Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/DGG/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Question from Gerda

 * Thank you, satisfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, satisfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Carrite

 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Peacemaker67

 * I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The matter initially presented as a contents dispute proved out to feature the continuing harassment of the principal  editor on one side of a dispute, and the attempts to coordinate action against  one's opponents by the use of a Wikiproject as a cabal. I think the conclusion will have a positive benefit on the future behavior of such projects, and would be even more helpful if a stronger statement had been made, as I commented in  in the decision.    DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The matter initially presented as a contents dispute proved out to feature the continuing harassment of the principal  editor on one side of a dispute, and the attempts to coordinate action against  one's opponents by the use of a Wikiproject as a cabal. I think the conclusion will have a positive benefit on the future behavior of such projects, and would be even more helpful if a stronger statement had been made, as I commented in  in the decision.    DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WereSpielChequers

 * Thanks. I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

 * I am sorry, but this hardly clarifies things. I am still concerned that your cited diff means that you think the editor who was indef banned for off wiki harassment was blocked unfairly, and instead you'd have preferred to banned one of the editors who were the victim of said harassment. If this is incorrect, I ask again: which editor, specifically, do you think was banned incorrectly, and who should have been banned? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but this hardly clarifies things. I am still concerned that your cited diff means that you think the editor who was indef banned for off wiki harassment was blocked unfairly, and instead you'd have preferred to banned one of the editors who were the victim of said harassment. If this is incorrect, I ask again: which editor, specifically, do you think was banned incorrectly, and who should have been banned? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but this hardly clarifies things. I am still concerned that your cited diff means that you think the editor who was indef banned for off wiki harassment was blocked unfairly, and instead you'd have preferred to banned one of the editors who were the victim of said harassment. If this is incorrect, I ask again: which editor, specifically, do you think was banned incorrectly, and who should have been banned? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

}}

Question from Leaky caldron

 * You really don't need to mansplain to me, I'm not as stupid as my user name suggests and I've been around longer than you. Just not with so any hats. The question is a simple one - do you recognise bias or not?
 * I was trying to say the difference is not as sharp as you seem to suppose, nor is there the sort of bias   you seem to imagine. There certainly  is bias, but not between content creators and others.. There is bias depending upon the importance of the work to the community, regardless of the type of work.. We are very reluctant to ban people who have made major contributions to articles, or major work on our infrastructure, and there are examples of both. There is a similar reluctance to topic ban, when we are topic-banning someone who is critically contributing to the major  work in any specific content area, or behind the scenes specialty. There has been a reluctance to de-admin administrators who have multiple very important positive contributions in their roles, but have made errors or been antagonistic.  This is as it should be. We are not here to  judge punishments for crimes, or decide the eternal fate of sinners. . We are here to enable the functioning of the encyclopedia. We seek solutions that will benefit the encyclopedia. We remove those whose net effects are toxic, but the degree of negative toxicity we tolerate is balanced to some extent by the  extent of positive contributions.
 * But there are some misdemeanors that are considered worthy of extreme action regardless of the circumstances, such as wheel-warring for administrators.  or external harassment by anyone. Here the purpose of the sanction is not really to prevent the further disruption of the encyclopedia, but to serve as our strongest possible deterrent. I have not seen that in such cases we make exceptions for people whose contributions we will really miss.  However, we also apply this sanction to sock-puppettry, and I consider this excessive in many cases--it should be an option, not a default.  It's the usual end point of escalating a conflict until someone gets removed, and then making the removal permanent when they get sufficiently frustrated.  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thankfully a small number of your fellow candidates have answered the same question more straightforwardly and with much greater clarity. I asked you not to mansplain - you literally just doubled down. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You want the simplest direct answer: No, there is not prejudice in favor of content contributors. There is however tolerance of both highly active content contributors and other highly active editors.  DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You want the simplest direct answer: No, there is not prejudice in favor of content contributors. There is however tolerance of both highly active content contributors and other highly active editors.  DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WBG
Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from kcowolf

 * Thanks for your response. kcowolf (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. kcowolf (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)