Guerillero

Hi there. I am Tom aka Guerillero. I am a current administrator and oversighter. At some point in the recent past, I have been an ArbCom clerk and a member of the AUSC. I ran for ArbCom in 2012 and 2013 where I lost by a narrow margin. In my real life, I am a student of Anthropology and Philosophy. I also work at a GIS lab where I deal with nonpublic information.

This term I would like to see an update to how the AUSC and the BASC works. As a former member of the AUSC, I would like to see it have more autonomy and teeth than it does now. I will push for the community member of the AUSC to be directly elected by the community rather than picked by ArbCom. While Beeblebrox's proposal has some flaws, it is part of the way there. I would like to push for it to be spun off into a committee that is separate from ArbCom. If I failed to include anything relevant here, please take a look at my past statements and questions.

This year, like last year, there will be some questions about my work load. I do graduate from college in May. Since last year’s election, I have found a way to merge my Anthropology and Philosophy theses into a single 30 page project. (I am looking at how Foucault’s idea of a panopticon translates into behavior online and if the knowledge of being watched builds different power structures.) In addition to working on that, I am taking two classes. This upcoming term should be my least stressful term since my freshman year and I do not foresee either my thesis or either of my classes making it difficult to complete the role of an arbitrator.

The fine print
Note for questioners

I reserve the right to refuse to answer any questions that I deem to be rehashing an ArbCom case that you were involved in, axe grinding or out of scope of the responsibilities of the committee. I also reserve the right to answer this year’s version of a question with a reply that I have used in past years.


Individual questions

2012 Questions - 2013 Questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#((ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=))

Questions from Collect

  2. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
    Yes they can. I strongly remember several cases where only warnings or discretionary sanctions in an area was found to be appropriate. I promise to look at the evidence before I look at the remedies needed to break the back of an ongoing dispute.
  4. Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?
    All sanctions of any kind require a FoF to show why the sanction is needed.
  6. Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
    I can't see me voting in any case where I have not read the evidence page. As I told you last year, the diffs and other evidence are the meat of a case and can not be ignored. As for the workshop, I can't say that I find it useful. I feel that it is little more than mud match. Sure, every once in a while an outsider might read over the evidence and write a novel proposal but that is the exception rather than the norm.
  8. "Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?
    While past cases are not binding, they should inform current decisions. Already we see that the text of past principals and the remedies sections of cases are remixed for current cases. The committee should not make 180 degree turns on major positions without a good reason.
  10. Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
    The pillars are used to establish most of the principles outlined at the beginning of every decision. I think this is useful and should continue to happen.
  12. Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?
    Arbcom can deal with the conduct issues on a BLP (battleground behavior, incivility, etc.) but it can not deal with content issues. Since BLPs have the ability to ruin people's lives, I am a supporter of stricter sanctions for people who break policy on BLPs.
  14. How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?
    (1) Factions are in the eye of viewer. What is sometimes seen as a cabal is can be just a group of editors who just so happened to gravitate to the same circles because they find them important or have a similar opinions. Unless there is a mailing list or another place where people are colluding I do not feel comfortable stating that a faction exists.

    (2) I think this is a case where our current policies work well.

    (3) I do not think that a faction can be at fault without the editors being culpable
    Thank you. Collect (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: --Guerillero | My Talk 23:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gerda Arendt

  2. Thanks for being ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you had never heard the name of the user in question, how would you comment in this case? My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
    While this is edging into dangerous territory, it does not break the ban of "adding" an infobox, since was was already there in another form. I would vote to impose no sanctions for this action.
  4. If you like please explain why you think it was edging into dangerous territory?

Questions from Gamaliel

  2. Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?
    We have a problem with civility, from my perspective, but there is an isue with this whole conversation. Everyone agrees that there is a problem, but no one one can come up with a straight definition of civility. This is because civility is a cultural construction that varies widely. It all depends om where you grew up, the background of your family, your political stance, and what other internet projects you have worked on. This is further complicated by the fact that wikipedia never created its own definition of civility as it formed as a culture. Some people want civility to be used as a “bad words patrol”; other people think that civility should be used to punish people for baiting or microagressions. I would love to enforce civility like NPOV, but I don't think it is possible until we have a agreed upon culturaly bound definition.

    I am going to leave you with Risker's perspective that I think is mostly true, “remember that early English Wikipedians were largely drawn from either the Usenet, the academic, or the open source/free speech communities, and none of them are particularly noted for their deep-rooted commitment to civil discourse. Newer users learned their "wiki-manners" from the old hands; certainly many of those who were in positions of authority when I joined in 2005 were not exactly paragons of civility.”

  4. Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?
    I don't think the gender gap can be solved by arbcom. Earlier this year, I attended a paper presentation on the gender gap in philosophy. A group of researchers were looking at why a large number of women stop talking philosophy classes after the introductory level. Much like our gender gap, there a large number of reasons that have been proposed to explain why this happens. It turns out that nearly all of the proposed reasons are true. I think wikipedia is similar. People who think that fixing our civility problem would also magically solve the gender gap are naïve and overly simplistic. Sure, it would help, but there are deeper and more complex cultural issues at play here.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: --Guerillero | My Talk 20:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Everyking

  1. How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom-l is a necessary evil of organizing 15 people to complete a task. I can tell you that most of the traffic that I have experienced from other private lists (functionaries-l, oversight-l, and clerks-l) is that a quarter of the traffic is disusing borderline cases and the rest of the traffic consists of “Would someone, anyone, just perform some kind of action here.” I suspect that the latter case makes up a decent chunk of the emails that are sent between the arbs. I am for greater openness for the committee but I do not think that your pledge is workable or would be useful.

Well, what kind of "greater openness" do you favor? Everyking (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

  2. What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
    I was board in school and had heard about the fact that Wikipedia was editable by anyone from the media and from every librarian I have ever interacted with at school. Since I was the kind of kid that read encyclopedia entries for fun, I decided to make an account.

    On a daily basis, I answer oversight requests and do some admin work. Every few months, I write a DYK and every 6 months, or so, I write a GA.

  4. What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?
    I am indebted to all of the editors who I have collaborated with on content. Many of them have fixed my grammar and mistakes. I have learned that, for the most part, there is a grain of truth to everyone's editorial philosophy and that a moderate position is oftentimes the best position.
  6. Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?
    As a former clerk and current watcher of the arbitration process, I have seen many cases move slowly into the proposed decision phase and several sit at the voting phase for weeks on end. This tends to make a situation worse as the parties bicker and attack each other on the talk pages of the case. I would love to see cases finish up as quickly as possible, but it is easier to herd cats than it is to get 15 people to get on the same page. Some have suggested having cases heard by a smaller number of arbs. Since people have unpredictable schedules I could see how the 7 people hearing a case could quickly turn into 4 people hearing a case. I don't think that this would be fair to the parties involved in a case.

    I have an idea that lessening the scope of cases might speed things up. Looking over the past few years worth of cases, the larger a case's area is the slower it progresses. The committee should take on less huge topic cases and write more nuanced decisions. There are a few other ideas that I have floating around such as setting realistic deadlines based on the needs of the parties and removing the workshop phase.

  8. Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?
    I don't think there is a good solution here. Neither group of editors are blamless. Subject experts can be major POV pushers (Monty Hall Problem and Tree Shaping comes to mind) and general editors can be purposefully antagonistic of people who are learned in an area of knowledge.
  10. In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?
    The status quo is horrible but I haven't seen an alternative that is less horrible. The 'crats were never chosen for their ability to parse through a large number of diffs to figure out if an admin has abused their tools. Having an RfC would discourage admins from making hard choices or enforcing DS. Making recall permanent would be a disaster. Some admins have the bar so high to recall them that it is impossible for them to be removed.
  12. Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
    See my response to WTT's question
  14. What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?
    I spent a term on the AUSC and I know the CU and OS policies very well. I don't have a problem with the status quo on this issue. We have come to a good balance between giving functionaries free reign and making them sinecures.
  16. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?
    Arbcom should only pick up issues that the community as tried to solve but has been unable to. This included privacy related issues that can't be resolved in public. Everything else should be decided by the community.


Thank you. Rschen7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from EllenCT

  2. Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?
    While it is, actions like this can be handeled by the community and therefore I do not think that they will ever come before arbcom
  4. When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?
  6. How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?
    I think that AN/ANI can handle this.
  8. If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?
    This is outside the scope of the committee because it is a content issue not a conduct issue

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rich Farmbrough

  2. Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?
    They were already under an older version of DS; this years arbcom only updated the process. There was not a change in policy.
  4. Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?
    Yes
  6. Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?
    No. Since people have unpredictable schedules I can see how the 7 people hearing a case could quickly turn into 4 people hearing a case. I don't think that this would be fair to the parties involved in a case.
  8. Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?
    I do
  10. Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?
    No. I never know an outcome until I see the evidence

    Yes, within reason. If someone can be sanctioned in a case, they should be a party.

  12. The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?
    No
  14. As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?
    I am going to challenge you on this one. Do you have any evidence that a CU has made a CU block without any data? I spent over a year auditing the CU and OS team and never did we see any indication that this was going on. If there is evidence, it should be sent to the AUSC so that functionary's actions can be reviewed.
  16. The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Questions from Carrite

  2. If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?
    I think this arbcom did an average job. I looked over the cases for this year, again, and nothing popped out as a particularly good or a particularly bad case. On the functionaries side of life, I wish arbcom did another round of appointments. Both the CU and the OS teams need 4-6 new people to take on all of the work they are expected to do.
  4. The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?
    See Rschen7754 #3
  6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
    I would have it be less socially dysfunctional. I think lots of our problems stem from the fact that we can't communicate well.

@Carrite: --Guerillero | My Talk 00:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dennis Brown

  2. Without naming names, what skills or qualities do you have that are unique, that might not be present in the current Arbs or candidates? What makes you stand out?
  2. Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?
    I would like to write a few decisions and work to reform the subcommittees
  2. What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?
    I have worked as a clerk, an AUSC member, an Oversighter, and as the signpost reporter assigned to ArbCom. I have watched more cases and their aftermath then the average administrator. I try to do this without adding additional strife to the area.

Question(s) from Worm That Turned

  2. Hi, Guerillero. Last year, I asked you if you'd thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator and how had you prepared. I've got to say, I was very disappointed in your answer, it only addressed a very small part of the issue. I was wondering if you could have a bit of think and let us know if you have any further thoughts on the matter?
    So there are two ways to approach this. You can either hide behind a pseudonym and hope that your trail of breadcrumbs can't be found out you can be open about your identity. I have chosen the second option. This goes both ways because most everyone that I interact with on a regular basis, in real life, know that I edit wikipedia. I do not edit in any areas that I would be uncomfortable talking about to a professor at my college or my employer. I do not act like a troll here and I understand the consequences of making controversial statements. I know that this choice leaves me open to more real life harassment but I think it also protects me because it becomes impossible for someone to blackmail me with “do X or we will release your name.”
  4. In addition - what do you believe has changed since last year that would make you a better candidate to be an arbitrator?
    I am older and I have better time management. I never knew what it was like to be truly busy until this term.
Thanks Guerillero. I appreciate you answer, and it's certainly better than last year. I think you might still be missing my point on the other sorts of difficulties - outside of real life harassment, but you've definitely grown as a candidate. I wish you the best of luck. WormTT(talk) 09:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tryptofish

  2. What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!
    Eh. You fixed my objection from last year and it sounds reasonable enough. I can't think of a reason to publish emails on arbcom-l that would end well.

Question from Carcharoth

  2. Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.
    Since banning a user is such a big deal, I don't feel that it is right to pass a banning motion/remedy with only one vote past 50%. I would either abstain or procedurally oppose the ban and offer some sort of alternative.

Questions from Bazonka

  2. 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?
    The only face-to-face events that I have been to are two Wikimanias(2012 & 2014). Both my home town and my college are prohibitively far from a major urban center for a person who does not own a car.
  4. One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?
    I am a personal fan of my pie filled with any mixture of blueberries, blackberries, and raspberries.

Questions from Fæ

  2. I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?
    I do not wish to reveal or comment on any additional parts of my personal life.
Categories