Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Guerillero

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guerillero[edit]

Hi all, I am Tom and I am an Admin, ArbCom Clerk, and CheckUser. In my real life, I am a stay-at-home dog dad and cartographer. I previously worked as a Geospatial Technologist on a large international development contract. This year I have written some content, done source reviews at FAC and FLC, and worked as an AE admin. I am currently trying to make 100 maps to illustrate 100 articles. Lets see how quickly I get there. I previously was on ArbCom from January 2015 to December 2016 and an Oversighter from 2013 until 2018.
If you look at my activity, you see that it was low from May through this month. That was due to crunch time at work followed by moving to a new country as a trailing spouse. I will have the time and attention to give to the committee if elected.
I would like to finish the update of the Discretionary Sanctions (DS) procedures if I am on the committee. One of the things I have learned working at AE is how difficult it is for AE admins, people being reported, and people doing the reporting. We need to rethink and retool the process to make it easier for more than ~20 admins to enforce our DS. We also need to think about the intersection of socking and AE. That came up this year and there wasn't a good response that I could give people.
The fine print

Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

information Note: Per WP:ACERFC2020, 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 Mikehawk10[edit]

  2. Standards of Evidence: What standards of proof should the arbitration committee use when deciding to enact a sanction on an individual, and should these standards vary depending on the type of sanction being considered?
    More likely than not. ArbCom is not a court and removal from a website or restricting what people can do here is not comparable in any way to denial of civil liberties, death, fines, forced labor, etc. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Standards for Evidence: When the arbitration committee is presented with off-wiki evidence (such as discord logs, screenshots of emails, or text messages), what is the mechanism that you believe the arbitration committee should implement to verify that the evidence presented is truthful, and how does your vision compare and contrast with current ArbCom processes in place?
    Having worked with this kind of evidence, it is extremely hard to verify. Outside of things on the open internet, it is down to trust. I would love for the committee to get out of the off-wiki issues business, but it seems that neither the community wants us to hand it off to the WMF nor the WMF wants to take it up. We don't have the tool, time, and background to verify the dizzying array of non-public information. So, here we are. I have voted to ban people in the past based on off-wiki evidence and I will do it again if the evidence comes to me. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheresNoTime[edit]

  2. In your opinion, what is the Arbitration Committee's core purpose?
    The Arbitration Committee exists to reduce the amount of disruption on the project by making binding decisions on conduct issues. Additionally, it is the dumping ground for all sorts of things that can't be done in public or that there currently isn't a community process for. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt[edit]

  2. Thank you for standing! Would you have listened to SarahSV (aka SlimVirgin) in this case?
    When RexxS stopped editing 2 days later and it looked like he de facto retired, I would have moved to suspend the case. Charging on with the case did nobody any good. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sdrqaz[edit]

  2. When accepting cases regarding administrative conduct, an oft-used qualifier is that opening a case does not mean sanctions are inevitable. However, historically, that has not been the case. What are your thoughts on the Committee's approach to desysop cases?
    I think that this question reverses things a bit. Because there are two things going on here: a numerator and a denominator. (My 4.5 years working in global heath finally comes in clutch)

    Denominator: The pipeline for ADMINCOND cases is leaky. This is a good thing. It means that most ADMINCOND issues get solved before it comes to ArbCom. Further, ArbCom has been choosy when accepting cases. Cases without strong legs tend to get rejected. I think if you would expand the denominator to all ADMINCOND from the Drama Boards to ArbCom you would see a very different picture.

    Numerator: By restricting the number of cases like this, the percentage of cases with a desysop gets fairly close to 1. I have voted to not desysop people in the past and I will probably do it again. I will say that I am much more in favor of desysops than some people are. I am a firm believer in the idea that if we can't trust someone to use the toolset in one place, they shouldn't have the toolset at all.

  4. Of the decisions taken this year by the Committee, which one did you disagree with the most? Please note that may include choices not to take actions and simple inaction where you felt the Committee should have done so.
    I don't think that it was in anyone's best interest to plow on to a decision in RexxS when he had de facto retired and a better thing to do would be suspend the case until his return or a year passed.

    The unblock of SethRuebens was a waste of the community's time. At the very least it should have come with a topic ban from the areas that he was causing disruption in before the socking started.

    Workshops are a waste of everyone's time and are mostly a mudpit. I disagree with this year's committee who doubled down on them.

    The network of socks that was air dropped into the public record in August was done in an extremely unproductive way

    The overhaul of DS is months behind schedule --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:30, 17 November 2021 (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?
    My answer to your similar question that you posed to me 12 months ago still seems sound: "Arbitration is a community process to find solutions to ongoing problems that have failed to be solved in other forums. Because it is not a court, Arbs have a wide remit to do as much individual research as they would like; however, Arbs are not detectives and are not required to do more than utilize the evidence presented when casting their votes for a solution". --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is claimed by some that little or no participation by an accused generally results in a more severe sentence. In the RexxS case, the members' opinions on an accused's right to silence varied from one extreme to the other. Consensus was however, that participation is neither an obligation, nor should it be taken into consideration for the severity of the sentence. Whether or not ArbCom functions according to Case law, or makes up its own rules on a case-by-case basis, in the interests of consistency would it make sense to get some kind of ruling established in policy?
    Officially, past cases have no barring on future ones. In practice, this is not 100% true and past cases are fairly persuasive. As I like to point out ArbCom is not a court and is not part of a justice system. It exists to find solutions to ongoing and otherwise unsolvable behavioral problems.

    As for policy, that is the community's decision and not ArbCom's. I do not think I could tell you where the majority of editors sit on this issue. It comes up on AN/ANI/AE often enough that it might be worth having a RfC.

    RE the RexxS case: what the 2021 ArbCom did is not what I would have done. When it was a month since RexxS's last edit, it would have made much more sense to suspend the case until RexxS returned or a year went by, whichever one comes first. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers, Guerillero. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from George Ho[edit]

  2. I asked you last year about the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy, which the WMF approved. Have your opinions on the UCoC developed since?
    The UCoC mostly forces smaller Wikimedia Foundation projects to follow something similar to EN Wikipedia policy. I don't see it having any effect on this project at all. What I am skeptical of is the GlobalArbCom who is supposed to enforce the UCoC. It is still an open question if the GlobalArbCom is going to hear appeals from our ArbCom and in what way. Also if it hears things from projects with established self-governance like the French, English, and German Wikipedias. If it does, I am skeptical of having yet another body that needs good EN Wikipedia editors to sit on it. But, Barkeeep is on the drafting committee for the charter of that group. So there is hope. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If you're not elected an arbitrator, how do you think would ArbCom perform without you for the next year or two?
    Just fine. The committee will make some decisions that I agree with and some decisions that I disagree with. The committee will still have one former clerk on it and one pre-2017 arb. The world will turn. I will make my displeasure known with my functionary, clerk, and old arb hats on when I disagree enough. I am not self-important enough to think that my one perspective is the thing that will save the committee --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from The Most Comfortable Chair[edit]

  2. How would you envision that we "rethink and retool the process" of DS enforcement? What are the specific changes you would be in favor of?
    Something needs to be done about "awareness." Bespoke sanctions are starting to be a drag on the system. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You mention in your statement that — "We also need to think about the intersection of socking and AE." Could you elaborate on what you meant and talk about potential ways in which the situation can be improved?
    An Icewhiz sock started a series of AE threads that resulted in topic bans. The DS process has no function to weigh letting a WMF-banned sock master "win" against the need for the editing restriction. Maybe an automatic review when it comes out that sanctions happened due to a banned editor's entry to the project? Sanctions wouldn't automatically lift, but they should be given another look at to make sure they are reasonable today in light of the new evidence --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WMF Banned User

Questions from Horizon of Happy[edit]

  2. Was there any particular reason you omitted from your candidate statement that you have previously served (January 2015 – December 2016)? And similarly, is it meant to be a particular secret that you, like a lot of the candidates this year, until yesterday it seems, had no intention of running?
    Please log into your main account --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon of Happy (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no main account except this one. This is a valid WP:CLEANSTART account, and my future participation on Wikipedia will depend on whether or not my perfectly legitimate questions are going to be afforded the respect they deserve. I remind you that you have no grounds to ask what my prior account was unless you have proof of specific abuse occurring (project socks are allowed where there is a direct impact on their account). Is it your intention to claim you see such evidence here, in my questions? Or are you simply unaware of (admittedly complex) but nonetheless important policy governing the use of accounts? Horizon of Happy (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

  2. As a former member of ArbCom, did you ever take part in a case in which you probably should have recused yourself?
    Looking back over the cases I participated in, I don't think so --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from wbm1058[edit]

  2. Should ArbCom-appointed checkusers be allowed to unilaterally tag a user as a likely sockpuppet of another user, point to the (perhaps years-old) sockpuppet investigation of the alleged sockpuppeteer, and then block the accused new user based on only behavioral evidence (i.e. with non-confirming technical evidence), without first conducting a community examination of the alleged behavioral connection and gaining a community consensus to block? Indeed, per this example, "Undid revision 1055911694 by xxxxx leave this for User:yyyy" the impression given by that edit summary is that the decision is only to be made by the accusing checkuser admin – who has yet to open a formal discussion on the matter. Are you OK with that?
    I know you are on a quest of sorts about recent drama in regards to this election, so I am not going to opine on the specifics of this case. In the general, there does not need to be a consensus or a discussion of behavioral evidence. Indeed, there is rarely a discussion at SPI. When there is, it isn't to come to some sort of agreement --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from A7V2[edit]

  2. As a hypothetical, suppose two otherwise very positive content editors are simply unable to get along (with the associated disruptions to discussions, etc), and arbcom ultimately imposes a mutual IBAN on them. One of the editors subsequently finds the restriction too restrictive and stops editing. Was the sanction a net positive for Wikipedia?
    Yes. Your hypothetical is ignoring all of the wasted editor time trying to solve their clashes through ANI, AN, RfCs, talk page discussions, etc. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In general, should editor retention be a factor when deciding on sanctions? Should the type of editor (in a broad sense) and type of contributions they make matter in this regard?
    No. Disruption is disruption --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the talk page. A7V2 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kolya Butternut[edit]

  2. An SPI on Daner's Creek was opened this year in connection to an arb announcement, Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen. An investigation into one of the potential socks was declined as stale. Do you think it's important to investigate old sockpuppets so that others may recognize the patterns of new sockpuppets of actively socking users?
    It is an important thing to do, but I do not think you are the correct person to be looking for Daner's Creek-related sock puppets --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Epiphyllumlover[edit]

  2. There is an active and routine off-wiki freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki. I have watched this corrupt discussions on enwiki, but would feel guilty reporting it, since I know that the editors actually making the comments really need the money. In addition, I feel that editors from the non-English speaking countries have the potential to contribute more to Wikipedia-- but fall into selling votes because it is both lucrative and requires little understanding of wiki code. It would be a shame to drive them away, given the great potential which would be lost. Would you support a WMF-funded bounty program modeled after the Nordic model approach to prostitution, where the editors from non-English speaking countries could receive a financial bounty for turning in their employers to ArbCom for discipline, while at the same time also be offered access to an exclusive Wiki syntax training program so they can build skills to pursue greater things?
    This is the first I have head of such a thing. I would suggest that people who know of things like this bring the evidence forward to arbcom or the WMF. As for a bounty program, it seems too easy to game. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Hijiri88[edit]

  2. What is your stance on two-way IBANs that are imposed because of one-way harassment? In the past, ArbCom has rejected one-way IBAN proposals in favour of two-way IBANs on purely technical grounds (that they are subject to being gamed, that they "don't work", etc.), but if such a one-way IBAN is implemented and it doesn't stem disruption (for example, if the hounded party is simultaneously placed under a TBAN that is not placed on the hounding party), and instead only leaves the harassed party subject to repeated remarks of "User X is subject to an IBAN with User Y -- he wouldn't be banned if he hadn't done something wrong" and unable to explain the context, would you be open to repealing it? (I am assuming that BANEX applies to these questions.)
    Seeing the ongoing AE thread, I think it is best to avoid expounding upon a future appeal before it has been made --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear[edit]

  2. I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?
    I think that withholding some of the behavioral evidence is well supported by past and ongoing practice. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive. I think it is moral due to the ongoing abuse that happens from many of our frequent flyers. It is really easy to forget the toll that LTAs have taken on editors and their families. For instance, I am not going to give the tells of anyone on this list away because of what they did to get there and the danger of them reappearing in the community. For others, the risk is lower. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Therapyisgood[edit]

  2. I noticed above there is talk of a global arbcom who could hear appeals from the local enWP Arbcom. Where should I go to hear an update on the global arbcom?
    We don't know what The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (what I called the global ArbCom) will look like or what it is going to do to enforce the UCOC. It is very possible that it will be banned from hearing appeals from some arbcoms or all arbcoms. Meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement draft guidelines review has most of it. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What was your stance on the Wikipedia:FRAMBAN situation?
    The WMF should not have stepped into the internal affairs of the English Wikipedia and should have asked ArbCom to open a case based on the evidence that they collected. Self-governance is important and the WMF has not shown that the English Wikipedia is like Croatian Wikipedia where self-governance has failed. I was a background source for the BuzzFeed article on the situation and I posted my thoughts on that page --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Robert McClenon[edit]

Cases Per Year
  2. Some of the most troublesome disputes in Wikipedia are protracted content disputes that are complicated by conduct issues, such as incivility, civil POV pushing, stonewalling, and filibustering. These disputes often go to WP:ANI more than once. This is a two-part question, and maybe will be considered to be one question or two. First, how should ArbCom decide when it is necessary to accept a case that is a combination content-conduct dispute? Second, there are relatively few available mechanisms for dealing with such protracted cases short of conduct adjudication (WP:ANI, Arbitration Enforcement, or an arbitration case). Third Opinion is for straightforward cases with two editors. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is normally for relatively simple disputes that will take two or three weeks to resolve. Do you have any ideas for how to try to resolve protracted content-conduct disputes to minimize their division of the community before arbitration is sought?
    My experience is that the role of ArbCom is to step in, solve the conduct issue, and then let the community deal with the content issues. The best time to step in is when it is apparent that the community can't, for whatever reason, solve a conduct issue. In this process, ArbCom should try its hardest to avoid entering into content issues. I think the graph to the right shows that the community is working just fine to resolve all kinds of dispites. ArbCom has decided less than 10 cases per year since 2016 instead of the 116 in 2006. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Guerillero&oldid=1073486966"