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

'Unfortunately'
"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." Curiously the candidate uses the word unfortunately. One can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I would tend to classify the incident as management obsession, particularly where a situation was almost reaching (or had reached) an acceptable solution in another place. It demonstrates a possible heavy handed attitude in future Arbcom cases were the candidate to be granted a seat on the Committee again, and a continuation of the Committee's apparent new goal to rid the project of otherwise productive and highly experienced users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the evidence speaks for itself -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The key word I queried was 'unfortunately'. You missed the point and and didn't address it. Hence you have failed to understand what is wrong with Arbcom as a process, and have ignored the fact that I have never disputed the sentence handed out to me. If you were to follow the proceedings more accurately and discussions around the site in the aftermath, you would have understood that it's the Committee's way of arriving at its verdict which was wrong. Which in my opinion disqualifies a candidate as one who is only interested in prima facie evidence and briefly accepting the consensus of a bunch of complainants without examining the veracity of their claims, and your short reply above reinforces my opinion.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The song of the Wikipedian who has been blocked, banned, or desysoped is unmistakable to my ears after years of working on dispute resolution: "I can't possibly be wrong – all of them must be." I was a party in the case so I read all of the evidence, searched for diffs, and familiarized myself with the background info. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point and/or avoiding  addressing  it, instead now making  borderline attacks. I've already  said that  the toothpaste cannot  be put  back  in  the tube and as such  I  have retired from  being of service to  this project and won't  be seeking  to  return. All  I  can hope for the future health  of the project is that  the next  Committee will be more attentive in  the way they  carry  out  their role as jury, judge, and executioner. In  any  case, the vast  majority  of votes have been cast  already  and none of what  you or I  say here will change the result, but  you  are welcome to  the last  word. [User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To claim now (and in fact as you have done for 9 months) that 10 active committee members did not evaluate masses of evidence in sufficient forensic detail is irrational. The outcome in your case as far as FoF are concerned was near unanimous with only a couple of dissenting votes in a couple of findings. "unfortunately" in this case seems to mean "unfortunate but necessary (to safeguard the project)" rather than "unfortunately I made a mistake which I now regret". Semantics aside, and as for "putting the toothpaste back in the tube", you of all people know where WP:RFA is.  Leaky caldron (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was actually wondering how long it would take for you to chime in - and you know what? I don't care two hoots! You can have Wikipedia and its admins all for yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Right great wrongs
Having seen Guerilleros answer to my question, I can't really elect them. GPinkerton actually adhered to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as the sources are on his side. They are reliable, secondary and also verifiable sources and they give them due weight. Both, he and I are trying to get through with ca. 50 academic sources mentioning or showing a Syrian Kurdistan against some original researchers who claim if some academic writes about a Syrian Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria it means that there exists no Syrian Kurdistan. If Guerillero thinks they are disruptive at the ANI,they could give them an ANI ban for some time in order to have time to think of what they could do better. A straight indef. ban is way too much for an editor active in an area with very low editorial admin activity since months. This is the version of Syrian Kurdistan on the day he became active in the article and this the one after he was active. He sort of doubled the size of the article which I guess is of great service for Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S: adapting this to a comment instead of an answer. Maybe also a Right Great Wrongs? Who knows. Just trying to get an admin to come into the dispute with a constructive, solution finding air.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfavourable
You have been quite many times accused as a biased admin who play favourites in AE cases. Your behaviour and attitude is also not fair and on many instances you have taunted other editors because you were an admin. I don't see any good reason for you to be elected in Arbitration Committee. Anyhow may sanity prevail! USaamo (t@lk) 12:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody has ever said that, but go off I guess -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah nobody has ever said but retired mentioning it in bold. I can't discuss my case but yea people should read the cases in that archive to get to know about the attitudes which is making people unsatisfied with some admins. There are people here even who have complained about your behaviour and taunts. Anyway I just hope that administrators and the committee members elected from here will play their role positively in making this encyclopedia better and credible. Regards USaamo (t@lk) 13:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)