Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Kww/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 ColonelHenry

 * This response does not answer my question.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly wasn't intended to be evasive. I was one of the three admins that closed the move request before the Arbcom case was opened. In general, I feel that correct interpretation of our policies favours views that look at other sources and follow them. Our policies also clearly favour honouring people's self-identification. As a result of this tension, none of the actual activities of moving the article in either direction are clear, black-letter law policy violations. Policy and behaviour problems didn't begin until people started to move-war, use tools to protect favoured positions, and hurl insults and accusations at people. Kirill's first pass at handling it was a biased travesty, and it wasn't until AGK began to work against him that the Arbcom case began to correctly reflect the issues in the case. The eventual result cut through that thicket reasonably well, sanctioning the most egregious of misbehaviour from both sides.
 * In terms of the final result of where the article wound up, I see the appropriate location as having shifted over time. The attempt to move it instantaneously was wrong, as it put us in the position of being ahead of other sources. Having it at "Chelsea" now is correct, as that is where sources have moved to. If people hadn't moved it instantaneously and had waited for sources to shift, the move would have been much less contentious and the article would have wound up at "Chelsea" weeks earlier than it actually did.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of the final result of where the article wound up, I see the appropriate location as having shifted over time. The attempt to move it instantaneously was wrong, as it put us in the position of being ahead of other sources. Having it at "Chelsea" now is correct, as that is where sources have moved to. If people hadn't moved it instantaneously and had waited for sources to shift, the move would have been much less contentious and the article would have wound up at "Chelsea" weeks earlier than it actually did.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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.


 * Actually, next year I am changing the case. :) --Rschen7754 04:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, next year I am changing the case. :) --Rschen7754 04:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (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) 13:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions by Gerda Arendt
Thank you for volunteering.

Questions by Ealdgyth

 * Thank you for your answer. I may have a question or two tomorrow - your candidacy is causing me some issues as I like large parts of your viewpoint but your views on civility are diametrically different (not opposed, just different) enough that I'm greatly concerned to support you. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I may have a question or two tomorrow - your candidacy is causing me some issues as I like large parts of your viewpoint but your views on civility are diametrically different (not opposed, just different) enough that I'm greatly concerned to support you. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 20 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 06:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from Anthonyhcole
Back in 2007 and 2008 in discussions about the title, you misrepresented the consensus regarding the preferred title for Natalee Holloway. See Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Do you still do that kind of thing - do you think misleading your interlocutors is a legitimate tactic to win an argument? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your question is based on a false premise. If anyone moderates these pages, I suggest that it be stricken.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This user appears to be carting over a grudge from elsewhere. This issue is currently be debated at ANI. - the WOLF  child  19:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from User:Thewolfchild

 * Thank you. - the WOLF  child  19:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - the WOLF  child  19:56, 24 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) 03:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions from user:Martinevans123

 * ... only 90 mins left to win me over to that hearty abstention.... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ... only 90 mins left to win me over to that hearty abstention.... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)