User talk:Guerillero

Archives

Older archives 2026: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December

Visual Art

• Lion Attacking a Dromedary (possible FA; missing c. 2023 scholarship and retirement)
• Triple Self-Portrait (possible GA; check the failed DYK for issues)
• User:Guerillero/Sandbox 4 → Spirit of 1976 (possible FA due to the diplomacy bit)
• User:Guerillero/Sandbox 5 → Saturday Evening Post Covers by Norman Rockwell (possible FL; could be too big)
• Golden Rule (painting)
• The Runaway (painting)
• Death and the Mother

Buildings

• Saint Vincent Archabbey Gristmill
• User:Guerillero/Sandbox 2 → Church of Saint Nicholas, Kourris

Other

• User:Guerillero/Sandbox 3 → Theodore Kurze
• Sing Folk Songs To Bug The Liberals
• Patrick De Vela

story · music · places

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look for Wind of Change in music, and for vacation in places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'd like to recieve more words to use in my statement since the situation that Nevell brought up is complicated and requires further explenation (and as for your question you posted, by the way, the short answer is that it stemmed from a misunderstanding over permission given from an administrator unrelated to IPA). Could you please extend it?

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @NorthernWinds: You can have 150 more words to respond to the allegations. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, Firstly, I'd like to thank you for this extension, your thoughts and your vote. I'd also like to request another extension to respond to IOHANNVSVERVS to explain my experience on wikiquote more clearly, in continuation of asilvering's explanation. Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I ended up condensing the existing text to make space for the new comment. See it here. Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guerillero, you've still never given an explanation for the seven diffs you presented in support of your accusations of non-neutral editing by Iskandar. You first posted them at AE,[1] and they were then cited to support an ArbCom motion.[2] There seems to be a consensus among the community that these diffs do not support the allegation of non-neutral editing and that a number of them were even good edits. Many editors have also asked for an explanation but none has been given.

Is there a reason you've neither explained your reasoning nor retracted the diffs? Would you be able or willing to give an explanation for them? Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs come from an informal discussion in December between arbs that started with noticing violations of Iskandar's topic ban and then looked at Iskandar's edits since the topic ban. Users need to try not to miss the forest from the trees and view the totality of editing rather than on indvidual edits. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] You suggest I avoid focusing on the trees (the edits cited) but rather on the forest (the totality of their editing), but the motion was based only on the cited diffs, not on any "totality of editing". There was zero analysis or substantiation to the claim the user's "totality of editing" was non-neutral, except for the diffs presented - which have been found to be lacking in substance. How is anyone expected to judge the totality of a user's editing without any explanation or examples? Is everyone expected to individually search through all of the accused's edits themselves? That seems quite absurd obviously, and one user did in fact attempt something like this ([3]) and their conclusion was that there was no discernible pattern of non-neutral editing as was being alleged. But this user's comment/analysis was not responded to. Is the community otherwise expected to simply trust the unsubstantiated "observations"[4] of arbitrators? Arbitrators are not subject matter experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and do not necessarily have any knowledge at all of the relevant content or reliable sources. And is the community really expected to believe that the seven arbitrators who supported the motion all made a thorough analysis of "the totality" of Iskandar's editing? Even if the motion was based on the unsubstantiated observations of arbitrators, then that's not very good but it's at least better than the motion being based on faulty/illegitimate/discredited evidence. So the real pressing question that needs to be answered is do you consider the diffs presented to support the allegation or not? If so, I would think you ought to explain how. And if not, then that really needs to be acknowledged, and there should probably be an explanation as to how/why diffs were cited as evidence which do not actually support the allegation. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The diffs presented are 7 of the diffs that went into my decision to vote for the FoF. But, I did look at a bunch more edits. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] This is still not answering my question, which I'll repeat: do you consider the diffs presented to support the allegation or not? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] They show some of the edits that came up in the discussion about Iskandar's editing and point to some of the things that we are thinking. When the sum of the editing, including those edits, are taken, I believe it shows POV pushing -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I believe it is misconduct for you to ignore the community on this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I only have access to the desktop version of Wikipedia for an hour, maybe two, a day. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Not a reasonable excuse. When you have the time to engage your answers are evasive and unsubstantial IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] And that's when you do answer. There are still significant outstanding questions, including from your fellow arbitrators, that you refuse to address. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC) Edited 00:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I have answered many questions, and I am in the process of answering many more. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] And to further expand on your metaphor, you're essentially claiming there's a forest without being able to identify a single tree that is a part of this alleged forest. I would hope you can see how that is not believable or acceptable. Also I should clarify that the problem I have with all of this is not with the conclusion (banning Iskandar), but with the process (the unsubstantial evidence, the lack of response to the community, and the lack of substantiation or explanation for the claim(s) being made). ArbCom should be leading by example on how to deal with POV pushing on the encylopedia, rather than setting bad precendents. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Guerillero, let me ask you something straight up, because you've been around a lot longer than I have, and I think you understand fully what's up and what this place is about. The point is to stop disruption, right? We all want a smooth editing process, one where editors work together in harmony, collecting the best sources and summarizing them. So as you reflect on PIA5 and this latest PIA5.1, do you think what you've done has reduced, or increased, disruption? Did PIA5 make the topic area better? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But PIA5.1, of which you are the architect? Come on. What did that exchange on my user talk page between me and Isk disrupt? Nobody? Nothing? How about what you did? That caused what, two or three dozen editors, to spend time for what, a month and a half now? If you had done nothing about Isk's post on my talk page, would that have caused more, or less, disruption, affecting more or fewer editors, than what you did? I mean, you took something that was totally chill and no problem--Isk posted on my talk page and I replied with a one liner--and you turned it into this huge. Fucking. Deal. Surely you recognize that you did not reduce, but rather increased, disruption? Please, do the thing that will reduce the disruption. Just fucking let it go man. Admit that it just ain't there: there was no problem cause by Isk. They interfered with nothing and nobody. This was a bad idea. It's not too late to put the genie back in the bottle. I hope you do the right thing for the encyclopedia, even if it means you gotta eat a little crow and admit you were wrong. Levivich (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Both of you are prohibited from touching a subject after a long and painful process. That prohibition extends to all edits, both good and bad; content-focused and not. The last month has been disruptive, but I think that edits outside of the bounds of editing restrictions are disruptive in a way that hurts the long-term health of the project more. If interaction bans and topic bans are permeable in a way that can be wiki-lawyered ("that isn't a substantial violation of the restriction", "how did that effect content", etc.) they no longer serve as a lesser alternative to site bans. Especially in highly fraught areas like PIA . That is a shame, because I have seen a number of fantastic editors who have a singular blind spot. I would like that alternative to continue to be available to the community. With hindsight, I would have gone with the PIA5.5 option that I 3/4 drafted (a mini case with 2 weeks of evidence and a concurrent workshop) but didn't publish over the motion option. I read the feelings of the committee to want the fast option over the in-depth one. While I think we came to the correct decision, a more deliberative process would have been better. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, it is a shame when otherwise good editors have blind spots :-) But hey, if you look around you and you think, "I did a good job here. Things are better than they were before," then keep on keeping on. But if you look around and realize "I've created more strife and conflict than existed before I intervened," then maybe change course? Levivich (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day Guerillero, if you know something you can prove it, and if you can't prove it then you don't know it. The motion was a finding of fact, not an expression of opinion. It's totally reasonable if you personally believe that Iskandar is POV pushing, and maybe you're right. But it is not reasonable for you to definitively conclude that they are POV pushing without providing subtstantial evidence. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is all in User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA RM statistics (where I expect FOARP got his diffs from, too). Note that the maker, BilledMammal vote consistently oppose to the use of the word "massacre", as does Vice regent (as if they knew someone would make such a table.....). I was looking for who mentioned this type of editing first, if I recall it correctly, it was a later banned pro-Israeli sock; sorry cannot find where. cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: BM was removed from the topic last year and, according to the chart, VR opposes the term no matter who was killed. Are there more recent discussions since Aug 2024? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] As I said: unsurprisingly, BM found themselves "innocent" in the table they themselves made, so did their "wiki-friend" VR. The problem with this table is that: A: we don't know if everyone who voted in one or more of these discussion are included (say, AndreJustAndre is not included, did he really not vote anytime?) If this was done in a NPOV way, we should do it for all voters -> a major job! I simply do not trust BM's table being complete, or neutral, as they spend lots of their time here trying to "take out" the opposition. (including me, more than once [5], [6]) B: also, the "end" result matters: is it "biased" to vote for moving an article to a "massacre-title", if that is the end result? C: I would also like to see for more recent discussions, again, that is major work. And I have never spent much time on "taking out the opposition" (unlike BM). cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I will try to put together a 2025 version of the table in mid to late February when I have a bit more time -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I would suggest resigning from ArbCom to give yourself more time for your investigations. This would probably go a long way towards calming the uproar over your recent errors. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 01:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] "where I expect FOARP got his diffs from, too" - For the record I collected them myself and have never actually read BM's submission in detail as far as I can recall. FOARP (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] User:FOARP I am not saying your memory is wrong, just noting that neither BM, nor you, noted that Andre voted in the Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre, or Tel al-Sultan attack (and he was one of the parties in ARBPIA 5), cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] If this was the case, it's probably because their handle doesn't display their name. In any event they caught a TBAN just the same, as did BM who, as I've mentioned before, was included in the count. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Besides that, it is simply not true that Iskandar always argued against "massacre" when Israelis were killed. In this RM he even suggested two new titles with "massacre" in them, one of which got support from others. Zerotalk 01:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That table, while flashy, is fundamentally incapable of showing any systematic bias whatsoever. That's because it does not consider what the "true" value is.

For instance, it's completely possible, in theory, for the true value of every Israeli case to be "massacre" and every Palestinian case to be "killing". (Or any other combination). One way to do a proper analysis would be to compute the true value for each incident by looking at a wide sample of sources, and consider their wording about whether they call it a massacre or killing. This kind of procedure has not even been attempted, let alone done.

There are also tons of other methodological flaws with this approach. Also, there are many other ways of defining "systematic bias". But this aint it.

Finding the truth is hard. Making tables is easy. If people are being banned or blocked for bias, I hope it's not due to some fundamentally flawed "evidence" like this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant in my B.point above. Besides the fact that not all voters (like Andre) is included, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Guerillero/Newsletters has hit the maximum possible page size so new newsletters can't be posted to it. You should probably clean it out. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that page existed and I can now not edit it from my current devices. I will see if I can in a little over a week when I have access to a device with more oomph -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Bump. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]  Done and added } -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I see something like Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grey Clownfish again, should I just email arbcom? I brought it to ANI because I was worried that blocking myself would be too harsh and was hesitant to do so because of my personal feelings. I also figured it was best to have another person look at it because I wasn't sure if their behaviour counted the way the Wikipedia:Child protection is currently written.

People have raised the matter in good faith before, even if the general consensus against that is pretty clear. The page gives a WMF email address and mentions the oversight team for inappropriate adult-child relationships or anyone advocating for that. That's not really what was happening here so maybe it should be rewritten to explain that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Grey Clownfish was locked as a sock of Beautiful Pony. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oh, socking would make sense. It doesn't say that in the block log or talk page (and they're not tagged as a sockpuppet) so I was assuming it was related to my ANI report. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] In general, topics that are not suitable for public discussion because they involve privacy, blp, or other issues should be directed to the committee as the first port of call. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Well, the page should probably mention ArbCom then because it doesn't at all right now. It should also be clearer about the type of behaviour I just witnessed counting as well. It's hard for guides to be helpful if they don't say such things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] To be a bit more clear, I think their comments at ANI definitely crossed the line into pedophile activism, but before that, they did what other editors had done in raising the subject of non-offending pedophiles. It was disruptive that they kept going on about it multiple times, but I was expecting them to be blocked for disruptive editing rather than CHILDPROTECT reasons at that point in time. It's quite possible my judgement is wrong and I should've just gone to arbcom right there and then, but if that's the case then the page really should be clearer that disagreeing with the policy counts as pedophile activism. The talk page has some other editors who have questioned it in the past (in a less disruptive way such as [7]) and they should at least be aware that this behaviour falls under that if it really is so broad. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]