Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/The Rambling Man/Questions

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

Question from Leaky caldron

 * Kudos for answering the question without trying to answer a different question, making a meal of it or trying to please everyone while failing to please me. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the question. I'm here to be completely 100% honest and open. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the question. I'm here to be completely 100% honest and open. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Gerda

 * Thank you, satis, as you would say ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, satis, as you would say ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, satis, as you would say ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear

 * n.b. This question genuinely is without prejudice: it isn't a case of I've decided no and am seeking to persuade others - I want the answer myself. Nosebagbear (talk)
 * n.b. This question genuinely is without prejudice: it isn't a case of I've decided no and am seeking to persuade others - I want the answer myself. Nosebagbear (talk)

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) 03:43, 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) 03:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Cassianto

 * Thanks, that's good to hear.  Cassianto Talk  15:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good to hear.  Cassianto Talk  15:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WereSpielChequers

 * Great answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Great answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)