Arb Guerillero "Courtesy Blanks" Full 1.8 Million Byte Case

[Randy from Boise]

New Arb Guerillero — positively the WORST acting Arbcom member in the recently closed Gamergate case — has just "courtesy blanked" the entire evidence and debate of the Arbcom case.

Courtesy to whom?

WP:INVOLVED apparently does not come into play when one is an Arb... So much for transparency...



RfB

[DanMurphy]

[Randy from Boise]

I've asked him for an explanation on his talk page. Soon heading to Administrator's Noticeboard, I suspect.

This sort of stuff is typical of the abusive bastards that Guerillero's colleagues just ran off the Gamergate article (over his objections!) — "BLP concerns" as a false front for draconian agenda-driven action.

RfB

[DanMurphy]

You see, Wikipedia has its own "Right to be forgotten" rules. Sorry general public - only available to insiders.

From time to time, a discussion will have its content hidden from view based on the judgment of the community, an administrator, or another functionary. This generally is not done except under rare circumstances, such as where public view of the discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation. To avoid having such text in the most recent version and thus being indexed by search engines, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy. For deletion discussions, the entire debate can be replaced with the {{xfd-privacy}} template; the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In more serious cases, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration.

[Midsize Jake]

Well, at least it's nice when they play within type, as this makes behavioral prediction much easier.

[Midsize Jake]

You see, Wikipedia has its own "Right to be forgotten" rules. Sorry general public - only available to insiders.

I'm surprised he didn't just wait for the Super Bowl kickoff at 6 PM EST, for maximum "nobody's looking" effect.

[Lukeno94]

Hell in a Bucket also queried the decision about an hour-and-a-half before you did, Tim.

[JCM]

You see, Wikipedia has its own "Right to be forgotten" rules. Sorry general public - only available to insiders.

From time to time, a discussion will have its content hidden from view based on the judgment of the community, an administrator, or another functionary. This generally is not done except under rare circumstances, such as where public view of the discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation. To avoid having such text in the most recent version and thus being indexed by search engines, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy. For deletion discussions, the entire debate can be replaced with the {{xfd-privacy}} template; the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In more serious cases, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration.

It would still be really, really interesting to know how deletion of an arbitration case, which is anything but private, could be done on this justification. It would also be very, very interesting to know who it was who requested the blanking. Why do I have the feeling that one of the parties sanctioned doesn't want it to be widely known?

[Triptych]

I've previously seen this guy bullying editors. In the interests of transparency, which Guerillero is by this action against, he reliably appears based on all I've seen to be Thomas Fish who lists his general location as either Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or Chestertown, Maryland, USA. Here's an image that I think is him.

[Randy from Boise]

It would still be really, really interesting to know how deletion of an arbitration case, which is anything but private, could be done on this justification. It would also be very, very interesting to know who it was who requested the blanking. Why do I have the feeling that one of the parties sanctioned doesn't want it to be widely known?

"Give me an R, Vanna..."

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

I've previously seen this guy bullying editors....

Not helping by making this into an illustrated outing excursion...

RfB

[Triptych]

I've previously seen this guy bullying editors....

Not helping by making this into an illustrated outing excursion...

I didn't even know he was gay!

[Randy from Boise]

Hell in a Bucket also queried the decision about an hour-and-a-half before you did, Tim.

I saw that. Good for him.

RfB

[Kelly Martin]

It has been my consistently held opinion for going on eight years now at least that the ArbCom should not publish detailed reasons, indeed any reasons at all, for why it chooses to discipline editors. There are sound reasons not to publish detailed decisions, and no good reason to publish them given that they insist that they are not bound by precedent. They should just announce that "Editor X is banned/restricted/admonished/etc." Any further details that need to be communicated to the parties should be communicated privately.

The reason they don't is twofold: One, the Wikipedia community loves drama, and public show trials certainly generate a great deal of drama. Second, several early arbs (notably, James Forrester and Fred Bauder) had always wanted to be judges, and their participation in the early days of the Arbitration Committee allowed them to shape the culture of that body toward their personal desire to turn it into a faux High Court of Snootiness, and that's stuck ever since.

I realize that my position on this is unpopular, especially with people who think they have a Right To Know what the ArbCom is doing. The thing is, you really don't. Wikipedia is not a civic right. The fact that the ArbCom pretends to act like a court of law makes people draw false equivalences with a court of law, and that leads them to believe that they should be entitled to the same rights that they would have were they in a court of law.

A lot of the problems surrounding the ArbCom arise precisely because the ArbCom is so publicly visible and surrounds itself with so much pomp and circumstance. Not that there's anything to be done about it now, of course; you can't just turn back the clock on the accumulated weight of a dozen years of stupid.

[Randy from Boise]

Guerillero has responded on his talk page...

"This is rare because it happens less than once a year. The last case that was Sexology and the case before that was Fæ. (This has happened a few other times since 2009) My full reasoning is in response to Hell in a Bucket above."

Which was...

"There is no hiding and no coverup; there is a long tradition of workshop and talk pages being courtesy blanked if they contain real names or if the pseudonyms have been tied to real world names. I have purposefully left the part of the case that is potentially embarrassing to the arbs, the Proposed Decision page, up because I feel that there is value to having it immediately visible and it is one of the few parts of the case that is of public interest. The rest of the case pages exist to help the committee make their decision. (I did this as a personal action and I was not acting on behalf of ArbCom or the clerk office) --Guerillero | My Talk 11:34 am, Today (UTC−8)"

The observation that the full case remains available through the history seems accurate, this has not been revision-deleted...

RfB

[EricBarbour]

"Outing"?

He's on LinkedIn. Looks like a nice Jewish boy.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/guerillero

[MoldyHay]

Second, several early arbs (notably, James Forrester and Fred Bauder) had always wanted to be judges, and their participation in the early days of the Arbitration Committee allowed them to shape the culture of that body toward their personal desire to turn it into a faux High Court of Snootiness, and that's stuck ever since.

Interesting. Did James Forrester get disbarred too?

[EricBarbour]

Interesting. Did James Forrester get disbarred too?

No, but he did try to become a superhero.

[HRIP7]

The observation that the full case remains available through the history seems accurate, this has not been revision-deleted...

RfB

Guerillero is right. This has been done for years, and for a good number of arbitration cases. In all instances I've seen, the full version is available via the edit history. I see no problem with that.

Incidentally, from a discussion at the ArbCom Noticeboard:

Arbitration has absolutely nothing to do with arbitration as the word is commonly understood in the real world, that's the fundamental problem. All it has to do with is handing out sanctions. Eric Corbett 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Complete misnomer, Roger Davies talk 20:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe ArbCom should be renamed "Conduct Review Committee", "Disciplinary Board" or some such. Andreas JN466 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

Maybe ArbCom should be renamed "Conduct Review Committee", "Disciplinary Board" or some such. Andreas JN466 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I vote for "Spanking Committee". Or "Friendship Is Magic".

[Kelly Martin]

The ArbCom is in fact the disciplinary committee of an unincorporated voluntary association, so calling it one would be far more appropriate than its present name, which is indeed quite misleading.

[Ross McPherson]

"Outing"?

He's on LinkedIn. Looks like a nice Jewish boy.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/guerillero

Are you sure this is him? He doesn't look like the sort of guy who quotes and translates Plato's Greek. I looked at that on the Gamergate thread but I didn't tell you what he has actually done with the Greek, which is very interesting.

He provides three translations. One is accurate and in context ("fine things are difficult"), one is in context but just a loose paraphrase ("nothing comes without hard labour"), and the third is accurate if you ignore the original context ("beauty is harsh"). This is somebody who knows Greek and who is able to fool around with it in intriguing ways. In fact, it is almost as if he is commenting on the problematic nature of language, which of course is highly relevant for an encyclopaedia bedevilled by POV pushing. Maybe he got it from someone else but he must know enough Greek to find these translations interesting.

[EricBarbour]

Are you sure this is him?

Yes, dammit, that's him. He also has a Twitter.
https://twitter.com/RealGuerillero

[Zoloft]

"Outing"?

He's on LinkedIn. Looks like a nice Jewish boy.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/guerillero

Are you sure this is him? He doesn't look like the sort of guy who quotes and translates Plato's Greek. I looked at that on the Gamergate thread but I didn't tell you what he has actually done with the Greek, which is very interesting.

He provides three translations. One is accurate and in context ("fine things are difficult"), one is in context but just a loose paraphrase ("nothing comes without hard labour"), and the third is accurate if you ignore the original context ("beauty is harsh"). This is somebody who knows Greek and who is able to fool around with it in intriguing ways. In fact, it is almost as if he is commenting on the problematic nature of language, which of course is highly relevant for an encyclopaedia bedevilled by POV pushing. Maybe he got it from someone else but he must know enough Greek to find these translations interesting.

He's a six-sided Platonic solid.

[Notvelty]

He's a six-sided Platonic solid.

I would have thought "platonic solid" was an excellent way to describe many wikipedians.

[Ross McPherson]

Are you sure this is him?

Yes, dammit, that's him. He also has a Twitter.
https://twitter.com/RealGuerillero

OK, apparently the Greek is a proverb. Plato deploys it several times so Guerillero must have got it and its nuances from his interest in philosophy. I guess it is the only Greek he has been told about. I won't criticise him for his pretensions. Wikipedia was "all Greek to me", as the proverb goes, but that didn't stop me editing it. I did get blocked however.

[sparkzilla]

I realize that my position on this is unpopular, especially with people who think they have a Right To Know what the ArbCom is doing. The thing is, you really don't. Wikipedia is not a civic right. The fact that the ArbCom pretends to act like a court of law makes people draw false equivalences with a court of law, and that leads them to believe that they should be entitled to the same rights that they would have were they in a court of law.

This is true of the whole wiki process. Too many people mistake transparency for democracy, or openness for fairness.

[Vigilant]

Quite the pile of amateur twaddle...

Google "* site:guerillero.net"
Archive.org is another pile of funny.

Why won't I be surprised to find out he collects trilbies and fedoras...M'Lady

[Anthonyhcole]

Personally, I'm glad to see one arbcom member has heard of philosophy. Linked in Guerillero's twitter feed: A Philosopher Walks into a Coffee Shop

Voltaire goes up to the counter and orders an espresso. He takes it and goes to his seat. The barista politely reminds him he has not yet paid. Voltaire stays seated saying, “I believe in freedom of espresso.”

[Michaeldsuarez]

Wikipedians value their own reputation and image above everything else. They care deeply about how others view them. Their motivations aren't a mystery.

[JCM]

It has been my consistently held opinion for going on eight years now at least that the ArbCom should not publish detailed reasons, indeed any reasons at all, for why it chooses to discipline editors. There are sound reasons not to publish detailed decisions, and no good reason to publish them given that they insist that they are not bound by precedent. They should just announce that "Editor X is banned/restricted/admonished/etc." Any further details that need to be communicated to the parties should be communicated privately.

The reason they don't is twofold: One, the Wikipedia community loves drama, and public show trials certainly generate a great deal of drama. Second, several early arbs (notably, James Forrester and Fred Bauder) had always wanted to be judges, and their participation in the early days of the Arbitration Committee allowed them to shape the culture of that body toward their personal desire to turn it into a faux High Court of Snootiness, and that's stuck ever since.

I realize that my position on this is unpopular, especially with people who think they have a Right To Know what the ArbCom is doing. The thing is, you really don't. Wikipedia is not a civic right. The fact that the ArbCom pretends to act like a court of law makes people draw false equivalences with a court of law, and that leads them to believe that they should be entitled to the same rights that they would have were they in a court of law.

A lot of the problems surrounding the ArbCom arise precisely because the ArbCom is so publicly visible and surrounds itself with so much pomp and circumstance. Not that there's anything to be done about it now, of course; you can't just turn back the clock on the accumulated weight of a dozen years of stupid.

This is really a not at all unreasonable perspective. The one possible drawback I can see is regarding matters of arbitration enforcement, because it might be a lot harder to know if there is recidivism if there isn't clear evidence or statement of exactly what the earlier problematic behavior was.

[Randy from Boise]

It has been my consistently held opinion for going on eight years now at least that the ArbCom should not publish detailed reasons, indeed any reasons at all, for why it chooses to discipline editors. There are sound reasons not to publish detailed decisions, and no good reason to publish them given that they insist that they are not bound by precedent. They should just announce that "Editor X is banned/restricted/admonished/etc." Any further details that need to be communicated to the parties should be communicated privately.

The reason they don't is twofold: One, the Wikipedia community loves drama, and public show trials certainly generate a great deal of drama. Second, several early arbs (notably, James Forrester and Fred Bauder) had always wanted to be judges, and their participation in the early days of the Arbitration Committee allowed them to shape the culture of that body toward their personal desire to turn it into a faux High Court of Snootiness, and that's stuck ever since.

I realize that my position on this is unpopular, especially with people who think they have a Right To Know what the ArbCom is doing. The thing is, you really don't. Wikipedia is not a civic right. The fact that the ArbCom pretends to act like a court of law makes people draw false equivalences with a court of law, and that leads them to believe that they should be entitled to the same rights that they would have were they in a court of law.

A lot of the problems surrounding the ArbCom arise precisely because the ArbCom is so publicly visible and surrounds itself with so much pomp and circumstance. Not that there's anything to be done about it now, of course; you can't just turn back the clock on the accumulated weight of a dozen years of stupid.

This is really a not at all unreasonable perspective. The one possible drawback I can see is regarding matters of arbitration enforcement, because it might be a lot harder to know if there is recidivism if there isn't clear evidence or statement of exactly what the earlier problematic behavior was.

That was my concern: that this would (intentionally) make it difficult for anyone trying to stop "courtesy renamed" editor Ruetheday from obtaining tools or presenting the inevitable next case against serial content-warrior Tarc by hiding evidence of past bad behavior.

I repeat this should NOT have been done by Guerillero in particular — "as an individual, not representing Arbcom" especially.

RfB

[Peter Damian]

It has been my consistently held opinion for going on eight years now at least that the ArbCom should not publish detailed reasons, indeed any reasons at all, for why it chooses to discipline editors. There are sound reasons not to publish detailed decisions, and no good reason to publish them given that they insist that they are not bound by precedent. They should just announce that "Editor X is banned/restricted/admonished/etc." Any further details that need to be communicated to the parties should be communicated privately.

Decide promptly, but never give any reasons. Your decisions may be right, but your reasons are sure to be wrong.

[Kelly Martin]

This is really a not at all unreasonable perspective. The one possible drawback I can see is regarding matters of arbitration enforcement, because it might be a lot harder to know if there is recidivism if there isn't clear evidence or statement of exactly what the earlier problematic behavior was.

If there were fewer administrators (or at least fewer empowered to do "arbitration enforcement") and that smaller number of people were capable of being trusted, it would be possible to disclose to them in confidence what information was required.

In practice, though, you should just issue a broad, clear statement of what the prohibition is, making it broad enough as to cover the problematic behavior and clear enough that there cannot be reasonable dispute as to its meaning. Normally, the punishment for misconduct is exclusion, so if the punishment is less than a ban, it should be the result of a negotiation between the offender and the committee, with the understanding that any violation of the terms of that parole will lead to a swift, nonreversible, nonappealable ban. The ArbCom's ridiculous arsenal of vague and often incomprehensible remedies is yet another adverse consequence of the idiotic system they've permitted, even encouraged, to develop.

[Poetlister]

The ArbCom is in fact the disciplinary committee of an unincorporated voluntary association, so calling it one would be far more appropriate than its present name, which is indeed quite misleading.

Wouldn't it be fun if it were a serious judicial body? Those with deep pockets could then appeal to a competent body. I wonder how many of its rulings would be sustained.

[Kelly Martin]

The ArbCom is in fact the disciplinary committee of an unincorporated voluntary association, so calling it one would be far more appropriate than its present name, which is indeed quite misleading.

Wouldn't it be fun if it were a serious judicial body? Those with deep pockets could then appeal to a competent body. I wonder how many of its rulings would be sustained.

I am actually quite surprised that someone hasn't tried to "appeal" an ArbCom decision in some way to an actual court. It's bound to happen eventually.

[EricBarbour]

I am actually quite surprised that someone hasn't tried to "appeal" an ArbCom decision in some way to an actual court. It's bound to happen eventually.

Hell with that, I'm surprised no one has gone after arbitrators with a sawed-off shotgun. Or has it actually happened, and was covered up?

[Lukeno94]

The ArbCom is in fact the disciplinary committee of an unincorporated voluntary association, so calling it one would be far more appropriate than its present name, which is indeed quite misleading.

Wouldn't it be fun if it were a serious judicial body? Those with deep pockets could then appeal to a competent body. I wonder how many of its rulings would be sustained.

I am actually quite surprised that someone hasn't tried to "appeal" an ArbCom decision in some way to an actual court. It's bound to happen eventually.

Is there anyone actually stupid enough to think that would work?

[Notvelty]

The ArbCom is in fact the disciplinary committee of an unincorporated voluntary association, so calling it one would be far more appropriate than its present name, which is indeed quite misleading.

Wouldn't it be fun if it were a serious judicial body? Those with deep pockets could then appeal to a competent body. I wonder how many of its rulings would be sustained.

I am actually quite surprised that someone hasn't tried to "appeal" an ArbCom decision in some way to an actual court. It's bound to happen eventually.

I'm not sure that this hasn't happened, if you want to stretch things a bit. Obviously no one's actually gone to court, but you'll be aware of the D.G. incident in question where the threat of further action resulted in a changed decision. The threat of appeal is not an uncommon influence on real judicial practice.

[MoldyHay]

I am actually quite surprised that someone hasn't tried to "appeal" an ArbCom decision in some way to an actual court. It's bound to happen eventually.

Hell with that, I'm surprised no one has gone after arbitrators with a sawed-off shotgun. Or has it actually happened, and was covered up?

Anyone who did use an actual court to try to interfere with an ArbCom decision would be banned (possibly SanFranBanned) under NLT. Which would be a fun excuse for .

Violence is a much more difficult issue, because ArbCom is not a fan of repercussions they can't control...

[Notvelty]

I am actually quite surprised that someone hasn't tried to "appeal" an ArbCom decision in some way to an actual court. It's bound to happen eventually.

Hell with that, I'm surprised no one has gone after arbitrators with a sawed-off shotgun. Or has it actually happened, and was covered up?

Anyone who did use an actual court to try to interfere with an ArbCom decision would be banned (possibly SanFranBanned) under NLT. Which would be a fun excuse for .

Violence is a much more difficult issue, because ArbCom is not a fan of repercussions they can't control...

WP:NLT is a furphy. What it actually means is "no legal threats out in the open by people who haven't already engaged a lawyer and/or are not Wikimedia insiders". Actual legal threats or threats by insiders behind the scenes cause buckling and back flipping faster than you can say "that t-shirt has a stain on it".

[Kelly Martin]

The ArbCom is in fact the disciplinary committee of an unincorporated voluntary association, so calling it one would be far more appropriate than its present name, which is indeed quite misleading.

Wouldn't it be fun if it were a serious judicial body? Those with deep pockets could then appeal to a competent body. I wonder how many of its rulings would be sustained.

I am actually quite surprised that someone hasn't tried to "appeal" an ArbCom decision in some way to an actual court. It's bound to happen eventually.

Is there anyone actually stupid enough to think that would work?

There have been a few cases where a suit for defamation based on the published ruling of the ArbCom would probably at least survive a motion for summary judgment. It's not an "appeal" of their ruling, but it would definitely be a review of their decision-making process.

I'd love to see each member of the ArbCom forced to go through the indignity of a deposition.

[Triptych]

The observation that the full case remains available through the history seems accurate, this has not been revision-deleted...

Guerillero is right. This has been done for years, and for a good number of arbitration cases. In all instances I've seen, the full version is available via the edit history. I see no problem with that.

There should be a specified reason to rev-delete something, in fact I think it should be specified particularly i.e. not a vague statement that someone's real name was mentioned. In fact if that's the case, why not just delete the name?

What is the idea here if all the stuff is still in the history? To stop the text from being indexed by web search engines?

I'm against it, and the fact that it has been done in the past doesn't make it legitimate. Murder has been occurring for years too.

[Triptych]

It has been my consistently held opinion for going on eight years now at least that the ArbCom should not publish detailed reasons, indeed any reasons at all, for why it chooses to discipline editors. There are sound reasons not to publish detailed decisions, and no good reason to publish them given that they insist that they are not bound by precedent. They should just announce that "Editor X is banned/restricted/admonished/etc." Any further details that need to be communicated to the parties should be communicated privately.

The reason they don't is twofold: One, the Wikipedia community loves drama, and public show trials certainly generate a great deal of drama. Second, several early arbs (notably, James Forrester and Fred Bauder) had always wanted to be judges, and their participation in the early days of the Arbitration Committee allowed them to shape the culture of that body toward their personal desire to turn it into a faux High Court of Snootiness, and that's stuck ever since.

I realize that my position on this is unpopular...

It's rightfully unpopular because it's wrong and arrogant. Arbcom are supposed to be the representatives of editors, so they should be accountable to editors. The way to be accountable to someobody is to tell them why you're doing something, especially when it is something deleterious to a person or people. They don't get to hang out on their mailing list and IRC and have unreasoning popularity contests about whom they punish next. That's bull. The "oh we can't have more drama" is a pretty weak excuse. Bwilkins was criticizing one of those that contributed to the Arbcom case that desysoped him, saying essentially "the forthcoming drama is all on you, you could have just talked to me at my talkpage." It is to laugh. Talking to him at his talkpage resulted in no behavioral change half the time, and the critical comment being deleted with a snarky edit comment half the time.

To extend your reasoning Kelly, why don't you call as well for one-click-no-reason perma-blocking of any common editor by any administrator?

[Ross McPherson]

Guerilleo is interested in philosophy apparently but anyone who wants to understand Wikipedia is referred on his talk page to the article ‘There is no justice at Wikipedia’. I wonder how he processes the theories of the American philosopher, John Rawls, thought by many to be the most significant philosopher of the 20th century:

“Justice is the first notion of social institutions, as truth is of the system of thought.”
John Rawls 1971, ‘A Theory of Justice’, Cambridge, Mass., p.3

No justice, no truth – the story of Wikipedia.
Here is an overview of Rawls’ philosophy (not recommended for the philosophically challenged) :
http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/

I looked at the WP article but I found its revision history more interesting:
http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-article ... =wikipedia

Of the article’s top twelve contributors, 2/3 have long gone - 3 accounts were closed down (that’s an unusually high number), 3 stopped editing early 2012 and 2 are just IP numbers that operated in 2007. None of them was blocked (also unusual in revision histories). I guess the philosophical temperament caused any dissenters to open their Wikipedian veins in Stoic fashion, or maybe the vanished editors were just puppets that have outlived their usefulness.

Wikipedia, the house of horrors - it is tempting to think every missing person is buried under the floorboards or else did a vanishing trick through a trapdoor.

[Notvelty]

Guerilleo is interested in philosophy

Point of order. Guerilleo is interested in undergraduate twaddle.