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

I endorse this candidate
Per the following Q and A from the Questions page...

Q. Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.

A. The Muhammad images case was interesting, and not badly handled. I firmly disagree with the final result, in that I think that as an encyclopedia, we are obligated to give no consideration to religious-based objections to our content. The process used was not that bad, though: the truly obnoxious editors championing censorship were admonished or banned, those of us that talked about it a lot were cautioned not to be like those two, and the fundamental question was thrown to an RFC. That the community failed to get the right answer in the RFC isn't Arbcom's fault, and I'm not certain that I would want them to be more forceful about generating the right answer. The Manning case was handled poorly: Lokshin's effort to railroad the decision into sanctioning people that had upheld policy and rewarding those that had abused their positions nearly succeeded. As a result, the Arbcom case was nearly as acrimonious as the original dispute. In the end, Arbcom came to nearly the right answer, but it wasn't the best of paths to get there.

Right on the money both times. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This candidate has my vote
Actually, Kevin and I have disagreed several times, once resulting in a lengthy debate. But despite that, he was always fair and mature. For that, he has my respect and support. Good luck. - the WOLF  child  20:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

On the fence
This editor has a great deal going for and against them. I have interacted with KWW for some time. Generally I have found the editor to be good at administrative duties...until the last year, perhaps even just the last six months that many see as out of the ordinary. Perhaps the true reason is something I am simply not seeing. I have been a rather behind the scenes supporter of KWW but, again...with recent events and situations, I have been wondering about KWW's direction. His behavior on WP:WER's talk page is disturbing (to me) and has caught the attention of more than just myself. He seems to be back into an older persona. What has spawned this? Justification can always be seen as more reason to support than to oppose. I know that sometime we all overreact, but at WER, his comments seem aimed at only criticism of the discussions there. Perhaps (and I truly mean this) there are circumstances that were out of his control. I see some of this, but still find recent behavior as not fulfilling the needs of our Arbitration Committee.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the candidates prepared statement and see answers to my questions from that statement. I can't support KWW at this time. My main concern is this: "I'm not nice. I've never pretended to be. But most people that make an honest evaluation of my efforts will see that I'm fair. ". Frankly, I am not prepared to add more drama to arb com by picking a candidate that is self proclaimed "not nice". And KWW has, in some recent situations, simply not been fair. As I said his behavior at WER is not neutral or helpful and far from disinterested. Sometimes KWW is simply judgemental. The very statement is judgemental. "most people that make an honest evaluation of my efforts" So....then those that disagree with that are not honest? --Mark Miller (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Support
Kww was involved with a very lengthy (and frustrating for many) discussion here, in my opinion Kww did a lot to move the discussion forward in a positive way and was very helpful. Thanks again for your assistance Kww, i'm very happy to support you for the Arbitration Committee. Kevlar (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)