Jump to content

User talk:Guerillero

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To Do

[edit]
Visual Art
Other

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

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) [reply]

Recusal

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have mostly responded to criticism of myself -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

Éric Marty

[edit]

Could you please compare the newly created article Éric Marty with the one you deleted as a G5 a month ago? I'm just wondering if it was created by the banned user User:Cognitivism. 2605:8D80:13B3:CB42:699E:175D:124B:37CB (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Unlikely -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

[edit]

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

[edit]

November music

[edit]
story · music · places

I uploaded more pics, on a mountain in the sun above the fog. - Madeleine Riffaud - remember. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

[edit]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cand q

[edit]

Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:

What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guerillero&oldid=1258416652"