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

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

Individual questions
Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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.



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


 * Do I get to ask a question too? For example, I see you've already made a decision about me in your guide, mostly based on your (and a few other people's) incorrect reading of a situation, and some flat-out lies - but you're putting it forward as fact.  As such, why should I complete your questionnaire when your inflammatory and contradictory decision is already front-and-centre?  Just saying ... it's a rhetorical question, but also one of ethics.  I used to think your voting guide had value  ES  &#38;L  19:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an example of the confrontational manner that I have seen in more than one incident, that led me to oppose. --Rschen7754 19:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahhh....you attempted to generate confrontation - I didn't bite, but yet you claim otherwise and I still pay the price. Got it, thanks for the clarification.  ES  &#38;L  20:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Rschen did not attempt to generate a situation. They clearly stated they were pending the answers to the question and simply noted an event that happened in the past. If you want Rschen to change their mind, simply answer the questions instead of arguing against them which will reflect badly on your candidacy. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really John ... his voting guide right now states that I did something that I did not actually do, and that's his prime reason for opposing - that is generating a situation. I'm okay being opposed for reality, not someone's mistaken impression of a situation in the past.  Anyway, this isn't intended to be the discussion page.  My point is made, and I actually appreciate Rschen giving me the opportunity to tell the truth, and I retain the same level of respect for them that I have had for some time.  Cheers.  ES  &#38;L  20:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've commented elsewhere, I do think that my judgment was premature, and because of that I do not think that the candidate's failure to answer the questions should not, in itself, be viewed as a negative against him. Though if others want to see the answers, the candidate is still free to choose whether to answer them or not. --Rschen7754 11:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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



Thank you. Collect (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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 06:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from User:Bielle


I am sure you meant to answer my question, but. . . your ES&L account was opened in 2008. The user box linking it to your admin account wasn't added to ES&L's user page until July 2012. So it wasn't created to permit you this current rest period. If you used it only now and then when on unsecured terminals, it would have a purpose not meant to confuse, though most other admins use a clear version of their admin user name to accommodate this need.I didn't ask if such uses were permitted, but why you do it as it is confusing. Bielle (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, as is well-known, it was originally created as a valid legitimate account, originally intended to edit in areas where there may be conflict with my real life. This is a valid use of an alternate account, and they were intentionally not linked together a per the policy, and is also the reason that the name of it is significantly different than Bwilkins.  I even completely forgot about the account for awhile.  So, after deciding that I was not going to use it for that purpose, I linked the two accounts together.  I'm sorry if you had missed the multiple discussions about these 2 accounts in the past, but I hope that clears it up reasonably well for you and others who may have also missed them.  ES  &#38;L  10:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That answers why you originally created two unconnected accounts. Thank you. Now that they are connected, if anyone cares to check, it would appear that you no longer need the ES&L account. Are you planning on deleting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs)


 * Why would I not need ESL? I will quite possibly edit from unsecured locations where logging into an account with admin tools would be unwise, so the requirement to maintain it remains  ES  &#38;L  01:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For clarity's sake, you are planning to restrict it to such a use, then, are you? Bielle (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions from User:Thewolfchild




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) 04:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from user:Ykantor


2

Question from John Cline

 * Thank you; I understand your reluctance to take this question for its nuance. Regarding opinions, it was a glimpse at yours which I had endeavored—whereas your opinion becomes increasingly formidable should your candidacy succeed. I appreciate your having given as much in your answer. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right - in many ways, a single Arb's "decision" is their opinion of the evidence presented, combined with their reading of the relevant policies and jurisprudence. In this case, the word opinion can be bastardized - we often consider "opinion" to be a measure of good or bad (quality), whereas in this case I mean it as the evaluation of the contents.  I disagree that my "opinion" (either way) becomes more formidable - I'm one of many, as no single Arb "hears" a case.  I may be a good Devil's advocate, thus helping both sides be seen in a different light, however  ES  &#38;L  11:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are clearly motivated by very wise reason. You have overcome my prejudice; for the things heard—supplanting it with confident optimism; for the things seen. Having earned my support; you shall have it—ratified with a !vote. In choosing to say your opinion would become "increasingly formidable", I did mean to imply that it already was. My larger misstep was prepositioning it with the condition of a successful candidacy. The truth is that your opinion is becoming more formidable by your own strength, which only forebodes those who oppose your reason; making mine, easy support.—John Cline (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are clearly motivated by very wise reason. You have overcome my prejudice; for the things heard—supplanting it with confident optimism; for the things seen. Having earned my support; you shall have it—ratified with a !vote. In choosing to say your opinion would become "increasingly formidable", I did mean to imply that it already was. My larger misstep was prepositioning it with the condition of a successful candidacy. The truth is that your opinion is becoming more formidable by your own strength, which only forebodes those who oppose your reason; making mine, easy support.—John Cline (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions from user:Martinevans123

 * And I didn't even know you were a candidate. But, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I didn't even know you were a candidate. But, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)