Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions: Difference between revisions

Add your questions at the bottom of the page using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question

|Q=Your question

|A=}}


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.

2. The majority of ArbCom’s workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap’n!}⚓ 00:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. Judging by your many runs for the committee, your passion and love for the Committee is clear. What would you say to someone who hasn’t voted for you in the past about why they should vote for you now? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6. The Arbitration Policy says To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users is one of the duties and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee. In what ways do you see ArbCom following or not following the duty and responsibility it has in this way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Answer

8. Thank you for standing as a candidate. Please describe the characteristics that you believe make for an effective arbitrator. Please describe the characteristics from that list that you possess, and identify the ones that you do not possess. (Note that it is impossible for any one person to have all of the characteristics that would make for an ideal arbitrator; it would be surprising if you were unable to identify any such characteristics that you do not personally have.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10. Recently, the Arbitration Committee took the extraordinary step of consenting to the public release by an individual arbitrator of information shared by the WMF in confidence (including by breaking the ANPDP [Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy]) in relation to the WCNA incident. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that the Committee should publish material that was (a) shared with the Committee in confidence and/or (b) prohibited from disclosure under the Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12. In addition to your responses to related questions posed by others, based on your experience, what improvements do you feel can be made to the arbitration committee’s workflow? isaacl (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14. Assume you see an editor who is blatantly POV-pushing. They make sure to always stay within our policies and guidelines, and you can’t find any incriminating evidence against them. They have not edit-warred, have not met the criteria for bludgeoning, have not engaged in personal attacks (they may be the most civil individual you’ve met), have not fabricated sources, and have not publicly or privately stated any intent to push a certain POV. They have a clean block log, and may even have a few good or featured articles under their belt. However, they always vote for the side they support, bending or selectively applying policies to fit their rationale. The community is well-aware of this, but can’t do anything since they haven’t violated any of our policies, and they know that discussing this onwiki would be seen as casting aspersions. You are aware that some community members have left the topic area because of having to deal with this editor (or perhaps several such editors, on all sides). How would you deal with this type of editor as an admin and as an arbitrator? To be absolutely clear, I don’t have anyone in mind. I’m just aware that this is a problem previous committees have tried to tackle with varying levels of success. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16. When, if at all, do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom to sanction or warn a user without a minimal onwiki disclosure of the reasoning? What about ArbCom not disclosing the existence of the sanction or warning at all? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18. Do you agree to put Wikipedia readers first in every ARBCOM decision? (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]