Talk:Mark Arbib

Current article and POV issues
Seems to focus solely on negative aspects of Arbib. Give me a few days and I'll try to find some references more about his career. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * More recently, references to Arbib as one of the Faceless men have been removed; similarly Don Farrell. See however, Paul Howes and David Feeney. wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 11:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

minnor suggestion
I'd suggest instead of "Mark Arbib was a confidential contact for the US government" it instead reads "Mark Arbib has acted as a confidential contact for the US government". "Was" implies that he is no longer doing so, or perhaps even may be implied that his actions are dishonest. Since he believes he has done nothing wrong according to the press this morning, there doesn't seem a need to imply that he has relinquished the role. I'm not commenting on the actual merits for or against, simply on the slight bias by using the past tense. --60.230.35.62 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's a good point, and I've changed it over accordingly. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why has this not been changed. It still reads "was"? 202.72.159.82 (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does 'confidential contact' mean? Disseminating information that is really confidential, in a covert way, a secretive cloak and dagger action? Was he unauthorised to disseminate that information, thus maybe breaching a confidentiality clause in one of his contracts? If he had been appointed to disseminate that information, he would have been called liaison officer. Since he did not hold such a position, it looks very much like he breached the trust of his Senate, party, and Cabinet colleagues. Not much in life is for free; but did he supply the information for free or did he receive payment, maybe the promise of favours?

In this context, it may be interesting to take note that his German counterpart, i.e the guy in Berlin who supplied inside information, in that case unauthorised, had to resign from his post soon after his secret dealings were revealed by WikiLeaks. 144.136.176.198 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Early career dodgy claims
The cited source does NOT support the following: "While studying, Arbib worked part time at a Sizzler restaurant in Bondi Junction. When there were moves to remove penalty rates, he negotiated on behalf of the part time workers and signed up members to the Liquor Trades Union. " wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Username/IP address
Why was the username/IP address for three consecutive edits made on December 8th last year removed? How can that even happen here on Wikipedia? Who gets to make that decision? Why was it done for those pieces of vandalism, and not the others? Knyght27 (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The username has been Oversighted, which means that we will probably never know what it was or why it was removed. Oversight is usually reserved for very, very serious vandalism or situations where there are privacy issues, and only a handful of highly trusted editors exercise the oversight permission.  In this case, it is possible that the username or edit summary was extremely offensive, or that it revealed public information about an editor.  -- Lear's Fool 02:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. It still bothers me, though. It seems to go against the whole Wikipedia ethos: specifically the rule against censoring. It seems bizarre that Sky burial and Whitechapel murders can have photos of butchered corpses, but one little IP address that did a silly bit of vandalism on this article is expunged forever. :/ Knyght27 (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Oversight team are very good. Trust me, the fact that it's been removed means it wasn't just a silly bit of vandalism. -- Lear's Fool mobile 12:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Resignation from the Senate
We need to be alert to the fact that he has not yet resigned from the Senate. All he's done is to signal his intention to resign on 9 March, but it is not official. The Constitution prevents an MP or Senator from specifiying a date of effect of their resignation. They simply submit a resignation to the relevant presiding officer, and it becomes effective immediately the presiding officer receives it. Therefore, he could not have submitted his resignation to the Senate President yet, because if he had, it would have already taken effect today.

His resignatioin from the ministry is different. Afaik, ministers are able to specify a forward date of effect, and it's a matter for the Prime Minister to accept or not. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Arbib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211114402/http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-american-friend-arbib-secret-source/2020979.aspx to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-american-friend-arbib-secret-source/2020979.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318173557/http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/changes-ministry to http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/changes-ministry
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816174837/http://www.rugby.com.au/ARUHQ/GovernanceReview.aspx to http://www.rugby.com.au/ARUHQ/GovernanceReview.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)