Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020‎ | Candidates‎ | Guerillero

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 22 November 2020 (→‎Questions from Atsme: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

information Note: Per WP:ACERFC2020, starting this year 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.

Question from Gerda

  2. In 2013, we had WP:ARBINFOBOX. In 2018, Voceditenore commented this. Would you agree?
    Broadly, yes. The central nexus of most ArbCom cases that aren't about Admin conduct and quite a few of the larger AE request look like Party A and Party B (or Group of parties A and Group of parties B) have both "dug in" and can't come to an agreement. While I was away from Wikipedia, I became involved in my local Quaker meeting. One of the things that I noticed about Quaker consensus compared to Wikipedia consensus is that in a Quaker decision making model, there us a culture of "standing aside." Part of standing aside is acknowledging that while you disagree with a decision you are in the minority and it is good for the community to move forward. We don't have a version of that here and I think that it is missing. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from George Ho

  2. The WMF has proposed the Universal Code of Conduct for a long while. What is your feedback on the UCoC?
    At this point, while the drafters are utilizing the community comments, I am waiting to pass judgment on the UCoC until I see how the WMF decides to incorporate community feedback. There are quite a few comments that seem reasonable to me and I hope the WMF uses them to create the final draft. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Which ArbCom cases have affected you the most personally as a Wikipedian, even when you agree or disagree with the decisions made, and why?
    There are some issues that we handled in private when I was on the committee that, in retrospect, should have been handed differently. We were particularly slow to respond to a case of fairly vile harassment for a variety of reasons. Several years later, I continue to wonder if I was balancing equities in a way that made things worse for a victim.

    In terms of on-wiki things, I have never been sanctioned and I rarely edit in areas that are under active sanctions. There is not a case that has made my life personally difficult. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tryptofish

  2. I apologize that I don't have the diff for it, but fairly recently there was a dispute in which you said to another editor (Cassianto): "OK boomer". Would you care to comment about that?
    It wasn't the best of my ideas, but yes, I said that. I could go into why, but Cassianto has vanished and dredging up the reasons seems imprudent. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung

I'm asking all candidates the same questions.

  2. The Arbitration Committee is not a court of law, but it has often been suggested that it is 'judge, jury, and executioner'. I'm not asking you to comment on that, but my related question is: Should the Committee base its Findings of Fact and Proposed Remedy(ies) purely on the prima facie evidence presented by the complainant(s), or should its members have a duty to thoroughly investigate the validity, accuracy, and/or veracity of those complaints? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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 01:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia's drama board at WP:ANI is open to comment by any and all users. This could possibly affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even reveal a consensus that might not always be the most equitable. On Arbcom cases participation (sometimes throw-away comments) from uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also colour the objectivity of members of the Committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. My question is: In your opinion, how valid is such participation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no justice on Wikipedia, only attempts to seek solutions as a community to ongoing problems. Since ArbCom cases are part of the community's dispute resolution process and aren't court proceedings, I don't see a strong reason to limit community participation in the name of objectivity. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero: Thank you for your answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Newslinger

  2. Under what circumstances would a dispute over the use of unreliable sources be considered a conduct dispute?
    I can think of a number of reasons where such a dispute might cross the border: When there is a nexus with paid editing. When the discussion devolves into personal attacks. When the use of a unreliable source is part of a campaign to push a POV. When a user is advocating for the use of an unreliable source in a disruptive manner. When people are edit warring over the use of an unreliable source. When a user refuses to acknowledge that the community has decided to not use a source but keep on bringing it up.

Questions from Calidum

  2. The recent anti-harassment RFC was closed with several findings related to "unblockable" users. Do you agree with those findings and how would you address them?
    Everyone agrees that "unblockables" exist, but everyone's enumerated list of unblockable users is different depending on who one is wiki-friends with and where/how one edits. Seeing that unblockable means "power users that I don't enjoy" after a number of door showings and cultural changes over the past 10 years, makes me question its overall usefulness as a category. This is especially true as the community has become much more proactive about conduct issues on the various noticeboards compared to when I was on ArbCom in 2015-2016. If a user sees an admin or another power user routinely flying in the face of policy and AN/ANI are not helpful, one can ask ArbCom to take a look at that user's conduct. I, unfortunately, did it earlier this year and it resulted in a case. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Why wait until the last day to enter the election?
    I started drafting my voter guide and, when I was reviewing the candidates, I was unable to come up with a complete slate that I was happy with supporting. So, I threw my hat in the ring because I have done the job before and know what ther. I have a decent track record of predicting who the community is going to spring for. Last year my guide got only one support wrong, I supported Isarra and opposed DGG. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Questions from A7V2

I am asking the same questions to all candidates.

  2. How do you feel about this statement from the WMF, in particular the line "On these issues, there is no neutral stance"? Should there be topics on Wikipedia which are except from WP:NPOV? A7V2 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My read of that document does not align at all with yours. Nothing in the steps that the WMF stated that they were advocating for included the end to NPOV --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is at least a perception of left-wing bias on Wikipedia, both regarding content and internally (for context see [1]. One of the examples given is that for matters relating to Donald Trump, the 2016 US election and Brett Kavanaugh, editors making broadly "pro-Trump" edits were disciplined 6 times more than those making broadly "anti-Trump" edits, but this is not to say this was or wasn't justified). Do you believe this perception to be true, and whether you believe it is true or not, what, if anything, should be done to address it? A7V2 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing that the article was not peer reviewed and the authors don't stand by the results enough to put their names and affiliations on the article I have a hard time putting much stock in it.

    The editors of Wikipedia are probably, on the whole, slightly left leaning due to the large contingent of college educated white men, but we also have our fair share of Gray Tribe-types, libertarians, and conservatives. I will say, that in the context of the US the "right-wing positions" that are popular on twitter such as Donald Trump has a path to reelection based on the results of the election, COVID-19 is a hoax, and a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring but is being revealed by a patriot on 4chan are fringe theories that are not supported by mainstream conservative outlets such as the newsroom of Fox News or the Wall Street Journal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which reports what the consensus of sources says and does not do faux-both side coverage. In fairness, leftist Twitter thinks we are bourgeoisie propaganda that prints lies about the DPRK, China, USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela, so we make all sorts of people unhappy with NPOV. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AmandaNP

  2. Each and every year issues of systemic oppression become louder and louder in society. In 3 major countries that our contributors come from have been dealing with increasing public pressure to address such issues. (US: [2], UK: [3], Canada: [4] [5]) Given this and the increased political attention this is getting, it's bound to be a dispute that spills into many different sectors of Wikipedia (race, class, gender, sexuality, disability, etc.). I would argue that cases where these issues could pop-up already have been litigated through previous committees (AMPOL 2, MoS through ATC, and Gender through GamerGate) and will continue to do so. My question is, as an Arbitrator, do you think you have a role in preventing systemic oppression from happening on Wikipedia, and what would that role look like?
    These issues have always been litigated on Wikipedia and the pace is not going to slow down. Doubling down on our core policies, such as NPA, and being mindful of how oppression intersects with knowledge production are important when discussing our policies around notability are all important things that the community is already doing. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and prints the consensus view in the literature of an issue. This might frustrate activists, but we are not the forum to right great wrongs in the world. Many of the perceived issues that activists have with Wikipedia are issues that exist upstream from us in journalism, academia, publishing, etc. and we inherit due to our use of sources. The most successful way to fix problems with Wikipedia's articles is for experts and activists to create the sourcing we need to create a better articles.

    I am interested in exploring ways that ArbCom can work in this space, but currently our options are limited. ArbCom tends to not create work for itself and deals with the cases that it is handed. Additionally, many of these issues are content not conduct issues. It is something to keep in mind as the committee balances equities when deciding on a solution to behavioral issues. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  4. The role of CheckUser and Oversight are given to every arbitrator on request. CheckUser regularly requires experience to interpret results. Given you have a vote in how proceedings involving the overturning of checkuser blocks, the enforcement of the CU/OS policies including the privacy policy, and the appointment of new functionaries, how does your experience show that you can place independent thought into such decisions? I'm not asking about how you defer to others as that is not showing independent discretion and thought. (Cases relevant: {{checkuserblock-account}} blocks where the behavior doesn't match but technical evidence does, accusations of violations of the privacy policies by two former functionaries, and the lack of appropriate staffing of venues - OTRS oversight, checkuser and paid editing queues, ACC CheckUser queue, and IRC Checkuser and oversight requests)
    I don't fully understand your question, Amanda. I have been a checkuser for five years and a functionary for seven. Back when AUSC was a thing, I spent a term on it; I sat on the committee for a term. I have an extensive paper trail thinking about and speaking to the issues that you bring up. I agree that there is a temptation to give into groupthink about a privacy-related issue, but I am not afraid of taking the unpopular side if it is the side that I think is correct.

    Because I am a tech bro with a Substack, here are some hot takes. They aren't fully formed so aren't part of my core platform.

    Since you bring up CU blocks something that doesn't fully sit well with me is the use of ArbCom as the appeals body. The number of arbs that have the experience working with the CU tool is small. I'm also not a fan of the idea of using the functionaries as a en banc appeals court. What I would like to see is a community and functionaries-first way of allowing for CU blocks, OS blocks, ArbCom bans older than 10 years, ArbCom blocks older than 10 years, and community bans to be appealed. My sketch looks something like 2 functionaries appointed by ArbCom, 2 non-functionary admins elected by the community, and 1 member of ArbCom as a liaison and chair. Any decisions that this new-BASC makes goes into effect 30 days after they make it, except if ArbCom objects with a majority vote. That should keep things from going to arbcom-l to wither on the vine. I will admit that this isn't going to be popular with some arbs, but I think it would be an important step forward. I will admit that this is a change in position that I have had since I ran in 2014, but I don't see the centralization that we did in 2015 to be helpful in moving appeals along.

    In terms of former functionaries not following the privacy policies, this feels like a WMF problem more than anything else. I would like the English Wikipedia to have a better working relationship with the OC and to send to them issues such as this. The OC provides a good source of accountability at the global level and should be used to enforce global policies that have global consequences. The OC would probably forward this onto WMF's legal and the ball is in their court to enforce their NDA. The piece of paper that binds us to the privacy policy either has weight or not. There is a role for ArbCom to issue an ArbCom block here, but since the violation is global in nature, a global lock is probably most appropriate.

    In terms of staffing, we need to have a long talk as the functionaries office and committee about how many venues we are going to support and if we really need to have CUs in all of them. The English Wikipedia has more functionaries than any other project (44). We make up 22% of all people with checkuser access globally. More person power might not be the correct solution to our problems. Fresh legs are important and I would like to keep adding functionaries to keep the office dynamic to new trends and challenges, but sending more people to the salt mine has yet to solve our staffing problems.

    I think a number of these are fairly independent and might ruffle some feathers. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear

  2. As with many arbs, you propose a change of DS. However, both from nomination statements and knowing some of the candidates' opinions on it, some may wish to restrict DS and others loosen it. What changes would you personally like to see in DS (in terms of applicability, enforcement, methodology etc etc - more detail is good!)
    Over my past bit of working with DS something that I have run into just how cumbersome and difficult to use DS are. For example, AE is run on the backs of 15 or less admins. One of the things we need to do is rethink the notice system. The templates and yearly notices make it so some issues can not be handled even if the conduct is fairly egregious. I would like 1RR from arbcom to be unified with 1RR from AE. Right now, there are two tiers of process for very little reason. We need to rethink the 0RR, BRD, consensus required-type restrictions that are in a patchwork across the encyclopedia. We need to clarify if AE can issue interaction bans or not. We need to figure out how difficult AE cases should be dealt with. Currently, threads fall off of AE to the archive without being closed because admins don't want to touch them. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IP user 2600:1004:*

  2. A7V2's question above linked to this article, and asked whether ArbCom candidates agree with the perception that Arbitration Enforcement has a left-wing bias. Expanding upon that question, another argument made by the article is that when a controversial topic comes to be dominated by editors with single viewpoint, this creates a situation where violations of BLP policy or other content policies may be overlooked for months or years if the violations are favorable to the dominant viewpoint, because editors are less likely to fix policy violations that support a viewpoint they agree with. (See the section of the article titled, "How administrative bias affects articles".) Do you consider this tendency to be a problem, and if so, what role (if any) should ArbCom have in addressing it?
    Large claims require large amounts of evidence and I do not currently see this article, with the weaknesses I expounded upon earlier, as providing enough evidence for their claims --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Atsme

  2. Adminstrators who oversee DS-AE in highly controversial areas are authorized by ArbCom to act unilaterally using their sole discretion, and that has raised some justifiable concerns because indef t-bans have been imposed in an ambush-style action at a single admin's sole discretion at the start of a case, be it ARCA or ANI. AE actions cannot be overturned by another admin; therefore, doing so at the start of a case denies the accused the opportunity to defend themselves, but assures the acting admin (who may or may not knowingly be prejudiced) that the editor will be indef t-banned without risking a lesser action being imposed by the community at ANI, or by arbitrators at ARCA. Such an action actually gives a single admin more authority than ArbCom itself which must act as a committee. Do you consider such an AE action under those circumstances I described to be an out-of-process action worthy of desysopping, or simply unconventional but worthy of your continued support if you became an arbitrator?
    This question feels ripped from the headlines, but with too many details removed to opine on the specifics. Your question conflates two closely related, but mechanically different processes: solo-admin sanctions and sanctions that come about from the rough consensus of admins at WP:AE. Both are fast tracked sanctions but need to talked about individually. I think that both kinds of sanctions are important and are one of the few things that keep many areas of the encyclopedia from turning into a mud fight. In both, an admin who institutes sanctions is accountable to the community at AN, their peers at AE and arbcom at ARCA. Each of those venues is empowered to overturn sanctions. The gross misuse of sanctions or a pattern of using sanctions improperly is grounds for desysoping. Our current policy allows for people to talk freely when engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

    Solo-admin sanctions: Sanctions by a single admin have both the lowest floor and the highest ceiling. They can be abused, but they can also provide some of the largest benefit for the encyclopedia. Some proponents of DS have stated in the past that what DS does is revert Wikipedia's procedures to what they were in the past instead of the second mover advantage found in our current wheel warring policy. While I don't 100% buy that, I think there is a grain of truth to it. There is no justice system on Wikipedia, only ways of finding solutions. Sometimes those solutions involve an admin telling an user that they can no longer make edits on a page due to their continual edit warring, to use an example from one place that I used solo-admin sanctions.

    Rough consensus at AE sanctions: For the majority of cases at AE that aren't about wedge issues, the biggest problem with AE is that there aren't nearly enough admins who want to be involved. A better staffed AE would result in better and faster decisions and would open the door to depreciating the solo-admin sanctions. However, in our current climate, there are too many topic areas and requests that fall off the back of the conveyor belt at AE to consider it right now. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  4. There have been some issues involving long term surveillance/analysis of veteran editors by the same few admins who oversee controversial topic areas. Some concern has also been expressed regarding the modification of DS by a single administrator to custom-fit the surveilled/analyzed behaviors of targeted editors. Do you think such activity makes the admin involved and possibly even prejudiced against the targeted editor(s)?
    Like your first question, this feels ripped from the headlines but without enough context to make a judgement. To speak of the topic more generally, there are marked positives of having admins who are familiar with the situation in a topic area. I personally have a few articles where I have instated sanctions in the past on my watch list to make sure the situation on those pages dose not boil over again. What I do isn't surveillance, it is common sense. As I stated above, admins who use their sanctioning authority to win a dispute or in another improper manner can be sanctioned up to and including deysoping. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions&oldid=990097724"