QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 18th November 2008, 10:40am)
There is a big difference between removing a question and leaving it there unanswered. In fact, you could simply have answered, "I chose not to answer the question".
Which would have created the same clutter I'm trying to eliminate.
QUOTE
You know full well that hiding the question creates a very different impression from a pointed refusal to answer and could well be interpreted as an attempt at deceit
Yeah, I see now that it could give some people that impression, but the thought didn't cross my mind at the time or I wouldn't have done it in the first place--or at least made a very public statement of what was going on, to clear the air.
I still operate in the real-world ethic where you assume people have good intentions unless they've made it quite obvious that that is not the case. Not that good intentions excuse everything, but even when they did something that needs to be undone then you deal with them as if they had good intentions unless it's clear they didn't. I haven't (and won't) submitted myself to the groupthink of always looking for any possible way to interpret any move I don't like as a deliberately malicious act. Concluding malice is only a last resort for me.
QUOTE
voters are not going to check edit histories of the Q&A pages, are they?
I typically do.
QUOTE
I think it speaks volumes that someone seeking to be an arbitrator thinks that not answering a question from NYB that highlights your distinctive views on certain Wikipedians is an acceptable approach.
What's unacceptable is the fact where I'm in a situation where I can't answer it. Do you really think I don't want to? I've said (on Wikipedia) in the past exactly what I would say in an honest answer to those questions, and I was threatened with community-banning if I ever said it on-wiki again.