User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2024/October

Deletion of Guy Sitbon

Hi - would you be able to draftify this, please? The subject is a significant Franco-Tunisian Arab-Jewish journalist (eg oral history record at US Holocaust Museum, five-part series on Radio France.) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: No, it is a very low-quality translation, almost machine translation, done of the French Wikipedia article without proper attribution by an LTA. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Recusal

Hi. This is a request that you recuse from the WPO arbcom case because you are or were a member of WPO. "Avoiding not just bias but the appearance of bias," as the saying goes. As a WPO member, you have significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute (WPO) and perhaps also significant personal involvement with at least some of the parties (who are also WPO members). Thanks, Levivich (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

An excellent reminder of what guilt by association looks like and who the disrupters of Wikipedia actually are. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: I think an average of 11 posts a year over 9 years stretches the limit of significant personal involvement past its breaking point. Nobody would claim I am a regular contributor. Which party in particular do you think I have involvement with? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think posting almost monthly for almost a decade is significant involvement with WPO. I'd have to read through your ~99 posts to figure out exactly who you were talking to and about what, which I don't really want to do. I think the volume and duration of your contributions there is enough to merit recusal without needing to look at the content of your posts. By analogy, if an arb posted almost monthly for almost a decade in the Skeptics Facebook group, then they should recuse from the Skeptics case. Same with EEML or any off-wiki group. Levivich (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I have mostly responded to criticism of myself -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: If you have some concrete conflict that I have with a party, I am more than willing to recuse. Without that, I am going to decline your request. Many people have WPO accounts. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a conflict? You're comfortable enough with WPO to have created an account and posted there like 100 times over a decade. And you said you don't want to have a badsites case and don't see what there is for arbcom to do here. Your involvement with WPO and your not wanting to hold a case and not seeing editors' complaints as valid are obviously related. Not very many people have WPO accounts, 99% of editors don't, and how many people have an account doesn't have any relevance to the level of your involvement with that website. That you think it's relevant further demonstrates your bias--you think it's a popular place and unless you have a specific conflict with a user, it doesn't merit recusal.

It's really simple: you cannot judge organization X if you're a member of organization X. This is recusal 101 if you ask me.

Please refer to arbcom for a ruling. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: I have declined your request. If you would like ask the committee, please read WP:RECUSAL. I have no part in it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

After reading WP:RECUSAL, I was going to also request recusal and to be concise and spare the talk page another thread will say that I share Levivich's reasons. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I completley disagree that having a WPO account that you use once in a while contitutes an issue sufficient to require you to recuse. However, I also think you should for entirely different reasons, specifically this comment at the case request After JSS's suspension, the pendulum has swung back towards older behavior. Maybe it is to punish us for punishing their favorite arb. which I find highly prejudicial. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Color me entertained that Guerillero is being characterized as some sort of stealthy WPO undercover agent. I've always considered him an opponent of the site and a cheerleader for the Civility Caucus on wiki. There are TONS of people who have registered accounts there just to read the stuff that is isolated from the search crawlers, including some of WPO's most venomous critics on-Wiki. Some of them post at WPO periodically, many do not. The mentality behind this demand being made of Guerillero by the original poster is highly instructive. Carrite (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

[here after Levivich's link from the case page] - Just food for thought: Let's say there's a scale of internet forums where 1 is "wholesome fun where nothing untoward ever happens" and 10 is "toxic hell hole". Part of the trouble with on-wiki discussions about WPO is that people disagree where on the scale to put it. I don't think anyone is putting it at a 1/knitting circle and I don't think anyone is putting it at a 10/Kiwi Farms, even if the rhetoric in these disputes can make it sound like one or the other. I can go into the implications for a difference of perspective on the matter, like how it contextualizes the act of opening a thread to complain about a Wikipedian, but the point is: I don't think someone who saw a site as being on the higher end of that scale would feel comfortable signing up with the same name (pseudonym) they use elsewhere and making a hundred posts. Someone who would do such a thing fundamentally views the site differently from the way some other people do, and thus would view evidence in this case in a different light.
While I get why some are, I'm not asking you to recuse. Just leaving this here to encourage you to keep in mind that variation of perspectives/context when you review the evidence. From what I've seen, that is something you're capable of doing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)