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

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

Question from Gerda

 * Information available concerned LouisAlain. Do you see something there that suggests abuse of tools?
 * In reviewing this user's talk page, my first impression is that the user sees himself (or, at least, presents himself) as someone who is trying to make constructive contributions but is continually being batted down by the merciless nitpicking of other editors — who, for their part, seem to see a dense, fumbling editor who simply cannot or will not learn how to do things right. Given that the user in question has been around here for over eight years, I'm less inclined to give him slack and more inclined to side with the other editors, though I might be willing to revise my opinion upon deeper study.
 * Not really my point. My point is that "broad impressions" of the talk page may be that Fram did something wrong, so somebody complained, but I bet that nobody, not even that unknown somebody, looked at any detail. And therefore, doubting a diligent look at what I can see, so doubting even more a diligent look at what we all can't see, I would have preferred to keep Fram an admin. - To make it short: which remedy would you have supported? I could have asked that to start with, but wanted to explain where I come from. For "broad impressions" (which I had to observe and experience) see what the great SBHB said in a nutshell, look for "pocket guide". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As an arb, I would of course study the available material as thoroughly as possible before reaching a conclusion. Digging and sifting through walls of text in search of relevant nuggets or flakes, however, is time-consuming and prone to error; I do understand (and support) the concept that people raising an issue with ArbCom need to pinpoint the passages of concern with diffs.  And as I've already said, if I were to become part of a review of the Fram case, I would need to see where the confidential evidence offered in the case might lead before I would feel at all qualified to say that Fram's treatment was or was not fair.  I think that's all I'm going to say about the Fram case at this time.
 * Not really my point. My point is that "broad impressions" of the talk page may be that Fram did something wrong, so somebody complained, but I bet that nobody, not even that unknown somebody, looked at any detail. And therefore, doubting a diligent look at what I can see, so doubting even more a diligent look at what we all can't see, I would have preferred to keep Fram an admin. - To make it short: which remedy would you have supported? I could have asked that to start with, but wanted to explain where I come from. For "broad impressions" (which I had to observe and experience) see what the great SBHB said in a nutshell, look for "pocket guide". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As an arb, I would of course study the available material as thoroughly as possible before reaching a conclusion. Digging and sifting through walls of text in search of relevant nuggets or flakes, however, is time-consuming and prone to error; I do understand (and support) the concept that people raising an issue with ArbCom need to pinpoint the passages of concern with diffs.  And as I've already said, if I were to become part of a review of the Fram case, I would need to see where the confidential evidence offered in the case might lead before I would feel at all qualified to say that Fram's treatment was or was not fair.  I think that's all I'm going to say about the Fram case at this time.

Question from Joe Roe
Hi Rich. Thanks for putting yourself forward. I have one question for all candidates. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)



Questions from WBG

 * Thanks.
 * Thanks. My last question (in all probabilities) follow from this locus.
 * Thanks. My last question (in all probabilities) follow from this locus.
 * Thanks. My last question (in all probabilities) follow from this locus.

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) 03:41, 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) 03:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Carrite

 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Banedon






Question from Cassianto

 * Thank you for your answer, but with respect you've not answered it. Let me try again.  The disruption is caused by individuals starting RfC after RfC after RfC on infoboxless articles 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. So, in this scenario, is it more important to deal with the cause or the symptom?   Cassianto Talk  17:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you wish ArbCom would have imposed some sort of policy on when infoboxes can or can't be used (please correct me if I'm mistaken). The problem is that ArbCom is not authorized to decide content disputes — they can urge the community to discuss the matter (as, indeed, they did in the 2013 Infoboxes case), but they aren't allowed to impose decisions on content unless the community has made a decision for ArbCom to enforce (which, in this situation, they haven't).  What they can (and, in your case, did) do is impose remedies (sanctions) to enforce acceptable conduct — such as "infobox probation" or (if that doesn't work) wider-ranging bans.  If I'm chosen to be an arb, I will follow the policy in this regard.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you wish ArbCom would have imposed some sort of policy on when infoboxes can or can't be used (please correct me if I'm mistaken). The problem is that ArbCom is not authorized to decide content disputes — they can urge the community to discuss the matter (as, indeed, they did in the 2013 Infoboxes case), but they aren't allowed to impose decisions on content unless the community has made a decision for ArbCom to enforce (which, in this situation, they haven't).  What they can (and, in your case, did) do is impose remedies (sanctions) to enforce acceptable conduct — such as "infobox probation" or (if that doesn't work) wider-ranging bans.  If I'm chosen to be an arb, I will follow the policy in this regard.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No, that is not my wish at all. Let me be more specific: The disruption is caused when an individual notices an article without an infobox, in this case Stanley Kubrick. They ask why there isn't one, on the talk page, and are told to check the archives as the current consensus is that the article does not carry an IB. Not satisfied with this, they then become uncivil by throwing around OWN accusations, which only goes some way to putting people's backs up. They then start another RfC in the hope of overturning consensus. When that fails, someone else comes along and starts another RfC, which again fails.  Then someone else comes along and starts another RfC... I'm sure you get the message. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is frustrated incivility by those who were quietly minding their own business in the first place. Add into the mix, someone completely unconnected to the Kubrick article, who comes along and initiates a case (after some casual canvassing to previous editors of said infobox discussions) and the result is that one of the frustrated editors is sanctioned and the disruptor are allowed to go about their business. That was what the incivility in IB discussions was all about.  The case solved nothing, and guess what, since then there has been yet another RfC on Kubrick, literally as recent as month or two ago. I've lost count with how many infobox discussions have taken place on Kubrick, yet according to the last committee, it's the fault of the people who become frustrated rather than those who cause the frustration in the first place. In this scenario, is it better to deal with the cause or the symptom?   Cassianto Talk  12:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When I looked at the talk page for Stanley Kubrick just now, I saw a prominent discretionary sanctions notice about (not) adding or proposing to add an infobox. And it appears that similar notices have been on this talk page for quite some time.  Have any of the authors of the RfC's you mentioned been alerted to the DS notice?  And has anyone who persisted in raising the issue been appropriately sanctioned by an uninvolved admin?  If this process has been followed, there shouldn't have been any blowing of tops, and there shouldn't have been any need for a new ArbCom case.  Yes, I realize that this answer may seem naïve, but please tell me where you believe the discretionary sanctions system failed or was ignored here.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * DS Notices? Not all of the time, but mostly. And what's the point of them anyway?  When the last committee came up with the idea, they didn't figure out who'd police it.  It's a bit like having a parking ticket and not sending someone out to stick them on windscreens.  Again,  has always obliged with this and had she not, I doubt the old committee would've done; in fact, I'd put my house on it that if I did approach them asking for it to be dished out, Sandstein and his naughty stick would be hot on my trail to administer a block instead. I had no faith in the last committee, and aside from a few candidates here, I'm worried that history may repeat itself.  Thanks for your time.   Cassianto Talk  21:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)