Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions

[edit]
  1. Skills and experience:
    a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
    A: On wiki, I bring my experience as an arbcom clerk, an editor and an administrator. From being a clerk, I bring preknowledge of how the public pages of arbcom, case pages and requests, should run. Off wiki, I bring my experience as a student of anthropology and philosophy. I know that arbcom brings a tremendous amount of dense reading from opposing sources, the same type of reading I do in my subject areas. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
    A:My main area of connection with the DR process has been from acting as an arbcom clerk; however, in a few cases I have gave uninvolved statements, presented evidence or drafted workshop proposals. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?
    A: I dislike the dichotomy presented in the question. I favor different sanctions then the indef ban that can be appealed in 3 to 12 months. I would rather arbcom craft more careful sanctions that would remove an editor from a problem area but still allow them to create content and reform. I gave a full account of my idea for this in my answer to SirFozzie below. My opinion would be swayed by factors such as to what degree an editor is violating policy and if they put forth a concerted effort to follow policy. I would support an indef ban if an editor would disregard the sanctions or try to wikilawyer around the edge of them.
    As for admins, I would support desysopings when there is evidence of major tool misuse, recidivism in tool misuse, if an admin knows that they are misusing the toolkit but perform an action anyway, or gross conduct unbecoming of an administrator. I think this would sit about where the current number of desysoppings sit. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ArbCom Practices:
    a) ArbCom and policies:
    i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
    A: Arbcom only interprets policy and should not have a role in writing it, that is the job of the whole community. If the arbitrators feel that a policy is unclear to the point that a decision can not be made then Arbcom should make that known. However, they should leave it open ended and allow the community to decide --Guerillero | My Talk 06:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
    A: The five pillars are important and form the basis of all other policies and guidelines. The first principals of many arbcom cases hit the five pillars (Civility enforcement, Fae, and Falun Gong 2.) Because of this, I do not think that the five pillars need to be explicitly referenced in the principles. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
    A: I think that POV pushing and other conduct issues should be dealt with more harshly when it involves biographies, especially BLPs. Unlike articles about trees or rivers, articles about people have huge implications when goggling a person's name is now a part of the process that employers go through when checking out candidates for a job. Even if the person is deceit, most of the conduct issues seen over the past few years has grouped around people who passed away in the last 100 years or so. That person most likely has living first or second generation relatives. Like Risker has said, there is a time limit when people's reputations are at stake. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
    A: Arbcom should not make content rulings but it can direct the community to discuss an issue. I liked how arbcom did this in Muhammad images. The community was able to decide the time, place, and style of the discussion. Arbcom only gave uninvolved admins tools to keep the discussion from becoming a free for all. Such discussions normally bring in a large number of editors from various backgrounds outside of the content area and form a robust consensus that can be pointed to in the future. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    c) ArbCom and motions:
    i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
    A: Motions are for matters that are fully known and are relatively uncontroversial. The motion on pseudoscience is a good example. It aligns discretionary sanctions under one case instead of a collection of cases that overlap and have uncertain boundaries.
    ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
    A:No, to both questions. Arbcom only interprets policy and consensus and never imposes it by fiat. If there are conduct problems in the subject area a full case should be opened to look at conduct issues, for the issue that the community has not already solved. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
    A: I feel that the pseudoscience motion and the British baronets motion were correct. The pseudoscience motion only clarified and combined already existing and overlapping areas of discretionary sanctions. The British baronets motion was a good motion because it removed an area from discretionary sanctions when the editors of that subject area showed that it was no longer needed. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
    i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
    A:Yes --Guerillero | My Talk 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
    A: Data should be kept as long as it is needed, in a secure place, where the fewest possible people have access to it. If a strong reason for keeping said piece of data no longer applies that data should be purged from the system. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
    A:I know from being a clerk that the lists are used to throw ideas around that are not yet fully ready for prime time. While this is not optimal I do not see it changing quickly. Slowly more discussion has been and should happen on the public wiki. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
    A:
    v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
    A:My real life identity is known by many but I am not going to go wheatpaste it all over wikipedia. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
    A:
    e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
    A: While cases are binding, past cases form a platform for future cases. Most proposals in the workshop section of a case that are drawn up by an arb are attributed to one past case or another. Rarely should arbcom do a 180 and when they do they need to explain why this happened. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Division of responsibilities:
    a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
    A: The WMF gives a broad set of house rules for all wikimedia projects and provides servers and some resources for the community. Projects have been given free reign to write their own project rules and local arbcoms interpret those rules. I think that this is appropriate. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
    A: I think the division between arbcom the the community stands in a good location --Guerillero | My Talk 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
    a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    A:Yes, "civil" POV pushing is a huge issue on wikipedia. I started out on the project editing punk rock and emo related pages. It is amazing how many people come to the project to push the POV that band "X was the first punk band" or "band Y wasn't emo." I have seen many good editors decide that there are better things in life for them to do after dealing with it for awhile. Acting as an uninvolved admin is not an easy task. I do not know what the solution to this is except for having more uninvolved editors on the ground to counterbalance the fringe POVs. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    A: Yes, it is apparent in almost any arbcom case. Groups of editors often see other groups of editors as "against them". This is human nature. People will always gravitate to people that they agree with. I do not know how to reverse this.--Guerillero | My Talk 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
    A:There is an issue with editor retention but there isn't an overall lack of editors, yet. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    d) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Ought the committee be concerned about any evidence of factionalism, or is the principle of WP:CONSENSUS sufficient for any article dispute, whether a "faction" is present or not? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, is the proper course of action elimination of such a faction, or ought the decision be aimed at reducing the size of such a faction on any given article or articles?
    A:
  6. Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
    A:
  7. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
    A: I propose for the BASC to include non-arb members. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions

[edit]

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A:

Questions from Rschen7754

[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

  1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
    A: Arbcom cases should not take that long to decide a case. There was not a vast amount of public evidence and the workshop proposals don't seem that different from a normal case. If a drafting arb knows that it will take them a while to submit a draft, they should hand the case off to another person. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
    A: Wikiprojects are groups of individuals who are interested in the same topic and who band together to share knowledge and resources. For example, I would go to project punk to get a second opinion if the article I was working on, say straight edge, looked ok to go on to be nominated for GA and would give suggestions on how. They do not and should not serve a policy making bodies. Project directors, or similar positions, should be thought as more of a big man who acts at the will of the project only doing small administrative type tasks than a chief who sets the tone and direction of the project. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    A: We do have a issue with vested contributors. There are people in the community who are unblockable in almost every way short of arbcom action. Some of these people do great work outside of a single problem area. Since many of our best contributes fall into this slot and there is a great deal that could be lost here, I would recommend a mixture of topic bans to erect guard rails to keep some of these people from falling off the road. We allow them to contribute to where their specialty lies and we keep them from causing unnecessary drama. The highest number of possible individuals benefit in the end.--Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
    A: I would resign from the committee if asked to by the community due to actions that are unbecoming of an arb. That being said, I wouldn't step down for voting in such a way that is unpopular if it lines up with the evidence presented.
  5. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
    A: I am a firm believer that there are very few parties of a conduct issue who are guiltless. For the most part, everyone has dirty hands. Part of arbitration is to look at the holistic contributions. If a person has had only minor to moderate issues but has made an effort to reach across the aisle to end the dispute or has made a guided effort to follow the community's policies, I would propose that a warning or even no remedy with their name on it would be best. A person who did not do such things may be warned, admonished or topic banned. In the same vein, one person's bad action do not excuse other people's. "Xe started it" isn't an excuse for throwing mud. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
    A:
    Question A) Abuse of the tools would be things such as using them when involved or as a part of wheel warring. Much like everything, there are many shaded of gray to this: Was there an emergency?, How involved was the pair of admins?, How bad was controversial action?, Did anyone discuss the action with the admin(s)?, What was the result of the discussion?, etc. All of these questions play into what the result should be if there is an arbcom case over the action. I know that the second mover advantage is an issue, in the case of wheel warring, but there needs to be a bright line. It is just at 1 instead of 3 reverts. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Question B) I do not believe that arbcom should act as the police force of the wiki. If there is a serious issue with an admin, there are enough editors throughout the wiki who will bring that admin to arbcom. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
    A:Arbcom can not restrict what people do on other portions of the internet or even the wikimediaverse. But if a person does something off wiki that effects things on wiki and it is publicly traceable back to them, not outting, there may be a reason to submit public information from other places. Since there would be on wiki ripples or waves, I would rather people submit the onwiki. Foo.com's IP address log would not be good evidence but User:X's comment on meta where he threaten User:Y would be permissible. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
    A:My school email, wikipedia email, bank account, social networking sites, irc nick, and both wikipedia accounts have different passwords. All are fairly complex and can't be strung together. For example, no social networking profiles can be access via the information needed to get into any of my wikipedia related accounts and none use my wikipedia email account as its way of contacting me. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
    A: I do. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Hot Stop

[edit]
  1. As an clerk for the committee, what do you think the most important role clerks perform (both as a whole and you individually, if they differ) for the committee?
    A: The most important part of the clerk role is to make sure that cases run as smoothly as possible. The clerk office allows the arbs to worry only about the evidence reading and deciding because the opening and closing of cases, size of evidence, enacting of motions and such has already been dealt with. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Given that several current sitting arbs were once clerks, do you think the community views clerking as an arb training course? If so, is that accurate?
    A: I think that the community, rightly, does not feel that clerking a training course for potential arbs. Of the 49 people to ever be clerks only 9 were elected to be arbs (about 18%). I there is overlap between people who become clerks and people who become arbs because both require similar skills, from what I have seen,: level headed and non-controversial individuals who can work in a fairly bureaucratic system. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from SirFozzie

[edit]
  1. First off, thanks for running. I saw something in your nomination statement that I'd like to ask a follow-up question on. You say that you'd prefer time-limited (interaction/topic/site) bans over indefinite bans. Could you go into details why you prefer one over the other? SirFozzie (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: I prefer indefinite topic, indefinite interaction, and fixed length site bans over indefinite site bans. This is because I believe that people's actions need to fit the restriction. If a person is productive editor in most others ways except for when they are editing a topic or interacting with a group of individuals it is better to restrict their editing than to site ban them. I would rather see a person who has been disruptive in multiple ways, but to a lesser degree, banned for a fixed amount of time to give them a kick in the right direction. When they return it would be under the knowledge that it would only take a motion to have them indefinitely banned. I believe this is a better direction than to ban people and have them make regular appeals. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Churn and change

[edit]
  1. I see your talk-page header says "this user may be away or inactive for varying periods of time, especially if he has exams. Although he may occasionally be able to do some editing, talk page messages might not receive a timely response." Do you believe this is acceptable for a member of the Arbitration Committee?
    A:Yes I do. It is reminder to the people that are visiting my talk page that I am a college student and that I am busy. Depending on when I have exams or papers due I may be detained for a day or two. I read wikipedia and my email almost every day, it just might take a bit longer than what the very active Wikipedian expects for in turn around time. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

[edit]
  1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
    A: Was the absence announced or unannounced? Either way the clerks should have marked them as not active within the first month.

    If the experience was announced and it would involve them not being active at all, I would hope that the arb in question removed their higher bits and considered resigning from the committee. Since they announced that they were away, I have a much harder time removing them by a vote.

    If the absence was unannounced and I have no idea of the projected return date, I would remove the CU and OS flag from the account. If the person does not respond to emails after 6 months I would consider removing them. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee. Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?
    A: I would like to deal more with the case management side of the committee. Cases are the area that I have experience from clerking and watching cases go through their steps. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

[edit]
  1. Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.

    There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.

    How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?

    A: I sit more on the community end of the spectrum. While community involvement may be slower, it can tun up ideas that one person or a small group would never have thought of.

    The rules were created by the community and serve the community They exist because we have decided that they should exist. I believe arbcom should work with the rules at the time fairly firmly with some room to move based on common sense. This is because arbcom can not make rules. If the rules no longer have a use, the community is free to change them at any time. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  2. What does "Civility" mean to you?
    A: Respect in the form of reciprocity. You should only act in the way that you would like to be treated by another, if you were face to face. Not how you could stand to be treated; how you would like to be treated. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tony1

[edit]
  1. I have a good feeling about this. Tom, where do you stand as far as the tendency we've observed more recently to explore more nuanced resolutions to disputes, even though this might be more prone to complications and even failure. And to what extent do you think ArbCom should take into account any need to keep experienced, otherwise valuable editors in the project, by adjusting remedies for this purpose? Tony (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: I like more careful sanctions; I feel that it is better to use a scalpel than a chainsaw. When looking at a person's contributions, I would look factors such as an editors contributions, the scope and degree of the disruption, and how likely a person will reform. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Casliber

[edit]
  1. I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Misuse of sources, and breaking the content policies, is a an issue of conduct, so it is within arbcom's scope. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Cunard

[edit]

Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closes
Anchor:
  1. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
    A: I am; it has been on my watchist for a while now. I closed at least one RfC from the board in the past few months. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review regarding review of closes of requests for comment.

    Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

    Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."

    Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.

    Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

    A: No. If the RFC was closed by an uninvolved editor in good standing and there seems to be no issue, I see no reason for it to be overturned. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?"

    Deletion discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#NAC, supervote and vote counting for several recent examples.

    Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.

    A: Seeing a lack of formal place to appeal the close of an RFC, AN would be the place I would go. If there is an agreement that a close was invalid then it should be re-closed or re-opened. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency
Anchor:
  • Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
    1. Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
      A: I agree in spirit with ST's opinion. The issue lies with where the line between what should be public and what should remain private. That is an issue that will require a good deal of discussion in the future. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.
      A: I believe that the switch from private to public discussion will be a slow one and will happen over a series of years. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recusals
Anchor:
  1. In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.

    See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.

    See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."

    Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.

  2. Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
    A: I would recuse if a major member of project punk came up for arbitration, the topic area of punk/indie/alt/emo spawned a case, the US Education program as a whole was subject as a case, or a wiki-friend was a named major party. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus
Anchor:
  1. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley?

    If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?

  2. After considering Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?
  3. WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
  4. The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).
    (a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?
    (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?
  5. When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
  6. Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
  7. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?
    A: Supported I think. BLPs are a huge issue. The admins seemed to have worked within past cases and community policies on how to deal with BLPs. I would like people to have sourced the articles but deletion is a second best option to having thousands of unwatched BLPs on the site. People can always ask for the article back at WP:REFUND or from any sysop. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Desysopping
Anchor:
Civility case clarification request
Anchor:
Note and thank you

I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes, #Transparency, and #Civility case clarification request, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.

Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from Risker

[edit]

With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: I would stand by the decision of the committee even if I do not agree with it. The decision of the majority of the committee is binding on the community. However, if the same idea came up before the committee again I would vote in the way that I think is correct. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SilkTork

[edit]

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I current reside in the Eastern Time Zone (UTC-4/-5) on the east cost of the United States. Wikichecker claims that my peak editing is between 18:00 and 4:00 UTC (14:00-0:00 EST) and that sounds about right. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bazonka

[edit]

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved in several real world wiki activities in the past. I was part of the US Education Program as an online ambassitor from the second term of the public policy pilot, Jan 2010, until the Steering Committee was dissolved (April 2012). Since then, I have taken a hiatus from working with students. I would be tempted to return if there was a class focused on my area of study and I was asked. The other area that I was/am involved in was/is the WALRUS congress. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Giano

[edit]

I think you will probably agree that you are not very good at selling yourself. You say “Personal statements are not my strong suit” and on your talk page you refer to being “a jack of all trades, master of none.” You make yourself sound like a private soldier, but not a colonel. While modesty is to be encouraged, you are either taking it to an art form or you aren’t very able. Which is it? Furthermore what talents and skills would you bring to the Arbcom? I am desperately looking to vote for some new blood on the Arbcom, someone with some fresh thought and able to think outside the monochrome box which has typified so many Arbs in the past. Sorry, if I sound a little harsh, but by becoming an Arb you will enter a tough arena – are you able and up to that? Giano (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point, Giano. I would bring a few things to the committee. The first thing I would bring is a willingness to listen, both to the community and my fellow arbs. I will attempt not to make value judgments on the actions of individuals at the requests stage until the community has a chance to post evidence. I also would bring a willingness to admit that I was wrong. I am sure that I will make a misstep of some kind if I am on the committee; it happens to everyone. When that happens I will try my hardest not to be the person who sinks their heals into the ground, covers their ears and tries to ignore the mounting opposition. Lastly, I would bring a willingness to rethink sanctions and ban appeals. I would like for sanctions to be more nuanced in the hope that editors can stay away of parts of the project where they cause issue and to give editors a chance to reform. If a person if banned from the project, I would like their appeal to go to a mixed arb and non-arb BASC. It seems wrong that an editor needs to appeal their ban to the people that placed that ban in place. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Begoon

[edit]

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?

Arbcom was in a catch-22. If they expelled Ellen, one group of the community would call expelling her before the community could vote as "acting like govcom." The same conjecture was made when they decide to preform the opposite action. The tag govcom has been applied to a varying group of actions that one person or another has found objectionable; it is to the point that I do not even know what the term means. Arbcom did not write policy by fiat. For example, they did not call the elections invalid, stop it, then appoint people to fill the seats that were open; they did not write a draconian new privacy policy and apply it to Ellen in ex post facto fashion. I feel that they did the best action that they could at the time by allowing the community to have the final say in whether Ellen should stay an arb or not. I want to stress that, this is not the best of all possible worlds by a large margin but the better of the lesser options. Alas, that option is not going to come about. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from GabeMc

[edit]

Questions: 1) Do you think it's appropriate for an admin to close an RfC/RfM when said admin had previously participated in an AN/I report discussion, supporting the resulting indef-block for a highly vocal party to the mediation from which the RfC originated? 2) Assuming that a) this has in fact happened, and b) you indeed think it's inappropriate, what then would you suggest as a remedy? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: Maybe. It depends on the comment that admin made and if they had other involvement in the topic area. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

[edit]
Civility enforcement questionnaire
[edit]

Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire, or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it once finals are over. I am troubled by the outcry that the questionnaire has received but I will suspend judgement until I have sufficient time to examine it for myself. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, I'll be looking forward to your comments there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions
[edit]
  1. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
    • Like I replied to cunard above I believe site bans should be used when all other options would be ineffective. This would include times when an editor refuses to act within their restrictions, shows no ability to reform, or acts (or acted) grossly outside of community norms. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
    • I agree with the general premise of your thesis. There are some times when blocking is taking a sledgehammer to a nut. There are other times where blocks need to be swift and long. It depends on the situation. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
  4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
  5. do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?
    • Criticize. There is nothing positive about having a large part of your population behind bars. It is a sign that the social fabric of a nation has faltered and that the justice system does not have a focus on reforming people. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Martinevans123

[edit]
  1. Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.
    A: The statement that you gave me makes two propositions. I think one is partly true and the other is fully false. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with cursing and I find enforcing the FCC's seven dirty words ban to be silly. There are more important things to be worried about than if admin X or editor Y uses a well placed fuck, shit or dam. The issue is with how these words are use. There is a line between "what the fuck is going on here" and "go fuck yourself." The former may inflame the situation but is fairly civil while the latter is attacking someone personally. As I stated, there is a risk with using curse words. They are symbols of strong emotion and charge relatively stable situations. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite so. That's a very useful distinction. I wonder what would your own reaction be if another editor, whom you thought you were helping, said to you: "Go fix the fucking article yourself... " Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would most likely back out of the conversation and let them deal with an issue on their own. I give out help to people because I want to help new editors enter the community. If someone attacks me, then I do not feel that helping them is a good use of my time. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a wise approach. Maybe I should just give up trying to "help" certain well-established editors (.. actually I already have, and have also taken articles out of my watchlist just so I can avoid them.) I must say that the "well placed fuck, shit or damn" never feels quite so well placed when one is on the receiving end. From your responses above it seems to me that you are less concerned about civility than some of the other ArbCom candidates this year. But I must say that a lot of what I have seen you contribute, in policy discussions over the past year, has sounded very sensible. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions&oldid=1136115233"