Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions

< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024 | Candidates | Guerillero


Individual questions

edit

Add your questions at the bottom of the page using the following markup:

{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

Use the |list resume= option to correct list numbering issues, by manually specifying the start point.

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

  1. Thank you for standing as a candidate and for your service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am optimistic because I am seeing the passing of the torch to a third or forth generation of members of the committee. Theleekycauldron and Elli were not around for my RfA in 2011 or my first term on the committee in 2015, just like I was not around for Jdforrester's time on the committee. One of my fears has been, for a decade now, that Wikipedia will be remembered as the monument built by Baby Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials. It seems that Zoomers are starting to come into their own on the project. That make me hopeful that when I die, this project will go on.

    While I am hopeful about seeing the torch get passed and editor numbers stabilizing, I am also very worried about the solidification of roles on the project. The last time the committee appointed first-time functionaries as OSers was my generation. That means that outside of incoming arbs, the team has been pretty static for a decade now. There was a time when OS was part of a pipeline to the committee, that pipeline is now gone. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  3. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The FA process is probably the only thing. I was one of the core source reviewers for a few years. Outside of that, the areas I write about are calm and out of the way. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A problem that the community can not solve should be explored by arbcom. As for safeguards, it depends on the exact evidence and if all of the parties know what is going on. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 01:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Recall should be able to handle the most cut and dry cases of Admin misconduct that tend to be handled by motion and a suspended case. If it works, we should have a chat with the community about ending LEVEL2 in 2026 since that power has been returned to the community. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for an update, the consensus at a VP discussion decided (diff) to no longer label RRFA a "policy". George Ho (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of preliminary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Members should try to keep an open mind --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to fight over controversial thoughts. My favorite pastime. The problem is, I agree with you on most everything. The one that I will pick a fight with you about is "Editors (or small groups) who successfully research, write, and nominate a featured article should be allowed a by-line if they want it." I understand where you are coming from as a fellow FA writer, but all of my work has greatly benefited from edits from other people. While Marriage License is mine, it has the fingerprints of reviewers and friends. If I get credit they should get credit. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If non-neutral editing crosses over into disruption or other violations of policy, editors can be removed from the topic area or the project. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the curses of coming in the minority on a regular basis when the voting begins is that there are quite a few cases where I continue to think that I was in the right. I think the committee is far too hesitant to impose CT on a topic area. I hope that the sun setting CT gives arbs another tool in the toolbox. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. It's often been suggested that Arbcom is the community's only 'official' bridge to the WMF. 30 days ago on Arbcom talk, you said: We are not EN Wikipedia's Foreign Office. This is a gross misuse of our political capital and time. I'm having difficulty contextualising that comment. Could you please clarify it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't seem to find the discussion where I said that. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 25#Mentioning administrator elections to your WMF contact in your monthly meeting. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The committee needs to find a way to keep email from falling through the cracks. We probably need something like a ticketing system or a secretary who bumps threads to make sure that don't become stale. I don't know which one is more amiable to the community and the committee right now. Part of me thinks that switching the arbcom list to a third service is going to be a mess. Especially if there is a high barrier to access ongoing discussions. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. When a request for another arbitrator's recusal is referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what is your decision-making process? DanCherek (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The biggest thing is determining of there is there clear and convincing evidence that an arbitrator reaches the bar for recusal in arbpol. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard do you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been in favor of releasing vote breakdowns over my current term, and have been opposed by a majority of the committee at almost every turn. I will continue to advocate for releasing vote breakdowns if elected to a third term. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. There are currently ten active arbitrators out of a possible 15, and arbitrator activity appears to have been the cause of some matters before the Committee stalling – for example, motions in the recent ARBPIA amendment request were only recently enacted almost three months after the initial referral from AE, and it has been noted that an email sent to the Committee in the summer containing private evidence may have fell by the wayside as [an] enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into. As someone who has served on ArbCom, is there anything that you think the community, the committee, and/or the WMF could/should do in order to (either directly or indirectly) improve arbitrator retention, and/or prevent arbitrator burnout? ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond what I told Isaacl, I think one of the problems facing the committee is that the balance between the arbs who do work in the background or on wiki and the ones who show up to vote has been out of whack over the past 2 years. The committee needs more do-ers to allow members to take a break every so often. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Topical question, although the RfC has now closed: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the SOPA/PIPA blackout was a mistake because it opened Pandora's box. As for the open letter, it is my understanding, based on my discussions with the WMF, that they are taking the issues pointed at in it seriously. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. How do you propose to deal with the current antisemitism scandal the encyclopaedia is embroiled in? Do you understand the anxieties of Jewish editors and users, as well as the 15 million jews worldwide, whose safety is ultimately put at risk when Wikipedia's processes are hijacked to list resources like the ADL as unrealiable? Will you acknowledge that the encyclopaedia needs to take much firmer action on this at ArbCom level? Luxofluxo (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content questions, such as if a source is reliable, are outside of the scope of the arbitration committee. If there are conduct issues at play, the committee can look into them after the community gets a bite at the apple through AN/ANI. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. There have been and will be public cases involving private evidence. In your opinion, how should the ArbCom maximize transparency with the community in cases involving private evidence while maintaining privacy when necessary?Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Sometimes the community is divided as to how to deal with editors who make significant content contributions but who are habitually uncivil or otherwise disruptive, and who have accumulated long block logs. Do you think that ArbCom should occasionally hear cases focused on individual editors, and, if so, what criteria should ArbCom use in deciding whether to accept such a case?Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, when the community is unable to solve the issue. Just like any other case --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. In your answer to question 9, I assume CT refers to contentious topics? If so, what do you mean by "sun setting CT"? Banedon (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Banedon: The idea is to have contentious topic designations end in some topic areas if the tools have not been used in 2 years. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Could you link me to some of your edits that deal with highly complex moral or controversial topics (sexual crimes, political repression, colonization history, high profile entertainers and such) and edits on talk pages regarding similar themes in which you acted as an arbitrator?Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Arbitration exists for conduct disputes not content ones. There shouldn't be any edits in the mainspace or on a talk page by me where I was acting as an arbitrator --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions&oldid=1260747979"