Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Kmweber/Questions for the candidate/Declined

The questions on this page, I have declined to answer for a variety of reasons.

I declined to answer this first set of questions because I find them irrelevant to my candidacy. They all assume that, as an Arbitrator, I would be engaged in making substantiative decisions on cases. However, if one reads my candidate statement it is clear that that is not the case; therefore, these questions have no bearing to my particular (and admittedly unique) candidacy.

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor
These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.


 * 1) Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself.  On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki.  On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days.  Which definition do you prefer?
 * 2) Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
 * 3) Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
 * 4) Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right.  It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly.  But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back.  Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented.  In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
 * 5) Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR.  All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests.  Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use?  If so, what should those be?

I wish you the very best with your candidacy, I hope it goes the way you would like, but also that it goes the way that is ultimately of benefit to the community and the project. The Land Surveyor (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

These next two sets of questions, I declined to answer because I'm afraid that honest answers to them would just get me banned. Of course, that probably gives you a pretty good idea of what those answers are, but nevertheless...

Questions from Newyorkbrad

 * 1) Would you agree that your repeated practice of asserting that editors who disagree with you on policy or deletion matters "hate Wikipedia" is unhelpful, and would be particularly inappropriate if you became an arbitrator?
 * 2) Do you continue to believe, as you have stated to me more than once, that I myself hate Wikipedia?
 * 3) When you state that various editors, including me, "hate Wikipedia," do you intend this as a metaphor meaning simply that you consider these editors' views and actions are detrimental to the project, or do you actually mean that you believe these editors (including me) subjectively hate Wikipedia? If the latter, what is your basis for such belief?

Question from Synergy

 * 1) Would you be so kind as to explain to us the situation involving various editors being told that they "hate wikipedia"? Honestly I am just looking for your reasons and opinions on this, and nothing more.
 * A.

This next question is just asininity. The problem isn't with the question itself (which is a legitimate question) but with the reasons for its asking. It's one thing to ask such a question if you honestly believe someone hates Wikipedia; it's another thing to ask it not out of a genuine belief about that person and a desire to understand his views but simply to mock someone who asks that same question. Majorly/Al Tally has a history of such behavior with respect to me, where the issue isn't so much with the questions/remarks themselves (which are fine) but his motives behind them (which are not).

Question from Al tally
Why do you hate Wikipedia?  Al Tally  talk  11:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)