked that this question hasn’t been asked above, as I feel it is simple yet says a great deal about any candidate. No wrong answer to this question aside from “I don’t know”.

Questions from Hawkeye7

 * With SCOTUS everyone puts out or signs on to a concurring or dissenting opinion. In this case we assume that there has been some discussion, but we don't know that the others actually agree with the one who published his reasoning. And all they had to do was write "Per Richwales" to indicate this. This would be a simple reform. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. If I am chosen as an arb, I will make a point of saying something (even if just a "per so-and-so") on each of my votes, and I'll encourage my colleagues to consider doing the same thing.  I'm still not sure it's really necessary in a straightforward motion like this one, but it couldn't hurt.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With SCOTUS everyone puts out or signs on to a concurring or dissenting opinion. In this case we assume that there has been some discussion, but we don't know that the others actually agree with the one who published his reasoning. And all they had to do was write "Per Richwales" to indicate this. This would be a simple reform. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. If I am chosen as an arb, I will make a point of saying something (even if just a "per so-and-so") on each of my votes, and I'll encourage my colleagues to consider doing the same thing.  I'm still not sure it's really necessary in a straightforward motion like this one, but it couldn't hurt.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. If I am chosen as an arb, I will make a point of saying something (even if just a "per so-and-so") on each of my votes, and I'll encourage my colleagues to consider doing the same thing.  I'm still not sure it's really necessary in a straightforward motion like this one, but it couldn't hurt.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from Piotrus
(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.



Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from User:HectorMoffet
The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:
 * In our own "Editor Trends Study"
 * In popular media ("Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
 * In scholarly literature ("How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:



Question from Carrite



 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from user:Ykantor

 * I have experienced this problems as I am involved in a continuous conflict but I hope for a general solution, which as a by product, will markedly improve those low quality articles as well. However, as an example of a specific situation, say that an editor deletes a supported sentence and write in the edit summary, that ""already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same"". But it is not in the article, and the quotes are definitely not the same. (It is just an example, and I have no intention to use your reply anywhere) Ykantor (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have experienced this problems as I am involved in a continuous conflict but I hope for a general solution, which as a by product, will markedly improve those low quality articles as well. However, as an example of a specific situation, say that an editor deletes a supported sentence and write in the edit summary, that ""already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same"". But it is not in the article, and the quotes are definitely not the same. (It is just an example, and I have no intention to use your reply anywhere) Ykantor (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have experienced this problems as I am involved in a continuous conflict but I hope for a general solution, which as a by product, will markedly improve those low quality articles as well. However, as an example of a specific situation, say that an editor deletes a supported sentence and write in the edit summary, that ""already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same"". But it is not in the article, and the quotes are definitely not the same. (It is just an example, and I have no intention to use your reply anywhere) Ykantor (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have experienced this problems as I am involved in a continuous conflict but I hope for a general solution, which as a by product, will markedly improve those low quality articles as well. However, as an example of a specific situation, say that an editor deletes a supported sentence and write in the edit summary, that ""already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same"". But it is not in the article, and the quotes are definitely not the same. (It is just an example, and I have no intention to use your reply anywhere) Ykantor (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have experienced this problems as I am involved in a continuous conflict but I hope for a general solution, which as a by product, will markedly improve those low quality articles as well. However, as an example of a specific situation, say that an editor deletes a supported sentence and write in the edit summary, that ""already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same"". But it is not in the article, and the quotes are definitely not the same. (It is just an example, and I have no intention to use your reply anywhere) Ykantor (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have experienced this problems as I am involved in a continuous conflict but I hope for a general solution, which as a by product, will markedly improve those low quality articles as well. However, as an example of a specific situation, say that an editor deletes a supported sentence and write in the edit summary, that ""already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same"". But it is not in the article, and the quotes are definitely not the same. (It is just an example, and I have no intention to use your reply anywhere) Ykantor (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions from user:Martinevans123

 * Many thanks for your clear and sensible replies, RW. Yes, I read what you have said about civility and it makes a lot of sense. I agree there is larger problem than editors habitually calling other editors "idiots" or "cretins", or telling them to "fuck off". But for many editors that particular problem is bad enough. What is much more damaging is the attitude that "I'm better than you because" ... I've been here longer, I've made more edits, I've got a fan-club, or (worst of all) "I know more than you do." And the attitude that because an editor makes "a mistake" he or she is to be insulted and made fun of, rather than gently helped and encouraged. But I'd better get down off my little 70s platform shoes now and start sharpening my voting pencil. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Many thanks for your clear and sensible replies, RW. Yes, I read what you have said about civility and it makes a lot of sense. I agree there is larger problem than editors habitually calling other editors "idiots" or "cretins", or telling them to "fuck off". But for many editors that particular problem is bad enough. What is much more damaging is the attitude that "I'm better than you because" ... I've been here longer, I've made more edits, I've got a fan-club, or (worst of all) "I know more than you do." And the attitude that because an editor makes "a mistake" he or she is to be insulted and made fun of, rather than gently helped and encouraged. But I'd better get down off my little 70s platform shoes now and start sharpening my voting pencil. Martinevans123 (talk)