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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

   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)

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)

   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)

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

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)

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) 

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)

   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)

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)

   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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Guerillero, regarding my questions, I've provided a few diffs for you to ponder whenever you have time: DGG stated in this diff: As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be. DGG also expressed concern over "admin involvement" in this diff, and further explains in this diff. And to the credit of Awilley for recognizing potential involvement, there is this diff. Atsme 💬 📧 00:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  I find DGG's views on DS to be well out of step with the facts on the ground and the mainstream view of DS on Wikipedia. Any solution to the problem that requires the fully committee to act on each sanction request would create a fifth and sixth PIA case, as an example. Before DS and her older sister Article Probation, cases were more of a hard reset button. What we know of as DS extended the existing, at the time, Article Probation scheme to a topic area; Article probation was only for one article or a small list of articles. The genius of the 2008-ish innovation of the Discretionary Sanctions regime was to make the results of a case more lasting across a topic area than removing some people from the area and maybe having heightened scrutiny on a single page. If you look at pre-2008 cases, the lists of people who are topic banned and site banned are rather extensive. After DS is firmly planted as a tool in 2010, the committee opts to have a softer touch and passes some of the responsibility onto DS to finish the case. While I never felt this way in 2015-2016, there is some evidence that this is done for internal political reasons; AE admins don't have to run for another term. I think that we need to get away from the "AE will clean up the rest of the mess" and have The Deciders make the decisions instead of passing the buck to AE.

  Awilley's list seems particularly boneheaded to me, and I have never encountered anything like it in my 9 month of working at AE. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from StraussInTheHouse

While retention of productive editors and administrators is rightly considered important for the continuation of the project, the conduct of all editors, especially trusted users such as administrators is also rightly considered important for the retention of other users. I consider these two issues which are, unfortunately, often intertwined to be the most pressing types of issues to the project which ArbCom tends to deal with. I am therefore asking all of the candidates the same questions irrespective of whether they are a former Arbitrator. Many thanks and all the best with the election! SITH (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

2. In the first three months of this year, three administrators were desysopped following three separate cases (1, 2, 3). Did ArbCom decide each of these cases correctly and why?

   Administrators need to be trusted by the community. In each of the three cases, the desysoped admin plowed past a big "turn back now" sign from the community. In all of these cases, the admin did not take the community's advice and lost their mop. Currently, trust is binary and in our system, and I do not think that topic bans and adminship and coexist. You either can be an admin everywhere or an admin nowhere. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

4. Last year, there was a substantial dispute regarding the WMF ban of Fram. When, if at all, should a conduct issue (aside from emergencies, legal threats, child protection etc.) be dealt with by the WMF and was ArbCom's response to the WMF reasonable?

   The WMF owns Wikipedia and can do whatever they want to do. What they should do is a more complex answer. There are some projects where the WMF needs to step in and bring the hammer down. If my memory serves me correctly, a project had to be told to stop denying that an internationally reconsider genocide took place at some point in the recent past. There have been projects where, due to widespread abuse by the project's admin corps, there was an RfC to desysop everyone.

   The English Wikipedia, on the other hand, does not suffer from the core governance problems that require global action. Instead, we suffer from a regular drum beat of harassment. When I was on the committee we begged the WMF to take on a case of egregious and horrific harassment. WMFers that work in T&S gets paid time off and mental health resources for dealing with the trauma of seeing things that you can never unsee. ArbCom gets none of those benefits. I think that it is in the best interest of the community for ArbCom to be able to pass some things onto the WMF. Additionally, a crosswiki ArbCom never appeared in the mid-2000s when making ArbComs was in vouge. The WMF is the best option that we have for dealing with crosswiki harassment and subtle abuse because the current global community ban system is broken.

   I'm not in favor of T&S being the super-ArbCom and sua sponte dealing with users, such as was the case with Fram, when there are community-based systems for dealing on-wiki issues in a private or semi-private manner. I agree with the substance of the January 2019 ArbCom letter. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Fæ

The Electoral Commission is collapsing this question as a violation of Fæ's topic ban on human sexuality, broadly construed [6]. We have also removed a part of the question that improperly speculated about an election candidate. Candidates may still respond to this question if they wish by editing the collapsed content. For further discussion on this matter, please see this thread and this ANI thread. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The context of this year's variety of candidates is that CaptainEek "expects recognition as gender neutral" on their user page, and seems to be the only candidate making a statement about LGBT+ identity on their user page. Do you support the proposed statement in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review of Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns and would an editor's failure to meet this basic standard of respect be harassment, or is the failure to respect pronouns "banter" that non-binary and genderqueer people must expect and not complain about if they contribute to Wikipedia? Wikipedia only works when there is a climate of base mutual respect among editors. Part of that basic level of respect is utilizing the correct pronouns for an editor. We allow for people to make accidents, but continually and knowingly using the wrong pronouns is harassment and should be treated as such. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Mrwoogi010

2. Since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can sometimes be seen as pretty confusing, especially for new members, how do you plan on approaching problems in which a new editor is involved in a case with the Arbitration Committee? _Mrwoogi010^✉ 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   Wikipedia's thicket of rules, policies, and traditions that act like rules rivals the zoning code of San Francisco in complexity and difficulty of use. This is the natural outcome of the ad hoc way our rules are written. Further, our consensus-based system makes any large scale overhaul of our policies difficult. This regulatory thicket makes it difficult for new editors to enter into our community and help build the encyclopedia.

   New users and ArbCom rarely come in contact with each other due to how Wikipedia operates. When they do, it is more often than not part of a large topic area case where ArbCom is interacting with an area of the encyclopedia that has flared up for the first time. These cases are exceedingly rare; the last one I can think of was ARBGG. In these cases, topic ban are sometimes warranted if the behavior of new user is disruptive and it is established than a user is here to right great wrongs or push a POV. Handing these users off to the AE system is fair to neither the new editors nor the AE admins that need to cleanup after the committee. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from The Land

2. D you support the proposed statement in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review of Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns? Regards, The Land (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   Yes. As I told Fae: "Wikipedia only works when there is a climate of base mutual respect among editors. Part of that basic level of respect is utilizing the correct pronouns for an editor. We allow for people to make accidents, but continually and knowingly using the wrong pronouns is harassment and should be treated as such." --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

2. Thank you for answering a question from George Ho about regarding the WMF's Draft Universal Code of Conduct. Do you believe the WMF has followed an appropriate process to develop this document? If this or something similar is adopted by the WMF, then what (if anything) do you believe will need to change in terms of English Wikipedia policies and the role of ARBCOM? Regards, The Land (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   Taking another look at the draft, they seem to have responded to the bulk of the community comments. These are the things that seem out of step with policy for me:

   We don't explicitly currently require empathy by policy.

   Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves in the content space has the possibility to conflict with COMMONNAME for the likes of Cat Stevens, Republic of Ireland, Czech Republic, Devils Tower, etc.

   We would not currently ban someone for not engaging in the bullet points under Civility, collegiality, mutual support and good citizenship

   Most of Abuse of power, privilege, or influence falls under informal policy that might need to be codified.

   Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of [...] their personal beliefs sounds great until TERFs use it to make us call them gender critical feminists and racists use it to make us call them race realists. While I appreciate the attempt to limit this to vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred, we are going to see a parade of people yelling about how "TERF is a slur" and using the mainstream term for people of a belief set incites hatred. I have no intention of banning trans* people from the project for making TERFs uncomfortable.

   I have no idea what this means: The gratuitous, unjustified and decontextualized addition of symbols, images, or any kind of content with the intent to [...] impose an arbitrary scheme on content.

   I hope that they have another round of feedback before presenting the draft to the board. 90% of the material is good, there is just a small amount of things that need to be tweaked.--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Epiphyllumlover

2. Supposedly Wikipedia is not censored, but it sure seems like it is. If you agree, do you intend to do anything to fix it--and why?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   

   In seriousness, NOTCENSORED is not our version of Encyclopedia Dramatica's infamous offended page. We are here to build the best encyclopedia in human history, not crack sophomoric jokes or get a rise out of people. When prudent (It's Decorative Gourd Season, Motherfuckers for example) we sometimes use language and images that may offend people and might not be appropriate for all audiences. But, this is always done for the betterment of the encyclopedia and not to shock people. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see you don't think Wikipedia is censored. Thank you for taking it in good humor. (I didn't intend it as a joke.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: You asked Primefac if he dreams about Wikipedia, CaptainEek (who is agender) to pick a gendered set of pronouns, and Barkeep to do a Dolly Parton challenge with 4 online projects. I think I responded with more seriousness than those questions. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You'll make a good ArbCom member with that eye of yours. (I asked CaptainEek a "What if" question about if the rules were altered in the future. And I have dreamed about Wikipedia; I wondered if that made me weird or if it was normal. But the Dolly Parton challenge is inexcusable.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

2. Should editors be able to use usernames consisting of non-English characters that are not in their own languages, or is that cultural approbation? By "their own languages", I mean that he or she cannot speak or write in the language his or her user name is written in.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

   My username is French, mais je parle mal le français, j'écris mal le français et je lis le français comme ci comme ça. ("but I speak French poorly, write French poorly and read French okay." If you want the approximate numerics: FR-0.5 listening/speaking, FR-1 writing, FR-2 reading) I don't feel that I am appropriating French with my username. Similarly, I would not think someone with my knowledge of Korean or less would be wrong to use a username in Korean, especially as Kpop groups like BTS release number one singles here in the US. The average teenage girl in the US today probably has more exposure to Korean than most Americans did in their lives in the 1970s --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of a completely different user, who had recently changed usernames in the middle of a dispute with me and others on something unrelated. (I did not ask you the question because of your username. Your username uses Latin letters; it is easy for English-speakers to read.) And because you know how to read French it isn't cultural approbation. Rather it reflects the respect you had for French as you learned it. I suppose now I need to use French: désolé, faux pas--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Instant Comma

2. What is the biggest challenge or problem facing Wikipedia? Instant Comma (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   Our policies around notability and how unevenly they are enforced are already a source of public shame for Wikipedia. Over the next few years, situations like the one we had this fall around Theresa Greenfield are going to become more common. We need to make sure that our policies are not tilted in favor of men being more "notable" than women due to how we judge and write the GNG and the SNGs. We need to consider if the bar at NFOOTY being much lower than NPROF is what we really want as a global project. These discussions aren't easy, but we have a good chance of getting in front of the problem and creating a more equitable notability system in the process.

   I know that I'm supposed to tell you that the community is flying apart at the seams, but I think the community is in its best state of the last 10 years. Our editor retention problem seems to have gone away. There was this thought that editors who were active in 2007 were going to be the core editors of Wikipedia forever, but, with a 2011 RfA, I am the second "oldest" admin running this year. The torch has been successfully passed to a new generation of Wikipedians. This year, I took The Minute Man from a newly created article to an FA. Along the way, I found editors who were more than willing to help and I found FA to be a welcoming place for someone who is not a content creator. I was in the habit of reviewing FLs earlier this year and the community of list makers and reviewers was lovely. Life in the community is pretty good. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Genericusername57

2. The proposed Universal Code of Conduct states Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people. Should this principle extend to religious names, titles, and honorifics?

Question from Grillofrances

2. What do AE, DS, and WMF acronyms, which you've used in your 2020 ArbCom candidate statement, mean?

   AE: Arbitration Enforcement
   DS: Discretionary sanctions
   WMF: Wikimedia Foundation
   --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Robert McClenon

Being asked of all candidates

2. Sometimes when a dispute is described either in a Request for Arbitration or in a report to WP:ANI, an arbitrator or administrator says that it appears to be a content dispute. Many cases that are dealt with by ArbCom are fundamentally content disputes, except that conduct interferes with orderly resolution of the content issue. How would you assess when a dispute requires arbitration due to conduct issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   There is no stark line between a content and conduct problem; this is a shades of gray issue. Like all shades of gray, I know it when I see it. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

4. Another type of case that is sometimes heard by ArbCom that is not a content dispute may be a case about an editor who has a long block log, but who is also a content creator, and another editor requests arbitration because they state that the subject editor is a net negative to the encyclopedia. (Such a situation will almost always involve an editor who has a combination of positive and negative contributions, because a difficult editor who is not also a content creator will be indeffed as not here constructively). Do you have views on when ArbCom should accept cases involving difficult editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   "Content creator" in this respect normally means "FA writer." While I am sure there is at least one person who currently writes FAs that is also (a) around enough and (b) a jerk to enough people to gather a long block log, the idea that they plague the encyclopedia is a stereotype that hasn't caught up with the times. FAC and FLC today are filled with people who are lovely. I am the epitome of the kind of person who you are talking about tends to dislike: ex-arb, admin, functionary, sub-30% mainspace edits, little audited content experience. I was treated extraordinarily well at both FAC and FLC. At both areas I encountered editors who care deeply about their content areas or audited content and want to help other people who care about making the best article possible. There are some sharp disagreements and maybe some disputes that become overly personalized, but none of the behavior of the past.

   For both non-admins and admins, if there are problems that the community can not solve, then the committee should step in and take a look. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions from David Tornheim

2. Do you feel that the close of WP:ACERFC2020 was accurate in its determination that a consensus of the WP:community wished to limit the number of initial questions asked to ArbCom candidates to a maximum of two? Was the WP:RfC adequately advertised to the WP:community? --David Tornheim (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

   Seeing that there was not a consensus to overturn the closure on the noticeboards, I think the community thinks the RfC was closed correctly. The RfC had a watchlist message and has been done in the same way at the same time for over a decade now. Nearly everyone who has been around the block enough to have a strong opinion on how the elections are done knows when, where, and how the decisions are made. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

4. Would you be willing to answer additional questions to these two on your talk page, since I am limited by that close to only asking two? The questions I would ask would be these --David Tornheim (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

   No --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Question from Paradise Chronicle

2. Given you are applying to the highest ranking authority in Wikipedia available for the average user. How do you explain your recent indef. block against GPinkerton for not being here to build a Encyclopedia, an editor who has expanded several prominent pages with a quality demanding readership like Hagia Sophia or Gothic Architecture? He was clearly here to build a encyclopedia and would have been of good help for Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

   I think that the lack of any dissent at ANI for over two days after I announced my block and the two declined unblock requests show that the community has lost its patience with GPinkerton. He has done good work in the past and could do good work in the future, but he needs to drop the stick and stop trying to right great wrongs. I stand behind my block. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Egroeg5

2. I'm piggybacking off Instant Comma's question about notability. Obviously we should keep UNDUE WEIGHT and BALANCE in mind while editing, but do you think Wikipedia should move more towards an attitude of "as long as you're adding content accompanied by a source, any source, we won't delete it"? Egroeg5 (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

   No --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

4. I don't have a second question, but seeing David Tornheim, I'll ask his second question for him. Egroeg5 (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It is often asserted that ArbCom cannot rule on content. I assume that means it will not decide specifically what should be in an article. But what if part of a dispute has to do with allegations that an editor(s) is lying about content in a source(s), using contradictory or double-standards as to what qualifies as WP:RS in the topic area, preferring inferior sources over superior sources, preferring outdated sources to current sources, dismissing high quality sources that articulate views the editor(s) does not want in the article, and other behavior that create bias in an article in violation of WP:NPOV. Do you believe ArbCom could handle such an issue? How about this case? Would you as an Arb be willing to look at a source’s content to verify whether an editor was or was not lying or misrepresenting the source’s content? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)