Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/AGK/Questions

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:

Question from Rschen7754

 * For the record. When I was on the Committee with AGK, he stood out as an active, committed, focused, ethical, courageous, and polite Committee member. SilkTork (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record. When I was on the Committee with AGK, he stood out as an active, committed, focused, ethical, courageous, and polite Committee member. SilkTork (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Winged Blades of Godric
Hi just to clarify, in my statement I said it was the older generation of discretionary sanctions that had lost balance, became known for harshness, and grown unfit for purpose over the years (emphasis added) rather than the current iteration. Do you wish me to pick out the other parts of your question and answer those in relation to the current version of discretionary sanctions? AGK &#9632;  18:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the mis-interpretation. I've struck out parts and added a bit. &#x222F; WBG converse 11:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)



Question from Ritchie333

 * Thanks for a good answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a good answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from

 * Thank you for your answer. feminist (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. feminist (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. I am rehashing most of my 2015 questions because I don't think that these issues have been resolved over the past three years. Enjoy!

Insider Baseball

 * I like AGK's idea of loosening the Workshop so it becomes more of an open discussion. SilkTork (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested in that idea. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested in that idea. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

 * Thank you for your response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Amanda

 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from

 * Thanks for the further links. Very sorry, but those also do not work for me.  Could you email a pdf to ?   AGK  &#9632;  22:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further links. Very sorry, but those also do not work for me.  Could you email a pdf to ?   AGK  &#9632;  22:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from User:Ryk72
Discretionary sanctions (DS) now cover more than 30 topic areas (per WP:DSTOPICS).

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from User:Ryoung122
Greetings,

Following up to Ryk72's question (though I'm not in association with the above editor, his most recent comment 'caught my eye'), I personally feel that Wikipedia for some time has been too concerned with "pulling weeds" and not enough with setting standards. Too much is still decided by ad hoc decisionmaking rather than applying a standard. Also, part of making a garden a paradise involves not just chopping down unwanted content but making sure the content that should be there is properly maintained.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that too much on Wikipedia seems to be decided by ad hoc decisionmaking rather than applying the hypothetical and moral ideas of NPOV, GNG, NOR, etc. which basically state that the Wikipedia coverage on a topic area should be based on what mainstream, outside sources state, not what the personal POV of certain powerful, often nasty and sarcastic editors state. Indeed, much of the problems on Wikipedia stem from editorial ego and "Idon'tlikeit" and POV/Wiki-OWN violations that could be trimmed back or overturned if ArbCom took a slightly more pro-active view to enforce not just "reported violations" but wiki-lawyering, incivility, etc. It would be great if everyone took the high-road, ethical approach but too often, we see that NPOV is abandoned when one particular POV position manages to push out other POV's, even when those other POV's are the actual mainstream position outside Wikipedia (as another noted, for example, the "acupuncture" coverage). I do believe that part of what ArbCom can do better is to enforce sanctions on both parties involved in a dispute when the evidence is clear that both sides are digging in and unwilling to compromise, even to the point of playing the "heads I win, tails you lose" Wiki-lawyering game. If ArbCom could crack down a bit harder on "insider-Wiki" violators, it would help restore more confidence to the project, instead of having a few manage to push out those that don't fall in line with their particular entrenched POV position (which is often a violation of NPOV).

In theory, I believe that compromise is found with a balance of views, not with one side pushing out the other. Ryoung 122 06:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am content to take that as a comment, but feel obliged to take issue with part of it. Consensus is not formed merely by shows of hands.  Consequently, you misunderstand the problem by proposing to remove more of a second side's disputants after removing those from the first.  Down that avenue tends to lie over-zealous enforcement (administrators being "ban-happy"), which does not work.  Topic areas like the Arab–Israeli conflict have taught us this much.  I rather think adding more community editors and attention to the topic is more effective than removing as many disputants as possible.  Others will simply replace them.


 * The weeds comment was mine, not Ryk72's. In the analogy, contributing to Wikipedia isn't compared to weed-killing because the task itself is trivial or banal.  The analogy refers to the fact that without maintenance, every contribution degrades or departs from its original form and purpose.  Great, even ground-breaking, contributions (like writing a series of featured articles, or creating new systems for collaborating, or improving the software) is not pulling weeds in the first sense – indeed it'd be more like laying a whole new section of the garden.  But it remains comparable to weed-killing because if you don't stay around to pull the weeds, the contribution eventually will stagnate or change or close or be rewritten.  The inevitable deterioration is what the Garden of Eden analogy means.    AGK  &#9632;  16:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)