Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Roger Davies/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 by Gerda Arendt
Thank you for volunteering.

I agree, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 22 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.



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) 00:44, 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 06:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions by Fæ

 * 1) *Thanks, though your answer does not appear to address my question. Arbcom currently runs detailed investigations on projects other than the English Wikipedia, and yet the policy you point to states "applicable to the specific Project edition" as a constraint on its investigation. Is there a policy that supports Arbcom running or commissioning "its own investigations into suppressed or deleted information from other projects"? --Fæ (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your mean by "ArbCom currently runs detailed investigations on projects other than the English Wikipedia". ArbCom does nothing of the kind. However, the functionaries of various projects cooperate in many areas, for example, possible/potential copyright violation and the possible abusive use of multiple accounts.  Roger Davies  talk 08:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there seems little point in continuing this as my real life experience does not seem to match your statement. I will put this difference in understanding to stem from my interpretation that when a sitting Arbcom member runs a detailed technical investigation into non-English Wikipedia events and reports their findings as part of an active Arbcom case, in the process risking unfortunate Streisand Effects, then I see them as acting with the authority of Arbcom. Presumably your interpretation is that they do not. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Given your celebrity, your numerous accounts, and the nature of some of your uploads, this was always going to be a sensational case. We took reasonable steps to protect you from the worst excesses, while at the same time taking reasonable steps to evaluate what damage if any had been caused to the encyclopedia.  Roger Davies  talk 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What is noticeable here, is that you prefer to deflect the question. As I said, your point of view as to whether Arbcom members act for Arbcom when they run their own investigations off-wiki neither matches my experience nor a conventional common-sense view. There seems little more to say here as I doubt you will be prepared to use my question as an nice opportunity to explain what you personally and Arbcom in general have learned from mistakes made when handling these situations rather than making pointy public remarks at my expense.
 * I hope that next year's Arbcom will be more capable of handling cases of persistent cyberbullying and homophobic harassment in a way that can respect the personal life of the individual and avoid causing further damage through its own actions. --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Given your celebrity, your numerous accounts, and the nature of some of your uploads, this was always going to be a sensational case. We took reasonable steps to protect you from the worst excesses, while at the same time taking reasonable steps to evaluate what damage if any had been caused to the encyclopedia.  Roger Davies  talk 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What is noticeable here, is that you prefer to deflect the question. As I said, your point of view as to whether Arbcom members act for Arbcom when they run their own investigations off-wiki neither matches my experience nor a conventional common-sense view. There seems little more to say here as I doubt you will be prepared to use my question as an nice opportunity to explain what you personally and Arbcom in general have learned from mistakes made when handling these situations rather than making pointy public remarks at my expense.
 * I hope that next year's Arbcom will be more capable of handling cases of persistent cyberbullying and homophobic harassment in a way that can respect the personal life of the individual and avoid causing further damage through its own actions. --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 27 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) 04:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions from user:Martinevans123

 * Many thanks, Roger. Yes, it's certainly spit coffee over that too, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Roger. Yes, it's certainly spit coffee over that too, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)