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

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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.

Questions from Kudpung
I'm asking all  candidates the same questions.


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

Questions from A7V2
I am asking the same questions to all candidates.

Questions from Atsme

 * , regarding my questions, I've provided a few diffs for you to ponder whenever you have time: 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  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  &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , regarding my questions, I've provided a few diffs for you to ponder whenever you have time: 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  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  &#124;  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)

Questions from The Land




Questions from Epiphyllumlover

 * 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)
 * 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 &#124;  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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Questions from Robert McClenon
Being asked of all candidates