Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

FT2 Statement
This was an exceptional case. We did indeed look for evidence both sides, and noted the good work of the user. But we were clear that what we saw was strong, compelling, and repeated evidence of a problem, and that for reasons described, this was the way to address it.

I will add, there was no other reasonable interpretation available to the matters we looked into. It was obvious, and blatant. We will accept an appeal with pleasure, but the nature of this case was egregious; I can't see any actual likely factual matter to appeal upon. There is no ambiguity in the core thrust of the evidence at all. It is repeated, and unsubtle. FT2 (Talk 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Further clarification (crossposted from AN thread):


 * This was an exceptional case, and the matter was clear and unambiguous. If Orangemarlin wishes to appeal, he may. But for various reasons, this was the right way to go about it. We have that discretion, and we very rarely use it. But on this case, we have done so. By the very nature of what we saw, the user defends via smoke, and invented pretexts, and smears. We have no interest in enduring a week or two of that, or asking others to. We considered emailing the user for comments before posting, but that too would lead to email and "smoke" as well, and wikidrama and hearsay until the case was belatedly made public anyway and finally decided (and pile-ons that in fact would add little, the evidence being in fact very unambiguous), having had to endured that smoke and hearsay in the background in the meantime.


 * So by his own conduct, the option we chose was exceptionally, a summary case, involving notification and decision at the same time. In light of the nature of the case and sheer volume of egregious examples, it is appropriate. FT2 (Talk 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys apparently have no idea what an egregious breach of any notion of due process or habeas corpus this decision was, or how your proceedings must have the appearance of these civil customs for your pronouncements to carry any sense of justice or just law. This ruling against OM violates possibly every civil standard or idea of what justice is about and what WP is about as an open source framework. Ameriquedialectics 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That might make sense if either of those legal concepts applied to Wikipedia. Kelly  hi! 17:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These concepts are the foundation of any kind of civil procedure aimed at dispute resolution. What passes for process on WP is not exempt from maintaining standards that are taken for granted anywhere any notion of Civility is enforced. Ameriquedialectics 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trying to apply those legal precepts in an environment where the "defendants" are pseudonymous Internet posters is just plain silly. Stop taking Wikipedia so seriously. "Orangemarlin" (whoever he is), in his persona as a Wikipedia contributor, has been been weighed, has been measured, and has been found wanting by the powers-that-be. This has no impact on him in "real life". Looking at the evidence presented, I have to agree with the ArbCom decision. If "Orangemarlin"'s contributions to Wikipedia are important to him, he can come back under another pseudonym and should have no trouble so long as (s)he doesn't cause the same type of problems. Get real, Amerique. Kelly  hi! 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am real. That's why I see a prosecution and a decision with no defense a complete travesty of any notion of civil process. it is only a website, and i am "only" ceasing editorial contributions and will only be operating in community space until this "decision" is rescinded. Ameriquedialectics 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're taking this way too seriously. So "Orangemarlin"'s behavior has been judged to be bad. There's nothing to stop the same flesh-and-blood person from coming back here as "Purpletuna" or "Yellowcod" or "Magentamahimahi", and they would have no problem so long as they behaved themselves by community norms. For that matter, it looks like they could continue as "Orangemarlin" with no issues so long as they reformed their bad conduct.  Kelly  hi! 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe not. That last one is really hard to type. Try it three times fast! ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The RFC I'm contemplating proceeding on isn't going to be focused on OM's behavior, (or even Moulton's, whoever he is) but Arbcom's. That institution seriously needs a review, on wikipedia. Ameriquedialectics 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs a review or many of our best and brightest will end up leaving. It's really that simple: the ne plus ultra has been reached -- nay, it has been breached.
 * Kelly, not being uncivil, but your comments are, from my perspective, utter rubbish. Of course, I'm presupposing that we're still allowed to have critical (original Greek meaning) opinions around here.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 00:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's the due process?
A secret Arbcom hearing? No notice until the ruling? No opportunity to present a defense or rebut? No idea who presented evidence or raised the issue. No listing of those who participated in the hearing so we know who supports secret trials and so who not to vote for in the next Arbcom election. Not even so much as a justification for the secrecy. Amazing, utterly amazing. What new lows Wikipedia's governance has sank to.

As far as I am concerned any form of secret hearing which results in sanctions is completely unacceptable. When I decided to volunteer my time I understood that Wikipedia made no guarantees for due process or even fairness when dealing with problems. But I also felt that Wikipedia was governed by volunteers who have an understanding and respect for things like natural justice and due process. Fundamental fairness demands an individual's rights include being adequately notified of charges or proceedings and being given the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. Read Procedural due process and Natural justice.

If the Arbcom wants to continue attracting and keeping quality volunteers, they better grow a healthy respect for fundamental fairness and the role of due process. If the Arbcom expects me to respect their rulings, they first need to respect the community's reasonable expectations of being treated fairly; being the subject of secret trials is not what volunteers donating time and toil to Wikipedia expect. As far as I'm concerned they must vacate this ruling and reconvene a public hearing for me to respect their ruling. I'm disgusted. Odd nature (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What sanctions?--Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This, for one. Guettarda (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT. Specifically WP is not a government or a system of justice, nor does it do "due process". It is a project to create a compedium of knowledge. While I agree that being as fair as possible to as many folk as possible is a good thing, for to do otherwise drives good contributors off, ultimately it is a project. If the net result of this case is that the editing environment is improved, in general, that's a win. I think those finding fault need to go back through the evidence. I think many people would agree that there were a number of serious issues with OM's approach and behaviour that needed addressing. Given how some of the public cases are going, and the amount of drama and discord they are generating, I think that the drama this private case engendered is likely to be less overall. That's the hope anyway, although it's too early to say, obviously. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Less? This post made a serious blow in my belief in your sound judgment, Lar. And seeing you, as in old times, advocating secrecy when deciding upon sanctioning users! I thought you reconsidered seriously. *Shakes head.* --Irpen 02:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You still have a right, per natural justice, to answer accusations against you. Issues like fairness apply as well.  Secret trials are far more corrosive to the community than is "drama".  I can't imagine why anyone would decide that it's acceptable to betray the trust of the community in the interest of minimising drama.  Natural justice is one of those assumption that underlie a community.  We contribute with that assumption.  The only proof we have of authorship, for example, is in the hands of the Foundation.  But we assume that we can trust them to act fairly.  Similarly, we trust the arbcomm.  Or we used to.  Discarding basic principles of civil society is an abuse of that trust.  Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it but the only RIGHT you have is the right to stop contributing, or to fork. See User:Mindspillage/userpages which applies everywhere. I agree that things need to be run well, that they need to be as fair as possible and that this needs to be a pleasant, collegial editing environment. But there are no rights. ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not really. You have the right of ownership of your contributions.  But this isn't about rights, it's about understanding and trust.  There's the understanding, for example, that you won't be blocked arbitrarily.  There's the understanding that your name won't be assigned to content you didn't write.  There's the understanding that RFA votes won't be secretly changed.  There's a general understanding of natural justice.  This is a violation of the trust that underlies the community that exists to write the encyclopaedia.  Guettarda (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right on. If WP judicial processes towards resolving problematic behavior don't emulate "real world" notions of "due process," WP's openness is the only thing that protects contributors from fear of off-site tribunals affecting their action on the site. Rulings made without allowing the accused to make a defense are clearly preposterous and a travesty of any basic notion of justice or fair play. WP:NOT does not elevate Arbcom to a star chamber, nor does it absolve the institution from responsibility for any actions that affect anyone's participation on site. Ameriquedialectics 19:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So Lar, you're comfortable with possibly being the subject of a secret hearing and all that that entails, not being able to defend yourself, etc. I am not. And I am certain many more in the community agree with me that secret hearings are a completely wrong way to go about addressing behavior issues. And I also am just as certain that your comfort would evaporate were you in my position. I'm going to make it my job to be sure that the community knows that secret trials are being used by the Arbcom without mandate. Your reasoning excusing secret trials is the same used by the Star Chamber. The Arbcom must not become a Star Chamber. Odd nature (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not "comfortable" with it. But I accept it, because it's what I signed up for. I don't think that in camera proceedings are a good approach without a great deal of justification and forethought. But sometimes they are necessary. I trust ArbCom to not have done this lightly. I'm not sure I'd ever be "in your position", though. At least not exactly. But to be fair, lots of secret stuff goes on here all the time. Some of it we call "canvassing"... The Wiki Model calls for the maximum possible transparency. That is not 100%. I do not like that this case was done in camera. I'm not totally convinced it had to be. But I play out what this case would have been like in public and I shudder. To explain why requires casting some not very polite aspersions at you and at others. But I am sure I am not the only person who blanched at the thought of the drama that a public case would have engendered. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You signed up for secret proceedings? I see.  But the rest of us didn't.  Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did. Whether you admit it or not. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The jury is still out over whether this approach will create less drama, or more, than the other open approach. We will have to see.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait for the drama level once I block User:FT2. After careful secret deliberation with a group of experienced and respected Wikipedia editors, I've come to the conclusion that either his account has been compromised, or he is unsuitable as an arbiter (or even an admin), and has to be stopped from further damaging the encyclopedia. And I don't know if I'm even half joking... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be an interesting experiment, I suppose. Perhaps we should start a pool on how long your adminship would last if you did that. It would be measured in minutes or seconds I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that this event makes me seriously consider following Raymond, MONGO, and now OM, I don't know how much of a loss that would be. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You guys could never trust me with the tools. Thankfully, I don't need them to make an argument. Ameriquedialectics 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that, since we don't have laws regarding "due process" here, it was unwise for OM and others to give ArbCom every reason not to open the recent decision-making process up for comment beforehand. Incidents like this AN/I thread, for example, demonstrate that OM has several backers ready to argue his case endlessly, even when he has clearly been behaving inappropriately. Why would ArbCom invite comment when the commenting process has been abused by tag-teaming and endless argument in the past? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Y'know, objectivity is a good thing. And in a community, so is due process.  Complex though those two concepts may be.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 05:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, due process is a good thing. However, I believe a number of editors on Wikipedia have been perfectly happy to exist without any right to due process so long as it worked in their favor. From my perspective, only a fool would undermine due process, then complain when the privilege is not extended their way. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, please do explain in depth. I'm all ears.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sxeptomaniac, but I think the flipside has not been adequately considered: only a fool would fetishize due process for a handful of disruptive users and then rationalize away its absence when the target is someone they dislike. (I don't have Sxeptomaniac in mind as a "fool" in this scenario, to be clear - I'm just expanding on his point). MastCell Talk 20:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have worded that last statement that way. I was thinking in general terms, but it looks like I'm referring to specific editors as fools.  Nevertheless, my comment was merely about the situation at the time (which now appears to have turned out to be somewhat different than originally thought).  Anyway, my thoughts were merely on recognizing one particular issue with what is a relatively informal, amateur process.  You are, of course, right in pointing out other problems, MastCell. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable, egregious, stupid
I'm hard-pressed to express my feelings about this unprecedented act. Take the above header as a heavily filtered and extremely civil version of the text I would have written had I an adequately expressive language at my disposal. ArbCom (or just FT2? Without Workshop and Proposed decision pages, nor any record of a discussion, there is no way to tell...) has massively overstepped its authority. In doing so, it has violated not only long and established Wikipedia traditions, but also behaved in a way that defies any sense of justice. The most charitable interpretation is that FT2's account has been compromised and used for a bad-taste hoax. To even create a situation where this colossal fuck-up can be meaningfully discussed, we need a clear statement from all sitting arbiters about their involvement and support for this case. At the moment, I don't even know whose recall I should loudly and insistently demand.
 * It initiated a case without informing the affected users or soliciting community input.
 * It did not perform arbitration, but prosecution, followed by conviction. All that behind closed doors and even the veil of anonymity (FT2 excepted).
 * There is no record of who voted to accept the case. Indeed, there is no indication that ArbCom did vote on the initiating the case at all.
 * Likewise, ArbCom tried the case in a completely non-transparent manner (always assuming it did - again, there is no sign that it actually did). There is no accessible record of any discussion.
 * No involved party had any chance of defending or justifying their actions - indeed, no involved party even knew about the case before it was closed - and not closed as obviously an incredibly dumb idea, but closed with admonishments and sanctions!
 * There is no indication of how many ArbCom members were involved at all, nor who supported this decision. All we are told is that "none opposed" any of the passed decisions. The only Arbiter whose involvement is obvious is FT2. I don't know if (s)he is just taking the flak for a collective lapse judgment, or if (s)he has completely lost it and acted alone.

Disgusted, --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, actually, I don't think that's a bad idea. In the absence of a proposed decision page that collates who supported what, could we get an acknowledgement that the arbitration committee concurs with the statement, as authored by FT2? I stress that I am in no way questioning that - I do not believe FT2 would throw the committee under the bus in such a manner - but having the committee's "signatures on the document", so to speak, would be of some value. I add that, even if discussions involving proposed remedies and sanctions are not revealed, surely the vote to close the case could be released? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be nice, but in the past that hasn't always happened (for example in the Mantanmoreland case, a request to know who felt the socking evidence/analysis wasn't conclusive wasn't answered). I think we should assume that if FT2 says it was unanimous, then it was. The only question would be who recused. Do we really want to know that? Maybe. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There appears to be significant concern that the process on this case was held in secret. If there is information that can be safely released on how the committee came to these decisions, without undermining the issues that required a secret case in the first place, then there may be value in releasing that information, if only to alleviate some of the concerns about this case. I concur that past precedent would indicate otherwise, but it's worth asking. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (removed dup) I agree, and would like to request the release of whatever information that ArbCom is, on reflection about this matter and in view of the concerns raised, willing to release. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We have no indication of who was involved. Normal Arbitration policy rules imply a minimum of 4 votes to open a case, but since normal rules also include the sentence "The Committee will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to rule", they apparently do not apply. Or maybe they do, since there has been no "hearing" to speak of. Even assuming four arbiters voted for opening this case, any decision requires a "simple-majority vote amongst active non-recused Arbitrators" where "arbitrators who abstain from a particular part will be treated as having recused" - which means that a total of one vote is theoretically enough for a decision nem.con. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's important that community have the information of which Arbs recused, if only to know how to vote in the next Arbcom election. Odd nature (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll join you in making that request. I would like to know too. But if it's a demand, count me out. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I have left a message for FT2 here, requesting some of the above items. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

<-If this did not reflect a majority outcome, someone would have said so. It's not like the other 10 or so active arbitrators are shy. Thatcher 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nod. I'm assuming it would have been loudly repudiated by now... ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See which seems fairly "loud". But certainly confusing. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, nor am I suggesting that it wasn't a majority decision. I do think, though, that there is concern over the transparency (or lack thereof) of this decision, and if there are bits of it that can be released without compromising anything, then I see no reason not to release those items. The worst answer I could get is "No", after all. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My take away from the Mantanmoreland case is that there is a good chance that all the answer you will get is "No". The issues aren't the same here, but the committee declined there to say where they individually stood.  More generally, the committee rarely says much about their thoughts in a case unless they are opposing an item of the proposed decision, and even then they often just say "oppose" and leave all discussion on their private venues.  Being a regular RFAR observer is much like being a kremlinologist.  GRBerry 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Sincerely, Gnixon (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Counting chickens? Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with User:Moulton situation
User:Moulton has been one who has been screaming about the lack of "Due Process" for months. Let's compare:


 * When Moulton's editing was clearly against assorted policies, he was warned repeatedly and several tried to intervene to get him on the straight and narrow.
 * Moulton was notified of his RfC
 * Moulton had an opportunity to present a defense at his RfC over an 8 day period.
 * Moulton appealed the Community Ban/ block at an Arbcomm hearing where he was allowed to present evidence.
 * Durova looked into helping Moulton with his situation if he just complied with some simple requests, which he refused to do.
 * Several others complained bitterly about the treatment Moulton received, and eventually almost every single person who came to Moulton's defense reached the conclusion that he was not quite ready for unrestricted editing.
 * As of this writing, at least 50 different editors have reviewed the Moulton situation and reached more or less the same conclusion: Moulton was afforded every opportunity to defend his actions or reform. Even still, many claim that Moulton was not afforded due process and that it was unfair.

Now in the case of User:Odd nature and User:Orangemarlin:
 * Both have been successfully editing and producing featured content for well over a year
 * Neither were warned that their editing was problematic.
 * Neither was told of this secret trial going on.
 * Neither was given the opportunity to defend themselves
 * An appeal is possible, but Arbcomm has already announced several times that no defense is possible.
 * A long list of editors is slowly building up that support Orangemarlin (and by extension, Odd nature) and deplore what has been done to them.

Interesting comparison, huh? Who had more "Due Process"? Who was treated more fairly?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't you mean to write "Now in the case of Odd nature and Orangemarlin" Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah sorry. Too much drama leads to typos.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I slightly disagree. I think that OM and ON were both notified by folks they wouldn't listen to that there were problems with their approach to disputes, and to other users.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the type of people notifying Moulton. And the type of people complaining about ON and OM. Slight difference...--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you really sure you want that analysis carried out in detail? (full disclosure, I'd be on both lists) ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lar you are unusual. However, Lar I do not remember you being present when Moulton was editing in the summer of 2007 and cautioning him to try to temper his editing habits and try to edit according to the policies of WP.

Of course you have also mentioned that you would be in favor of unblocking Moulton, but then changed your mind. And you have also complained about OM and ON and the terrible ID Wikiproject cabal. However, I do not remember Lar as being present in any of the contentious discussions about NPOV or NOR on any of these controversial articles and helping to forge a consensus. I only seem to remember Lar showing up post facto to scream bloody murder about ...well not quite sure what exactly (maybe dropping the f bomb? implying someone is a racist ? dont really know...), but he sure seems to be angry and wants to kick butt. Ah yes...--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, take this for what it's worth, but you're probably not the best person to jump to the defense here given the allegations in Requests for comment/Intelligent Design. You're only reinforcing the perception that members of that ID group will aggressively defend other members of their clique. Just saying. Kelly  hi! 19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I have for weeks now held back and not defended myself or those accused with me. I am not sure this was the right course of action, in retrospect. And Kelly can you tell me with confidence that you never defended any other editor ever here on Wikipedia? --Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the above, since you've posted extensively there in defense of yourself and others from the problematic ID Wikiproject. I think that "not defended" does not mean what you think it means. Kelly  hi! 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Kelly, continuing to repeat that nonsense indicates to me that you have the brains of a brick-brat; or else you're congenitally dense; or else you've been brainwashed; or else you're happy maligning a group of people based on the actions of a few: which is it? Or is there some other possibility of which I am not familiar? For which you have EVIDENCE? There are no problems with the ID Wikiproject; a few of the editors have been cited for problems as individuals. There is no "clique". Stop repeating this slander, please, or prepare to present evidence that every member, or at the very least a significant majority of the members, are working in tandem and against policy. I am tired of the bullshit. This is well beyond "defending members of the ID Wikiproject" - this is protesting injustice. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments regarding my brains - I appreciate you not making this a personal issue. Let me say this - smoke=fire, 99% of the time. Nobody is complaining about Wikiproject Military History, Wikiproject Politics, or even Wikiproject Abortion - just a few examples among multitudes of Wikiprojects involved with controversial or disputed subjects.. Yet people are complaining about Wikiproject Intelligent Design everywhere, both on and off the wiki. Yet the members of the Wikiproject see no need to examine their approaches or tactics, and seem ready to resort to personal attacks at a moments' notice, as you have just demonstrated. Hmmm. Kelly  hi! 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it that either your reading or your comprehension is sub-par today, or else you are deliberately mis-reading my statement in order to make a point of your own. Please clarify; are you dense or are you happy with making personal attacks on an entire group of people based on mob rationale? Please note that I have given you the options both times to either confirm or deny that you are dense, and requested your position: you merely accuse me of personal attacks, which technically have not been made at all. You err; your reasoning is faulty; and your rationale to support your repetition of the slander is a case of Argumentum ad populum, as I am certain you are aware. In short, it is Poor Thinking. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua, I suggest you refactor your personal attacks, please. One of the major things that the Arbitration Committee brought up in their decision was OM's tendency to escalate things with statements like the ones you just posted. SirFozzie (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made none. I have offered multiple choice to Kelly, in search of an explanation of HER personal attacks. I even asked, is it something of which I have not thought? Please feel free to read also the discussion on my talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, OK. I guess that any questioning of any action of any member of the ID Cabal is now a "personal attack". Kelly  hi! 21:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse??? No. Using the term "ID Cabal" is an attack. Referring to "the problematic ID Wikiproject" is an attack. Referring to the "ID wikiclique" is an attack. But you may certainly question the action of any editor on Wikipedia whatsoever. Do you see the distinction? Do you get it? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, clearly I've encountered some kind of tinfoil here. Disengaging and unwatchlisting. Kelly  hi! 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I think we have some basic disagreement about what "defense" means.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then by all mean, let's see some real defense. Because right now I'm pretty appalled, based on evidence presented at that RfC, and from what I've seen here and elsewhere. Kelly  hi! 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Moulton was "banned". Orangemarlin is told to behave. There's a key difference. LaraLove| Talk  21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, neither is actually accurate. Moulton was indef blocked (I know, I'm the one who did it) not banned - which became ipso facto a ban after discussion on AN, IIRC - although that is in some minor dispute. The "rules" about banning have since changed. And it seems that OrangeMarlin has not actually been told anything by ArbCom at all. check AN. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2400 years ago we had Socrates ... today we have folks arguing with a puppy (and the puppy is the only one making sense). Well, no one ever said evolution was "progressive".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 05:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You see, Jim. This is the sort of non-productive crap that brings you up before ArbCom. Your side argued that it was a community ban, our side argued it wasn't, so don't turn it around like I'm not making sense for calling it a ban. And KC, considering what page we're on, I think it's safe for me to compare, considering this page wouldn't exist and we'd not be in discussion otherwise. LaraLove|  Talk  04:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch case
At Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence, FT2 says that arbcom "indicated there was a very strong basis for adding Orangemarlin as a party on that case, just over 5 months ago. By the merest hair's breadth of good faith we did not do so. Had we known of these other matters, we unquestioningly would have done so." I'm wondering what it is that arbcom sees now that it didn't see then. The evidence presented then was rather serious evidence of incivility. I think Orangemarlin has toned it down a lot since then and, speaking in particular of my differences with him, we have put that behind us. The evidence presented here in this case is downright mild and rather skewed. I have a real problem with arbcom singling out the issue concerning racism and finding fault with OM's actions there. (And just so that nobody has any question where I stand - "white pride" is racism, period. Our own article has it in Category:Racism, as well it should.  If you are saying that there is something to prefer about one race over another, you are a racist, regardless of how you might try to sugar coat it.)  OM pointed out what should be a tautology that we can all agree with - white pride is by definition racism - and half of Arbcom's evidence page is attacking him for it. If you are a member of a "white pride" group, someone who self-identifies as believing in "white pride", or whatever, it's not my job (or OM's job) to coddle you or tell you what a wonderful person you are - it's a you problem. That arbcom is in effect, if not in fact, coming down on the side of the racists in sanctioning OM for challenging racism is abhorrent. I'm obviously a bit sidetracked here from my original question, but I would like to see an answer - what exactly is it that was new that you didn't see before? --B (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to dig in, but yeah. That issue is totally what put me on the "side" I'm apparently on. I may not agree with the tactics members of the so-called "ID Cabal" have chosen to pursue, but they consistently seem to be on the right side of the issues, so more power to 'em. Ameriquedialectics 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Did OM step over the line a couple of times when he was upset about racial issues? Yes he did, but he backed off from those extreme statements and struck them or reverted them. However, was he basically correct to highlight the problems with statements that could be viewed as racially insensitive, insulting and offensive? I do not think he was wrong. And for Arbcomm to make a HUGE elaborate show of how "white pride" is supposedly not racist and to structure most of their case around OM on this basis is just mind-boggling. Incredible. Well, so be it. You make your bed Arbcomm, and now you will lie in it.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be a straw man argument, Filll. The case spends very little time discussing whether or not White Pride is a racist term or not (actually, I don't recall that it's discussed at all), because it's mostly irrelevant. OM has made accusations of racism based on no evidence and when it was not relevant to current discussion, particularly in the case of Giggy.  The clear intent to make WP a battleground over any perceived hint of racism, including importing the battle using out-of-context material found off-site, is the problem. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're putting up the straw man. The case spent a whole lot of time discussing OM's actions in relation to the racism issue: Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence. The problem, if you cannot see it, is that OM was not allowed to mount any kind of defense to charges against him. And there was, unfortunately, plenty of first-hand, self-produced evidence for OM's accusations from his detractors, otherwise I wouldn't have been drawn into the case. Ameriquedialectics 21:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the case didn't spend time addressing OM actions in relation to the racism issue. What I was saying was that Filll's claim that ArbCom made a "HUGE elaborate show of how 'white pride' is supposedly not racist" did not reflect the actual issues in the case.  Personally, I don't see a lot of evidence for OM's accusations of racism, and I think the evidence, and any experience with OM, clearly shows that he has frequently made such accusations when they were irrelevant to the actual discussion, instead using them to "poison the well", possibly permanently damaging an editor's reputation. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not part of the ID Wikiproject, nor yet any part of any cabal, nor have I ever edited any of the ID pages or been interested in editing them. And I came to the conclusion several weeks ago that without some evidence that Wikipedia is committed to enforcing and protecting NPOV, there's no point in my even trying to edit here. Since then have watched without commenting as one after another case and incident have reinforced the wisdom of my decision to not get involved here, since again and again decisions are being made that weaken NPOV and RS rather than strengthening them (my one faint hope, now dashed, was the Sourcing Adjudication Board, on the chance that it would be constituted in such a way as to enforce NPOV and RS rather than further weakening them). But this case is so outrageously egregious that I can't let it pass without commenting. I watched this unfold at the time and found it incredible that people were trying to make the case that "white pride" isn't a racist code word. Of course it's a racist code word. And I have to disagree with Sxeptomaniac; rather than not being terribly important to the case, this seemed to form the central "evidence" for part of the case,  in my reading:  that OM mistakenly interpreted "white pride" as a racist term and wouldn't let it go even though he was "told" that there wasn't anything racist about the term, and kept arguing (in sometimes uncivil tone) with those who kept taunting him with the term. If the goal here were really to promote a congenial atmosphere for editing, then the people who continued to poke OrangeMarlin with the term "white pride" after he made it clear it was offensive to him (and understandably so) are the ones who should have been sanctioned, or at least cautioned. What ArbCom has done here is make Wikipedia more congenial for racist attitudes by implicitly condoning and encouraging such attitudes, though I trust not intentionally. I've never had any dealings with OM other than watching this debacle in its several phases, so I can't say from observation whether he had civility problems other than not being sufficiently tolerant of racism to suit certain factions who apparently have ArbCom's ear. If he did, then those should have been dealt with (in an open case) separately. To treat his intolerance for racist attitudes as evidence of incivility leaves a very bad taste; to treat it as such egregious incivility that it had to be dealt with in secret is just simply outrageous. Woonpton (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Woonpton, there's one major aspect to this case that I believe you are mistaken on. In every instance I've seen, it was OM bringing up the "white pride" terminology.  No-one was "poking" him with it that I've seen.  The_Undertow and LaraLove are the two editors the "white pride" issue surrounded, but are mentioned only a few times in the evidence here.  Instead, OM took a summary of the debate over The_Undertow from Giggy's blog off-site and misrepresented it in an attempt to portray Giggy as racist later on.  That kind of behavior is the problem. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I'm not completely sure what the whole disclaimer regarding ID was about. I don't care what articles a person edits, or what they believe.  I guess I should point out I don't edit articles on ID, either.  I have some minor overlap with some articles peripheral to ID, as I am interested in Christian mythology, though. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Sxeptomaniac, in this instance, as well as many others, you are not just wrong, but incredibly wrong. I guess before this is done, we will have to drag you through the mud and make you confront your "misunderstandings". I do not want to do it, but if it has to be done, I guess it will have to be done. I am very sorry about this. I wish there was some other way. Goodness gracious.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)  Restoring comment (strikethrough mine) by Filll to restore context to below discussion. Comment was removed by Filll earlier. Kelly hi! 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "we"? Who's we in this dragging through the mud context? I'd like to hear names. I wonder if they will be the "usual suspects"... But I'm confused, I thought you had "disengaged"? In any case I'm not sure that mud dragging is the most productive approach, is it? ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That was the royal "we". I and whoever else would agree with me. On reflection, I am going to retract this and just state, "You are wrong". Sorry. And I reserve the right to stop "disengaging" at some point if I deem it necessary and appropriate. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lar, I thought you championed civility. (?)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar's comment seemed pretty civil to me. Filll's, on the other hand.... Kelly  hi! 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because you agree with Lar. Somehow, I don't think "usual suspects" is very civil.  But hey, if you do, then I guess I'm free to use it too. Cool!  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would "usual suspects" be uncivil? I understood it to mean the purported "ID Cabal" (as do most other readers, I'm sure). Anyone who frequents any of the high-traffic WP pages knows about that group and their alleged tactics. Pointing that out might be impolitic (though I don't believe it is), but it's hardly uncivil. Kelly  hi! 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so I'm free to use it then. Let's just say that it's the "usual suspects" who are supporting secret tribunals because OM is a bad person whom they dislike immemsely.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary - furthering an smear is uncivil. Half the claims are outright false, and the other half are based on spin.  Furthering that smear in uncivil and unacceptable.  Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Guettarda (and Filll, below) - please take a second to reflect exactly why so many people are complaining about the alleged "ID Cabal". Why are there not similar widespread complaints about other Wikiprojects involved with controversial subjects - especially from such a wide range of editors that don't disagree with you on subject matter, but on tactics - especially in the apparently-concerted bad behavior of "IDCab" members in areas far removed from Intelligent design, such as RfA? Can you blame people for believing, in good faith, that where there's smoke there's fire? It is healthy for the community to discuss this, and appropriate for the "offending parties" to listen to those concerns. Kelly  hi! 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? I've seen claims that are laughably false made by one person, repeated by another, and then cited as a fact by yet another.  Moulton has been constructing this smear for the better part of a year off-wiki.  The meme was imported here from WR.  And then repeated over and over.  Like any good lie, it has just enough truth that people can fit observations to their preconceived notions.  Kinda like Lar saying "look how they always show up to defend one-another" when I showed up on AN when this mess broke.  I would have showed up and said the same thing even if it was you who was subject to a secret trial - regardless of whether I thought the sanctions were deserved or not (because, with a secret trial there's no opportunity to hear both sides).  There's actually an interesting parallel there - complaints about incivility by image patrollers comes up regularly.  If someone spent 9 months smearing "the image patrollers", and made the connection every time something like that came up anywhere, I'm guessing the meme would become just as well established.  And your bad behaviour could end up tarring all sorts of other people.  (Of course, I don't see OM's misbehaviour rising to the level of yours.)  Guettarda (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that all the complaints about IDCab result from a Moulton conspiracy? That respected people like Lar, LaraLove, and dozens of others who have complained about the group's behavior are just echoing the meme of a marginal banned user? Would you like to borrow some of my tinfoil? Kelly  hi! 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are obviously correct Kelly. People hear the rumors, repeated endlessly in echo chambers here on Wikipedia and at Wikipedia Review (and maybe a few other places), and just start to believe them, even if there is minimal evidence to support them. And then they repeat them. And so it goes. And anything they hear, no matter how minor, is taken as evidence of some evil monolithic cabal. It is called confirmation bias. However, whenever I have asked for solid evidence of something big and bad going on, what I am presented with is stale, or one-sided, or biased, or weak in a variety of ways. Have some in this alleged cabal dropped the f-bomb occasionally? Sure. Is there any evidence of any terrible behavior that is way out of line with what goes on at Wikipedia normally? I have not personally seen any yet. I am still waiting for some, if you have some.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, I see where you are coming from, but you haven't answered the underlying question - if IDCab's tactics are not wrong, and this is just the result of some Wikpedia Review/Moulton echo chamber, then why is only this alleged cabal being crticized, and we don't hear similar complaints about other Wikiprojects involved with controversial areas? You don't think there is any kind of problem that needs fixing here? Is everyone complaining a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Moulton or Jinxmchue? Kelly hi! 19:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually if you listen carefully, there are lots of complaints about a Global Warming cabal and cabals advocating mainstream medicine in the homeopathy articles and the chiropractic articles. And I am sure in many other areas. I have personally edited some racial articles, alternative medicine articles and intelligent design and creationism articles (as well as in global warming a little), and the complaints always arise and are almost always the same. That is why I created the User:Filll/WP Challenge to highlight some of these. And from what I hear in other controversial areas, the complaints are the same. Look into some of the paranormal areas, for example. The differences in the case of intelligent design are (1) a well funded advocacy group that targets Wikipedia (see the evidence Durova presented at the Matthew Hoffman arbcomm case for starters) (2) Moulton is a well known almost professional provocateur on the internet, where he has been trolling for well over 10 years. At his last Arbcomm hearing, at least 4 other online communities where he caused terrible problems and disruption were presented; he was banned at several of these. And apparently quite a few others as well. And Moulton repeats his almost identical complaints that he used at "website A" 5 years ago and "website B" 3 years ago, except that he makes these same complaints, with the same language and everything, against Wikipedia. Moulton is not complaining about the paranormal on Wikipedia; he is complaing about the ID Wikiproject. Moulton is not complaining about homeopathy on Wikipedia; he is complaining about the ID Wikiproject. And there you are. It is all pretty obvious, really.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, I will admit that I have read some of the recent Wikipedia Review topics on WP:ID members. I took with me a healthy degree of skepticism. I personally think ID is hogwash, what I was interested in was the conduct of the members of that group. Moulton did even comment in some of those WR threads, and when he did his comments were irrelevant or ridiculous - I disregarded them. But when I followed the links provided, I'm seeing a definite pattern that, when any member of "IDCab" gets involved in any kind of dispute anywhere on Wikipedia, the other members of that group immediately show and attack the other party in the same manner as they would attack some creationist on the Evolution article. Are you saying this doesn't happen? Kelly  hi! 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You would see the same phenomenon at the 911 Conspiracy articles and the Global Warming articles and the Pederast articles and so on. It is called a watchlist. If you have a controversial article that gets a lot of traffic that needs to be answered or reverted or whatever, and it is on the watchlists of 4 or 5 people, guess what happens when a new vandal shows up at the article? Guess who shows up, over and over? Is a watchlist something evil?--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 22:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe if the ID people stopped tag-teaming and disrupting Wikipedia processes, they would attract less negative attention. I didn't even know they *were* ID people until the first ArbCom proposal was made - I just thought they were a group of people behaving shamefully and disgracefully and trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make some kind of point. I don't even read WR. The ironic thing is, from what I can tell, I think on the subject of ID itself I'd find more agreement with the people I'm criticising than with their opponents - I'm very much an ex creationist and have quite jaded views on religion after a childhood steeped in it. Orderinchaos 06:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was not in relation to ID-related articles (I haven't even looked at the editing there) but in various other places, like Requests for Adminship and the Admin noticeboards. Looking over the Jim62sch arb case, the root issue there was not even apparently associated with Intelligent Design (or maybe tangentially so, it's hard to tell). The tag-teaming and disruption is not just a result of people having similar articles on their watchlists. Kelly  hi! 08:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a gratuitous assertion, based on zero evidence. Where is your statistical analysis showing that the ID Wikiproject is any different in this respect than any other group of editors with a common interest?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IDcab is just too cute a name not to use. I hope than when an ID cabal is formed they use it.  Then they can duke it out with the RRScab (reality really sucks cabal).   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So we know (some of) what we are talking about, LaraLove was nice enough to provide a list of some on-site edits (at a location off-site, but i won't list it because doing so might be interpreted as a personal attack!) that might be interpreted as supportive of "white pride," without being supportive of all those messy negative connotations:


 * |August 25, 2007 - Talk:White pride - the_undertow "...white pride is not inherently racist, nor is black, brown, gay or purple pride... how ironic that wikiproject discrimination is quoted as such: White pride is a term generally used to imply racism, while black pride usuaully does not imply racism. That, in itself, is discriminatory."


 * | January 24, 2008 - Talk:Stormfront (website) - the_undertow "...A cursory review by the average person does really lead one to believe that it is a white supremacist website, because a large number of members adhere to that doctrine. However, the site, is for white pride, which is far different. Now admittedly, there is a slippery slope between pride and power, but if we are to be accurate, it's a white pride website, regardless of the number of extremist users."


 * |January 25, 2008 - Talk:Stormfront (website) - the_undertow "All nationalism is, and should be treated as the same. Either all nationalism is racist or none of it is. I'm not buying that I can't be white pride without being white power. Racism is not inherent to any one race."


 * |January 29, 2008 - Talk:Stormfront (website) - the_undertow "...As far as my comment - I asserted that white pride and white power are different. That is backed up by the two distinct articles as well."


 * |07:20, March 26, 2008 Edit summary - the_undertow (for all that think that white pride is equal to white power, go read. go fuckng read.)


 * |Edit summary - the_undertow 21:39, March 30, 2008 White pride‎ (Undid revision 201979754 by Yahel Guhan That would be OR. White pride is not equal to white supremacy.)

I am limiting my evidence gathering to what Lara already uncovered on this account, because the user behind it is already gone. I could provide other diffs from some of the other principals that are still active, but all the content I could gather amounts to what seems a sincere defense of "white pride" from certain administrators that apparently still enjoy widespread support from vast sections of the community. However, i don't think they or anyone who may have made similar comments here or off-site is necessarily racist... they were extremely stupid to support this guy, and the way they went about defending him by carrying on his arguments seemed pretty bad... but i can choose to ascribe this to naivete, as it is the only way i can even begin to approach "working with them" at all in any way on any project on this site. Ameriquedialectics 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is really really pushed to the nth degree, this will get very interesting. I am hoping that people come to their senses before that however.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeals Review Panel

 * "Rbj's 2007 community ban is to be reviewed either by the Arbitration Committee, or the newly formed Appeals Review Panel, and any relevant findings posted publicly for the community."

Er.. did I miss something? There's no Appeals Review Panel, and now I got all kinds of questions about the why and who and how and when. --Conti|✉ 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See also: Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Appeals Review List, which was announced here, on AN, and elsewhere. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems I really did miss something. Thanks! --Conti|✉ 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification submitted per instructions
FT2 wrote on top of Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin
 * Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration

Done so, please see Requests for arbitration. --Irpen 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding permalink since stuff sometimes gets removed from the ArbCom page as "stale" which I suspect might be the case here. This way, the record of the request made will be attached to this case, at least. --Irpen 21:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this, but...
First, I am SO neutral of a party, it's not funny. I know not of these people, but merely the rule of law.

Let's say I was walking down the street, and cops came up to me and said "you;re coming to jail with us...you've been found guilty of XXXX, and you're off to jail for 4 years".

My reaction would be "um...I may be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but you found me guilty of something?"

Wikipedia is a community, just like your physical community. We've already established that Wikipedia is *not* a democracy.

That said, let's not let Wikipedia become a military junta, or overall police state.

Everyone deserves due process of law. Failure to provide the SAME due process to EVERYONE is a complete violation of the rule of law. You cannot skip a step and justify it in natural law.

Now, I have no doubt this person will be back ... Wikipedia is addictive. Then again, so is "power".

Do not set a precedent that you would not wish seen applied to you. Bwilkins (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellently phrased! &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 00:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FT2 apparently acted unilaterally
It's clear FT2 acted wholly on his own, unilaterally, without the arbcom's consent in proclaiming this RFAR a done deal. Here FT2 claims unamious support in this matter on the arbcom: But Kirill contradicts FT2's claim of arbcom support:  This RFAR needs to be taken down and apologies issued to OrangeMarlin and Odd nature. If there's a real issue requiring arbitration, do it the right way. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill later stated that there had been discussion on Arb-L and at least some level of consensus. Let's wait and see how it turns out. SirFozzie (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you mean, let's besmirch my name, offend me, and leave all this shit out there, until something may or may not happen. If the table was turned on one of your favorites, you'd be complaining left and right.  So, the fair thing would be to remove all of this stuff, and do it the right way, so that I might respond.  One day, you need to be consistent in your standards.  My plea would be for you to be fair, if you can.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was fair to you before, and you decided your crusade trumped civility or other policies, OM. It's all right there in the evidence page... SirFozzie (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The irony is thick. LaraLove|  Talk  04:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean attack page? Not a single Arbcomm member has shown up to support FT2.  It is, pure and simple, an attack page.  Your idea of fairness is bit strange.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And not one has come in to back up Kirill's side of things either. It is being discussed. If it was a pure "attack page" as you put it, one of the several ArbCom folks who have already posted in the mean time would have taken it down, already. SirFozzie (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. So your default position is, of course, to allow the attack to stay.  Interesting.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Lara, the irony is thick -- you seem to be missing the salient points (secret trial, unilateral (unauthorised?) action) choosing to dwell on the less important points (OM stated his opinion, OM was snarky). Try to think of WP as a whole (i.e., the precedent being set, the public image) and not of your loathing of OM (or me, or Guettarda or ... well ...whomever).
 * SirFozzie: more or less ditto. When one focuses on personalities over the community one becomes a detriment to the community.  Trust me, Lara and Fozz, were this about either of you, I'd have the same opinion of the situation. HUA?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 05:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jim, I'm not speaking of the process itself being ironic. It's not. This is new, and obviously not the way to go. I was referring to No, you mean, let's besmirch my name, offend me, and leave all this shit out there. Orangemarlin got off light with the sanctions, and he'll probably get off with nothing after all this is said and done, but that line is ironic after what he's done to others. And him calling the evidence page an attack page certainly doesn't bode well for his defense. LaraLove|  Talk  18:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the "evidence" page is that it's one-sided, spin. Some problems have been pointed out by others.  I see some that haven't been addressed.  Presenting it as an "evidence" page gives this a level of legitimacy that it unwarranted.  (Evidence pages are usually full of both sides spin.)  Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lara, we're obviously getting nowhere: the issue is not OM's behaviour, it is the behaviour of either Arbcomm or FT2 (or both). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would definitely disagree with that - if Orangemarlin's behavior was beyond reproach, this would never have come up in the first place. Don't obfusticate, Jim. Kelly  hi! 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OM's behaviour was not beyond reproach. Neither is mine. You argument is very close to the Kafkaesque "he must be guilty, or he wouldn't have been charged" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jim, so you don't disagree with the sanction, just the process? I understand the disapproval with the process, at the same time I can understand the reasoning. No one has the community under control. Not ArbCom, not Jimbo, no one. Editors are getting away with disgusting (as it is so frequently referred to by those on all sides lately) behavior left and right. Shit, I've gotten away with some uncivil comments myself, but some get away with much more than others. Long-term bad behavior going mostly unchecked with nothing but hollow warnings, if that. And this isn't just speaking of OM, or anyone else in this matter... this is project-wide. I think, and this is just my observation, that ArbCom was trying to send a message that it's all got to stop. Surely we don't want a precedent set to where you never know if you're going to wake up one day sanctioned with no indication that ArbCom was even investigating you, but we also don't want to set a precedent that, for example, leaves Amerique thinking his behavior above is acceptable. Or for Filll to believe that spreading threats among repeated messages of "I've disengaged" is acceptable. There are editors in all areas using various pathetic tactics in attempt to get what they want. Perhaps it would be time better spent to start pulling together this so-called defense for OM rather than running in circles with flailing arms over this process. We know ArbCom is discussing the matter and will speak on it soon. So be productive in the meantime and prepare your spin and bring the missing context to the links that you feel have been taken out of context on the evidence page. This whole situation over the past few weeks has been nothing but one situation after another blowing up into epic fail. Change has to come. So what I think would be best is if ArbCom would just accept the previous RFAR and everyone get out what they need to and then judgment be laid upon us all, or, for the speedier route, just blanket sanctions dropped on the lot of us. I don't really care. I've learned my lesson and if I slip up again, let me be slapped around. That's fine. I've got no problems with taking punishment for my mistakes. I've certainly paid for a few this year already. LaraLove|  Talk  19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen, Lara. You said it better than I ever could have. Kelly  hi! 19:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lara and Kelly, with all this talk of "prepare your spin" you've clearly forgotten these little things we do here, namely assume good faith and act with civility. Please try to set your biases aside. . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * HEADDESK* (Evidence pages are usually full of both sides spin.) Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I'm using his terminology in response to his commentary. So either warn all sides or don't warn at all. Light, not heat. Keep that in mind.  LaraLove|  Talk  04:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad :-/ Just felt a bit too much prejudging before evidence fully examined, and "so-called defense for OM" doesn't read very kindly. Fully agree with warning all. Prefer to avoid idea of "sides" :) . . dave souza, talk 13:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started and stopped preparing a defense/ counterattack a half dozen times. Maybe I will again a few more times here. Oh, and while I think of it; please stop making snide comments about me. Thanks awfully.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * *if* people are getting away with unacceptable behaviour left and right then arbcomm can't help us: they just can't take that many cases William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, as soon as you do, sir. :) But seriously... I don't think it's snide. I'm quite serious. I don't think you repeating endlessly how you've disengaged while sprinkling threats of your wrath is acceptable. It's certainly not constructive, perhaps not uncivil or anything like that, however. But whatever you think is best. When I disengage from something, I take it off my watchlist and I don't go back. It's my opinion, and I think others agree with me, that if one continues to post to a page then they have not, in fact, disengaged. I guess it's a matter of tomatoes and tomahtoes (now, once again, FDA approved! U.S. tomato joke, sorry to the non-Americans. ).
 * William, thus my observation that this may be a message that it all must stop. Again, I have no idea, it's just a guess on my part. I work in a tiny area of Wikipedia, but in peeking around to other areas in the past few weeks and seeing discussions and such in en-admins, for example, I've gotten a glimpse into some other areas. Orangemarlin is certainly not the most uncivil character around, but it appears to me that he's been made an example of. So for me, it seems that there's more bad behavior going on all over the place (which is understandable as the project grows), there are too many admins overlooking the bad behavior, and it's more than ArbCom can take on in cases, so this may be the message for everyone to knock it off or else you may find yourself sanctioned. Is that fair? Well, Wikipedia has its own ways in a lot of ways, and this doesn't seem as extreme to me as it does to others. But then again, as someone who has presented evidence against OM in the past few weeks amongst the RFCs and such, I'm one who wanted to see some action taken.
 * As far as this process and whether or not it's a good one, I'm torn. I see the scary aspect, as I noted above, but I also think that if you've been warned multiple times by multiple administrators and even your friends and you continue to break policy, being told you have to behave or risk being blocked just doesn't seem that extreme to me. Even being assigned a mentor... it just doesn't seem extreme given the circumstances. But I get it, no opportunity for defense. There are good and bad points on each side. To have a full case is time consuming, it's full of mudslinging, quickly gets out of control. Hard to keep focused because people go for distraction and diversion. Statements taken out of context, bickering, and personal attacks. Anyone who watches ArbCases knows what I'm talking about. Just look at this talk page for an example. It's a hot mess. I think the best option is for ArbCom to contact the accused, for lack of a better word, and show them the evidence against them, let them have the opportunity to respond privately, and give them the option for a full case. That way, they decide if they want the circus or they want to deal with it their self. That seems fair, and much less dramatic. LaraLove|  Talk  03:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it better. Wikipedia does not handle this sort of situation well generally, and I think that process has generally failed us. ArbCom, we must remember, is the end of the line. There's a whole farm of process before it even gets there, and that's even if it does - there are literally hundreds of cases bubbling just below that level that ArbCom can accept but above a level the community should be expected to tolerate. The BLP ruling in the Footnotes case a few weeks back was ArbCom's first strike against insanity, this in my opinion is the second - although the delivery could have been improved, I respect what they are trying to do and I hope it goes some way to ensuring that it doesn't take 2 years to get rid of a single troll (note: not referring to anyone in this case, I'm thinking of unrelated situations I've seen unfold elsewhere) while said individual gets rid of dozens of good faith editors who could have helped us far more and when they do finally go, the previously vibrant article is a stagnant wasteland beyond redemption owing to the time and knowledge factors of those who remain. People say vandalism or poor fact checking are the biggest threats to Wikipedia - I think long term bad faith users are, we can block and revert vandals, but we cannot do the same for these guys who create a culture where point scoring behaviour becomes the norm and any sort of academic rigour disappears from the editing process. Orderinchaos 05:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you made it clear you were not talking about the subjects of this case, who are mostly keeping away racists, AIDS-denialists, and other radical POV-pushers. There is a reason their bad behaviour is tolerated by many editors. Until that is properly acknowledged, sanctioning them for the collateral damage is not fair. Also, I still can't get over the racism issues, frankly, given a choice between civil friendly racism and uncivil anti-racism, I hope the community realizes that we should prefer the latter. It is incredibly disappointing that people do not. Merzul (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This disgrace should be removed
This page is a disgrace. An editor being tried in absentia based on secretly collected evidence without the right to face the accusers, see the evidence, rebut it and present his side of the story. There is nothing in the arbitration policy that allows such cases. Thus, this is not a valid case unless the committee explicitly states otherwise (thus expressing its "respect" to the policy that governs the committee.)

On top of that the evidence was collected, presented and argued for by a sitting arbitrator who did not recuse from the case, but discussed it in the private list and drafted a decision.

I refuse to believe that the arbcom as a body considers this mockery a valid case and until the arbcom states otherwise, this page should be blanked or userfied to FT2's space (but not deleted.) --Irpen 05:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * At least 3 admins agree (link). But overturning (even the appearance of) an "arbcom" action requires the demonstration of an overwhelming consensus, I guess.  R. Baley (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It requires the due process that OM was denied.(BTW, re a post above, this is the real irony). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What "due process"? You are echoing Moulton, which I find ironic. Kelly  hi! 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If Moulton was given a secret trial that Moulton was not notified of, and Moulton was not allowed to present evidence in his defense, and then Moulton was just told the result, I think that would evidence of a problem. However, as I note above, that was not what happened to Moulton, was it?


 * I do agree with you in some respects however. Perhaps we should change our policies to require some minimum time for RfCs; 2 weeks, or 4 weeks, or 8 weeks. Perhaps each editor should be assigned a lawyer, or someone like a lawyer; that is, an editor experienced in these sorts of administrative proceedings. Nevertheless, Moulton's case followed the policies that existed at that time, and I believe still exist (am I wrong?). If you would like to change the policies under which Moulton's case was handled, which I believe is a worthy endeavor, then you should try to change those policies. Right?


 * Complaining about the policies applied to Moulton over and over and over does not do any real good, but reflects negatively on you. Changing the policies to improve them would be worthwhile. And it appears that in the case of what was done to Orangemarlin and Odd nature, many people see something about the policies that they would like to change. Or am I missing something?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not letting off the issue until this "process" or "procedure" or whatever sham name the Arbs want to try and justify it with or pass it off as is completely rescinded. I don't see how anyone can have confidence in the committee while this so-called "arbitration" remains in place. Ameriquedialectics 19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I argue below to have this case re-opened, but I'm starting to think this is a better idea. Extremely one-sided treatment of the issues involved. Merzul (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If this case is allowed to stand as is, then as far as I am concerned Arbcom have chosen to abdicate any claim to moral authority. DuncanHill (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Passed nem.con.
Odd, yes? Did anyone even have the chance to oppose? Never saw nemine contradicente used on WP before. And I get bitched at for using Latin. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of Latin is an almost sure sign that someone is up to no good, as you know, Jim. In all seriousness, nem. con. is both overly legalistic and unecessarily obscure, leading to an immediate impression that something might not be entirely kosher here. MastCell Talk 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * oh hey, can I say that to Jim next time he uses Latin and I have no idea what it means? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do. I don't think use of relatively obscure Latin is helpful, regardless of who may be using it. Pointing that out is not "bitching", though. ++Lar: t/c 05:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but it is prima facie evidence of power hunger... :) MastCell Talk 05:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Touche. :) ++Lar: t/c 13:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No one against the resolution =/= everyone supports =)  OhanaUnited  Talk page  18:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Striking my comments
I've commented over at the evidence discussion. I'll reproduce some of it here because I think it bears repeating, and I am worried that many people will get caught up so much in the gossip that they won't give the evidence section a careful read. I'll admit: I think that this sets a good example that the behavior shown by OrangeMarlin will not be tolerated. The Wikiquette and Twinkle incidents, in particular, are HIGHLY DISTURBING to the point of being blockable.


 * The June Wikiquette issue is focused on OM's repeated reversion of valid edits, deletion of the comments of the anon IP and calling them uncivil when they were legitimate, then requesting a block, and calling someone a sock -- those are HIGHLY DISTURBING. I don't see why Ludwigs2 is relevant to these major civility issues. Requesting a block seems especially crazy, and doesn't represent Wikipedia well. The TW incident, as recent as May, is similarly an example of extreme POV pushing and gaming of WP policies.


 * In my view, persistently spreading disinformation and then suppressing attempts to resolve the issues, reverting edits based on solid information, pursuing blocks based upon zero evidence -- these are capital offenses. There can be little defense to these problems; thus, I see why FT2 went ahead with this. Perhaps it wasn't done in the best way, but I can certainly sympathize. If these weren't so recent, allowing OM a defense would make sense. But really, the problems with this ruling have been blown way out of proportion. This just amounts to a stern warning for legitimately troubling behavior.

I don't think my comments were really valid considering that there wasn't a chance for OrangeMarlin to clarify and present his side... II | (t - c) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again missing the point. It's the secrecy not the outcome that is at issue.  I'm getting tired of the "Gitmo defense".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(in)effective secrecy and (in)effective sanctions
When secrecy is asserted for matters which do not obviously require it, and that secrecy is challenged by responsible people, the effect is predictable: the matter becomes much more public than it would have if carried out in the normal (semi)-public process. I gather from the "arb-com" statement that one of the motivations of secrecy was to avoid tying up the case with irrelevant and divisive arguments. Again, this case will be now so involved with other matters relating to the functioning of arb com and the community in general, that any amount of irrelevant discussion in the expected manner will seem very minor. And if OM deserves sanctions, they are much less likely to be effective now than if they had been proposed, discussed and promulgated in a way that m=people could have observed in the usual manner--he is much more likely to not change his behavior now, when there are so many procedural reasons. And the chance of the objections to the procedure carrying over into a result not ending in sanctions (even if well-deserved) is substantial. DGG (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely the point.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In general a very good point, but OM has already changed his behaviour for the better, and gave an undertaking to keep doing so at the ID RfC. I'd hope that others will also examine and improve their behaviour. . dave souza, talk 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. We should all try to improve.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, the easiest way to make these sanctions meaningless is for OM (and everyone else) to improve their behaviour. —Giggy 03:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is true. There's a much better chance of the full story being heard when it's more than one person investigating and interpreting the evidence, and there seems to be little reason not to do it all in the open. This could be helpful or harmful to OrangeMarlin. If diffs can be shown that OrangeMarlin was contrite about some of his behavior, then that's a significant mitigating factor. I think the WQA was the worst in that it involved dishonesty above and beyond incivility; Twinkle incident was somewhat dishonest; racism incident was childish. I'm not terribly worried about the dishonesties and disruptiveness because they were so blatant; what worries me more is the more subtle and clever instances that may go unnoticed. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Request
I would ask the committee that in the future legal Latin or Latin in general be kept to a bare minimum. This is the English Wikipedia, and this is not a court of law. I base this from the arbitration policy. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree so strongly with NonvocalScream on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with Latin being used, it offers an opportunity to learn something new. Besides, we use it in the real world every day: versus, quid pro quo, pro bono, et cetera, ad hoc, alma mater, id est (i.e.), vice versa, post mortem, etc.
 * Dear unsigned: I'm all for learning something new, but when I read an arbcom case, what I want to learn is what happened. Use of uncommon phrasing, use of foreign language phrasing, use of irony or elided phrasing... these all might be "learning opportunities"... but don't do it. Just don't. MAYBE you could let words that have entered common usage (such as alma mater) slide, but no novel usages or phrasings. Evidence, findings, proposals, decisions, remedies and the like should be phrased in clear, unambiguous, easy to read language. I expect no less from my arbitrators, and I prefer it from the community. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Learning Latin is ok by me. I'm a bit quirky about stoking English with Latin though. I've found it canny fogs as much as it lends shortcuts :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Overusing it would be bad, I suppose, but then I'm biased about Latin. I learned it on my own andam fairly fluent in it, so I guess there's a pride thing there.  :)  18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I understand. Knowing Latin as I do, I have a very strong, non-mainstream PoV on the whole topic so please do keep that in mind when I speak up about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Latin is much more appropriate in articles than in ArbCom cases. Here we just need things to be as easy to understand and concise as possible. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Common latin (like etc, vice versa, n.b., i.e.) are fine, but others shouldn't be used because it's confusing and unfair to those who're not latin-proficient.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  18:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the benefits of using Latin terms in law (and medicine, etc) is that a translation/interpretation is always available into your local language - the terms are used in courts (and hospitals [sometimes both]) around the world! My metacarpus is always in my hand (or my "main" in French, or "mano" in Italian), and my mea culpa is always my personal expression of guilt (or "coupable" in French, or "colpevole" in Italian Bwilkins (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please re-open this case
[Sorry, I haven't read all the n! threads on this issue, this may have already been stated]

This case should be re-opened and the Arbitration Committee should clear up the real issue with White Pride. Although I don't spend that much time editing, I do care deeply about the project, and the WMF is the only charity that I support. (It's not a big amount of money, so don't think of this as a threat in any way). My point is that I think of this project as a kind of "doing good", hence I take the values and attitudes that we as a community support very seriously.

(Where I come from: I was among other things beaten up by skinheads during high-school, and the fine distinctions between white pride and white supremacy were explained to us when me and my parents took actions with the school administration. For the record, it ended happily, the school must have told them something like "we don't care if you are, white pride and white supremacy, whatever, if that little kid should happen to come to us one more time, you are expelled..." because they never touched me again.)

A real arbitration case that also hears evidence on the potential racism expressed by prominent members of this community would be much appreciated. The evidence by User:Amerique, for example, should have been taken into account. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but racism is a serious matter, so it does matter what editors are fighting for. There are some cases when over-reaction is the right reaction!

The arbitration committee should make clear whether there were elements of racism involved, and how serious they were. That finding of fact would deeply influence the entire set of remedies. Thanks for taking this seriously, Merzul (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Or... this one-sided ruling should simply be deleted. Merzul (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion
If someone would care to unprotect the page, I would be happy to submit it to MfD. This is not how we do things here, and this decision should be thrown out post haste. -- Kendrick7talk 10:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should practice patience. There has already been an MfD. &mdash; Maggot Syn 10:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where was the MfD? DuncanHill (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not going to get deleted at this point. Can people stop jumping the gun and wait for the arbcom explanation? Viridae Talk 11:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How long? FT2 has been active since all this started (see his logs), other arbcom members too (including a fascinating discussion about science-fiction inspired usernames), "wait and see" has its place, but at least some indication of when they will have got their story straight would be nice. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SM is correct: there was an MFD but it was speedy closed. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin -- Kendrick7talk 11:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Science fiction inspired usernames? Viridae Talk 12:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One of our more prominent editors (active in the RfC) has adopted a new username and signature during these events, which led to an interesting thread on his newest talk page, in which one of the arbcom has been participating. DuncanHill (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that ArbCom are hammering it out in private before coming here to say what has happened. I think we should be clear on where they (as a whole) stand before making any rash assumptions or actions - which may look silly if they come out and say something which counteracts present assumptions. Orderinchaos 14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope they do this soon. I see Jimbo has asked again for patience and pointed out that a too hasty pronouncement might end up not solving the chaos... there is some merit in this, but I would say that arbitrators ought to be focusing on this to the exclusion of all else wiki related, until it's sorted out. Talking about usernames or even routine sock investigations seems not the best use of their time at present. We are all volunteers, yes, and we cannot dictate who works on what when and for how long... but I would think it is blindingly obvious that getting this sorted ought to be the highest priority for each and every active arbitrator. We placed our trust in them to do this and do it well. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has covered the most pressing issue, and made it clear that the secret "judgement" is invalid. The page is significant in working out wat happened, and potentially useful as a starting point for assessing the case that it was intended to make. .. dave souza, talk 15:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's ok with Orange Marlin, I'd appreciate the page simply being blanked, as now it has definite historical interest as the case that set off the Arbcom RFC. If he wants it deleted though, that's ok with me as well. Ameriquedialectics 16:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've been saying that everything should be blanked, deleted, and erased. In any other context, it would be considered an attack page.  And if this was about someone else, namely those individuals on this page who were gloating about this, I'd be at the forefront in saying it was unfair and should be deleted.  But that's just me. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just that at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence Amerique, Birgitte and Jaysweet and others have done excellent work on showing how shoddy the "evidence" is, which should be read by anyone still giving credibility to the simplistic assertions. . dave souza, talk 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC) amended, presumably superseded by this statement by arbs. .. dave souza, talk 16:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know that page was active. Seems the Arbs want to restart the case. If that's what they want to do, everyone should know going in that it's only going to get uglier. Ameriquedialectics 16:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo speaks
This diff may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Secretive hearings: Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin
Disclaimer: my sole encounter with Orangemarlin was highly displeasing. Some months ago he left an uncalled for rude message at my talk at one occasion. To the best of my recollection, I have never interacted with him before or after this incident. So I am submitting this request without any personal sympathy to this editor since I have none. Irpen 21:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Request submitted by Irpen. 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update, OrangeMarlin has delivered a very respectful apology to me yesterday. While I did not consider that old incident notable in any way, I think I should state this here for the record. --Irpen 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A question from Irpen
The ArbCom have recently published Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin thus establishing de facto a new precedent, the secret case heard entirely off-site with:
 * secret evidence submitted and studied completely outside of public view, general scrutiny and without the right of the editor to face the accuser and rebut the charges.
 * secret voting allowing arbitrators to cast votes anonymously and avoid comments and criticism.

My questions are:
 * 1) How the ArbCom sees this permissible under the current arbitration policy which only allows private evidence submitted under exceptional circumstances and does not allow completely secret cases even if part of the evidence is private?
 * 2) Am I correct to assume that this evidence was found, collected, assembled and presented to the committee by a sitting and non-recused from the case arbitrator who also discussed this case at the private list and argued for a decisions?
 * 3) Are we to see more of these in the future?
 * 4) Are there other secret cases now heard?
 * 5) Does Arbcom realize the chilling effect of this practice?
 * 6) What other surprises are we to see?

--Irpen 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A question from Cardamon
This edit, by arbitrator (Kirill, states "As far as I'm concerned, these announcements have no authority or binding weight whatsoever. "These announcements" apparently include Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin.  So my question is: --Cardamon (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin or is it not really an ArbCom decision?

Statement by Messedrocker
First of all,
 * Arbitration Committee statements are binding
 * Kirill says that the recent decision is not binding.
 * Therefore, it is not an Arbitration Committee statement, as they are binding. They're some other form of statement, involving the Arbitration Committee.

Also, I think the notes should be made available, albeit with redaction performed when sensitive details come afoot. That's how the courts in the States do it. --MessedRocker (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ghirlandajo
I'm not surprised that there are secretive hearings at all. It was during the hearing of the Digwuren case that I received multiple e-mails form the arbs asking me to draft a proposed solution. After I replied that it would not be ethical for me to draft a decision for them, I was found guilty of "incivility" for this edit which was not aimed at anyone editing Wikipedia. In disgust, I left the project for Russian Wikipedia. Having reviewed the recent cases, I see that the ArbCom has thoroughly disgraced itself with its repeated failures to deal with the IRC plague, which allowed certain unediting wikipedians to turn the IRC into a sysop farm, or an adminship mill, or whatever you call it. In three cases running, Arbcom has now picked and chosen what issues it wants to address and/or has created the case itself specifically to address an issue. In other words, it's changed itself into an activist agent rather than a review body. What a disgrace. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by hbdragon88
The way and manner of which the Orangemarlin case was decided isn't new. Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom was also decided in secret. It was also more extraordinary. The user was already banned and there was only one thing to consider – whether to unban the user or not. This case was a lot more complex and it was not normally opened with a request on this page like Nathanrdotcom was. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Badger Drink
So, let me get this straight. With all due respect to the parties involved, it seems that - to put this in a caustic, sarcastic nutshell - Mr. FT2 had it up to the proverbial "here" with something Mr. OrangeMarlin said, went off and wrote a boatload of (very well-written) text, sent it to a mailing list, there were highly advanced grunts of various sorts, and as a result of this process, an established editor is met with sanctions passed nem cot by a high-ranking kangaroo court, operating in secret quarters far away from the prying eyes of dangerous subversives. I was particularly amused with the bit over in Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence which read, "Actions that . . . deny [editors] effective recourse to dispute resolution . . . are completely unacceptable".

The last time something like this happened, it really didn't go over too well.

But hang on a minute - we're doing this to "avoid drama"! Ah, yes, the horrible evils of the big D word. A very vocal minority of people that dominate discussions around these parts tend to conflate the natural process of consensus-forming with "drama". It's a pity that this vocal minority takes such ridiculous - at times verging into "extremist" - measures to sidestep what they regard as "drama". It reminds me of my mother - bless her soul - who, for reasons best left unexplored, had a terrible aversion to a certain highway artery in the area in which I grew up. In order to make a certain simple fifteen mile journey, this wonderful woman would take a circuitous, twenty-five mile route, encountering all known forms of urban and suburban roadway evils, from traffic jams to dangerous high-speed intersections to the dreaded left-lane merge, in her quest to avoid a certain seven-mile stretch of road. Much like how my mother's route through the city took her through twice as much of whatever evils she wished to avoid, the actions taken by the "anti-drama brigade" tend to only create deeper drama - be it the BADSITES scuffling or be it the drama centering around a certain well-known contributor's talk page. I submit that the claims of "drama prevention" can be read either as an anti-social, neurotic aversion towards the very human pastime of heated discussion, or as some blatantly "catch-all" rationale to make sure a certain clique's opinions are the only opinions that will be considered. I suspect it's more the former than the latter, but anybody who denies that the latter describes the inevitable consequence of such measures should be briskly beaten about the head, neck, and nether-regions.

Regarding MessedRocker's statement
So, if it isn't an ArbCom decision, then what exactly is it? "A random sysop or two deciding to enact 'civility restrictions' on an editor of good standing, without input from the community" is the best I can do, but surely there's a better way to spin this?

Regarding hbdragon88's statement
As you seem to be saying, the NathanR case is an apple. OrangeMarlin is... well... --but I hope the ArbCom truly doesn't place Mr. Marlin's "naughty manners" in the same light as Nathan's behavior.

Badger Drink's inevitable conclusion
What a fucking disgraceful situation. Shame on you, FT2, for even thinking this could be deemed kosher, and shame on you, ArbCom, for your complete and utter lack of common sense. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback
There are two separate issues here: the secret hearing and the announcments by FT2 and Kirill.

There are precedents for non-public considerations of cases, and for quick actions by the Arbcom. Reasonable people can see the necessity for both. However the ArbCom should develop procedures for handling such cases. At a minimum, it should notify affected parties of claims made against them and ask for any exculpatory evidence. At the conclusion they should publish as much of the case as they can. Note that in both judicial deliberations (the U.S. Suprme Court) and in executive (secret) sessions held by ordinary committees it is standard to hold the final voting in public session or at least announce the voting results.

In the real world, the first thing that a standing committee does is elect a chair and a secretary. The Arbcom has no one who can speak for it with authority. Situations like this, where one member claims to speak for the committee but another denies his statements, confuse the community and lower the prestige of legitimate Arbcom announcements. I urge the Arbcom to choose someone as a chair, secretary, or spokesperson who can be relied upon by the community to faithfully communicate whatever Arbcom decisions makes outside of normal arbitration proceedings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well put Will. Fainites barley 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by BirgitteSB
I have serious concerns that evidence presented thus far in this case does not reflect a full understanding of the events it covers and also that it fails to present all these events accurately. I strongly feel that a confident decision cannot arise from this evidence alone. I urge the Committee to not certify any decision without examining alternative presentations of evidence in this case. I urge the Committee that if they ever need to try a case privately in the future to ensure that at least two people develop presentations of evidence in isolation and the parties concerned are at least allowed to review the presentations of their owns actions for errors and omissions before any decision is reached. These are the most basic requirements that must be met for the Committee to have any rational claim to confidence in it's own decision. However the greater the amount review that any evidence receives by disparate parties the higher the level of confidence that the resulting decision merits.-- Birgitte SB  23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Blueboy96
There are circumstances under which it is appropriate--indeed, necessary--for ArbCom to 1) hold an in-camera arbitration and/or 2) make a summary decision. This isn't one of them. What is even more troubling is that this was made without any opportunity for OrangeMarlin to mount a defense. The evidence appears to spell out unacceptable behavior by OrangeMarlin, but to deny him even a chance to defend himself is highly troubling, to say the least. The rationale for this action offered by FT2--which basically amounts to "We've heard this before"--is not even remotely convincing. Blueboy96 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kendrick7
"And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.

For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.

But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God." -- Jesus, Gospel acccording to John, chapter 3, verses 19-21, New American Bible.

Comment by User:B
Thank you to Charles for your explanation of events. It does, however, leave some questions unanswered. (1) What was the reason behind private consideration to begin with? (2) When you say "a number" of arbiters objected to private consideration, what was that number? If it was everyone other than FT2, ok, fine, but if it was 1 or 2 (both of which are also numbers) then that points to a severe lack of judgment on arbcom's part. --B (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion
The following is an official statement of the ArbCom on the matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of what went on
Orangemarlin was handled in a way normally reserved for serious socking. The matter is weighty with wide ramifications. Even so, a number of Arbitrators were in the end, and after review of the case, not convinced of the need for such summary implementation. This course of events could have been avoided by better use of internal ArbCom communications, and it is not going to set any precedent for the future.

Where we go from here (procedural details)

 * 1) The decision is not in effect and is vacated.
 * 2) The evidence cited by arbitrator FT2 now is deemed as the submission of a request for arbitration. The Clerk shall note the request on the main arbitration page and give immediate notice of the request to Orangemarlin, Oddnature, and other appropriate parties. The parties and other interested editors are invited submit their views within 48 hours regarding whether the case should be accepted, following which the arbitrators will then vote on-wiki on acceptance or rejection.
 * 3) If four or more net arbitrators vote to accept the case, it will be opened and considered on an expedited basis with the parties advised to present all evidence and workshop proposals within one week.
 * 4) If the case is accepted, the decision previously posted by arbitrator FT2 shall be considered as a set of workshop proposals and the Clerk shall post them as such for consideration and comment.
 * 5) If the case is accepted, it will be considered without presuming the correctness or incorrectness of any portion of the previously posted decision.

Comment on the ArbCom statement
I have to say that I find the "explanation" entirely unsatisfactory. As should be clear to anyone who reads the various noticeboards and talk pages, this is considered a massive fuck-up, with many experienced editors of excellent standing expressing a huge loss of trust. The explanation explains nothing. It's a minimalist description of what went wrong on the surface. It fails to explain why "the case was handled in a way normally reserved for serious socking". It's unclear what "the matter is weighty with wide ramifications" even refers to, or why it should be so. While I can understand a desire to concentrate blame in individual Arbs for what may be simple inattentiveness or a temporary blackout, I really want to know who had the idea of a secret case and how they could possibly think this a good idea.

As for the future: So after OM had been railroaded once the prosecution gets a week headstart in an "expedited" case? I'm willing to assume that nobody noticed this inherent unfairness, but I'm not impressed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That last bit lost me. Can you clarify? ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The new case is scheduled to accept community input for 7 days only. FT2's massive evidence section already stands. Picking that apart will take quite a while, as will finding new evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am particularly underwhelmed. No RfC? Expedited basis? Hmmm...--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the case is already a complete cockup. And FT2's "evidence" at this point is only "evidence" of his own apparent prejudice against Orange Marlin. And because of the whole "secret voting" aspect, the only way for these matters to ever get resolved is if the Arbcom itself basically recuses from them. Ameriquedialectics 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You said "It's unclear what "the matter is weighty with wide ramifications" even refers to". Perhaps it is related to Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Skilled content warriors and WP:IAR. What do we do with people who "do whatever they can" to help Wikipedia when they fight each other using "every means available". Arbcom just got done ruling that admins can be this way when the issue is BLP. The inherent drama-making in the current way we do things needs to be re-evaluated. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I was prepared to wait for explanations, this last "rush to judgement" and apparent desperate need to quickly reach some sort of judgement to "prove that FT2 was right all along" basically stinks. I am starting to wonder if I should not join the chorus of those calling for immediate serious actions against Arbcomm and Arbcomm members. Maybe that is the only way to get their attention. Something really stinks here, and by quickly trying to sweep this mess under the carpet, Arbcomm looks even worse. This is not going to go away.


 * I am now more convinced than ever that Arbcomm is not "getting it". Their performance frankly stinks and a lot of the community is not happy. How stupid does Arbcomm think we are? Does Arbcomm not realize that there is a reason that an RfC against them has been opened? Do they think if they just stonewall, it will all blow over? Just a few jerks and loudmouths and malcontents and troublemakers they can safely ignore?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This - Even so, a number of Arbitrators were in the end, and after review of the case, not convinced of the need for such summary implementation  rather avoids the issue of how such a summary implementation came to be made in the first place. I'm not asking for dislcoure of e-mails or anything asinine like that - but an explanation surely. The current procedure implies that ArbCom members do support FT2. If they did so at the time, should they just not say so and take any criticism of secret trials on the chin? Fainites barley 18:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Coverups are often viewed much more negatively than the original misdeeds. And this smells like a coverup.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Proceeding with this case seems like a rather poor idea given the current circumstances. Proceeding with it in an "expedited" fashion seems even worse. It seems more reasonable that ArbCom should close it at this time, and not consider reopening for at least 30 days. In the meantime, there are indeed many questions that should be answered, starting with some rather pointed questions for FT2. Furthermore, it would seem minimally reasonable to expect recusal from FT2 in this case as there is a very strong appearance of inappropriate personal engagement and unprofessional conduct. Doc  Tropics  20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll second that.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it's arbcom that needs to be on trial here, anything that orangemarlin did pales in comparison.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's also not forget that FT2 (or whoever he/she is) sure as heck better come up on full trial for their one-sided actions against another user in this manner. The number of pages of rant/comment show the issue, and the evidence speaks loud and clear - this needs to be a separate kangaroo court, specifically focused on this one individual's actions against another. Bwilkins (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the rush?
After FT2 spending almost a month on preparing the case, we now have a new RfAR "The parties and other interested editors are invited submit their views within 48 hours regarding whether the case should be accepted... If four or more net arbitrators vote to accept the case, it will be opened and considered on an expedited basis with the parties advised to present all evidence and workshop proposals within one week." That's a really short time to do the proper amount of analysis and preparation of evidence on a number of incidents. And I came here to edit articles, with the 150th anniversary of publication of Darwin's theory just tomorrow. Orangemarlin isn't a big hazard to the community, and even less likely to be uncivil now. Why the rush? . . dave souza, talk 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's advice based on the current state of affairs. If the situation changes as evidence is posted (presuming the case is accepted), then different advice may be warranted. --bainer (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, dave, wouldn't it be nice if this was quickly resolved? It means it is the highest priority to give OM a fair trial. A mistake was made, and it should be quickly amended. As bainer says, you could request more time, if after seven days, there really is more evidence forthcoming. My point, expedited is not necessarily a bad thing for OM. Merzul (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience is that it takes a lot of time to prepare a thorough analysis of an incident, this involves several incidents, one going back about 9 months. And my reading is that FT2 only put up a selection of what s/he thought was the best evidence. Of course if the arbiters have already made their minds up, that would be a lot of work for nothing. . . dave souza, talk 19:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that ArbCom has lost the trust of the community and should not hear this case until/unless they are able to regain that trust. Whether or not this perception is true, their handling of the case up to now leads logically to a suspicion that the whole purpose in opening the case and expediting it is so they can publicly rubberstamp FT2's precipitous pronouncement to show solidarity in the ArbCom,   rather than an honest commitment to giving OrangeMarlin a fair hearing.  Until the community can have confidence that the case will be heard without prejudice as well as in the open, the case should not be opened. Woonpton (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that there is a majority of Arbcom who agree with what FT2 said and believe that they already know what the defense will be and so unless something unexpected pops up, they believe they already know what the conclusion will be. I'm not on Arbcom, and yet I think I know what the arguments for and against will be, so why shouldn't arbcom? It is only fair to play it out though. There are sometimes surprises in the fourth quarter (US football).WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And one at least has already voted to accept the case - ignoring the 48 hour window for community input - which shows just what an open mind he has approached the new request with. DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say I am even more disturbed by this development than I was earlier. At least if there was one rogue arbitrator, you could sort of understand. Or a communication problem. But this current action is after all the arbitrators have been put on notice that something went wrong. This is after an RfC has been opened against Arbcomm, basically an unprecedented development and a definite sign of displeasure of the community with Arbcomm. This is after Jimbo has been called in, again probably an unprecedented action, become involved and made comforting statements contrary to this current "rush to judgement". I am just befuddled. What the heck?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm trying to keep up but I don't see where the arbiters signed off on the secret case. Would someone please direct me to the location of this information?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough
This statement still leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm willing to assume good faith and take this as a simple act of egregious misbehaviour by a soon-to-be ex-arb. If that's the case, then the rest of the committee needs to come clean and say so. If that isn't the case, if the rot goes deeper, then we need major reforms in how the committee works. These are basic changes that need to be dealt with before the committee even thinks about considering this case. We need to establish that the committee still has the moral authority to hear this case.

The first thing that needs to happen is that FT2 either resigns from the committee or is expelled for it. He has blatently abused the trust of the community. He has deceived the community. He has been severely disruptive. And he has been utterly unapologetic. Someone like that cannot be in the arbcomm, he cannot have access to the committee that is unavailable to ordinary members of the community, and he cannot be trusted with Checkuser. FT2 has used his position to pursue a vendetta. He has made false claims on behalf of the arbcomm. This is far worse than pretending to have a Ph.D. Until FT2 is completely off the arbcomm, the committee must be considered tainted.

Secondly, we need a full accounting of how something like this could happen. The committee is not allowed to take cases on its own. So how was this matter even raised? And if the matter was being discussed, why did no one notify OM? FT2's deception of the community is only the most egregious offense. How did it even get to the stage where he could claim it had been discussed? Why did the rest of the committee tolerate this sort of behaviour?

Thirdly, the "solution" is totally inadequate. The so-called decision is vacated. We knew that already. But there's no way that the case can continue as normal. If FT2 wants to re-file, he has the same right to do so as any other member of the community. NONE MORE. And, like any other filer, his behaviour must be subject to the scrutiny of the committee as well. Odd Nature has quit because of FT2's lies. The hubris of saying "you have 48 hours to defend yourself", and then a week (a holiday week, no less) to file evidence... No way that is acceptable. This still smells like a kangaroo court. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have a policy on personal attacks. Did you post it in this section for some reason?  Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I must be missing something. Where exactly was the personal attack? If you have a good example, maybe I can use it for my list.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that WAS meant to post it somewhere else. Guettarda (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The comments from ArbCom above are cryptic to say the least - but nowhere has it yet been said (that I've seen anyway) that ArbCom did not support FT2. The assumptions made about FT2 in the above post are currently unwarranted and are certainly extreme enough to constitute a PA though given the nature of the discussion I can't see that that is of particular importance right now. Personally I have never had cause to doubt FT2's integrity and I am still waiting for an explanation from ArbCom - which seems an unecessarily long time in coming.Fainites barley 19:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that either FT2 wasn't telling the truth or Kirill wasn't. It's pretty clear from the statement that it wasn't Kirill.  It's also pretty clear from the statement that FT2 wasn't authorised to post this statement.  Hence he used his position to deceive the community.  That is an abuse of his authority and a clear betrayal of the trust of the community.  That part is clear.  The rest is unclear - how deep did the rot go into the committee?  Did they tolerate this egregious behaviour and unwarranted extension of their authority?  No idea.  And that needs to be dealt with before we move forward.  We can't have people on the committee who are betraying the trust of the community.  After FT2 has left the committee, after the committee has sorted out the roots of this problem, then they can move forward.  Not before.  Guettarda (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF would dictate that FT2 believed he had authorization and consensus to post what is, admittedly, a secret trial with no defense from the accused... which raises the question of what or who gave him that impression. If it's bad faith... well, that seems unlikely. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, asssuming good faith, FT2 had good reason to believe that the current Arbcom organised this corrupt and unacceptable secret trial. Now they want to speed through a "retrial" when they appear to have already decided the verdict. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a very strong appearance that FT2 has exceeded the reasonable bounds of an individual arb's authority and acted in a manner that can be only described as woefully unprofessional. So unprofessional in fact, that his very fitness to continue as an arbitrator is called into question. I am not declaring that he should be immediately recalled from his position, but I will say his actions should immediately and publicly be reviewed and explained, in full, with loss of position being a possible outcome. The fact that, as a group, ArbCom's first public reaction seems to be an attempt to gloss over FT2's impropriety and continue punishing the victim is not at all encouraging. It would be best to close the case against OM and clean up this mess before you do anything else. Doc  Tropics  20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're right, there. Note the statements by multiple arbitrators to the effect that they believe it was a failing of group communication.  I should think they'd be willing to ask an incompetent arbitrator to step down, if they felt that was what had happened--and the fact that, faced with the opportunity to scapegoat, they strenuously avoid doing so, suggest that this was simply what it is on the face of it, a laudably rare bureaucratic fuck-up by arbcom. --Jenny (recently changed username) 21:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (I'm posting this later, after several other comments, but placing it here for continuity)
 * Jenny, I definitely didn't say that FT2 is incompetent and I didn't mean to imply that; it doesn't represent my opinion and I'm sorry if I communicated poorly. What I think is that he made a single collosal blunder that is going to have significant ramifications. I've only just now read jpgordon's apology and that certainly clarifies things to a certain degree. However, it doesn't really change the basic situation. Look at it this way - if FT2 were a samurai in feudal Japan, he'd be almost certainly be down on the beach, looking out at the waves and preparing for ritual suicide right now. That's the level of fuck-up we're looking at here, and at that level you only get one chance. I don't think it's too extreme to suggest that the best thing FT2 could do would be to voluntarily step down and seek re-election next time around (assuming he's still interested). I know that I personally would have the greatest respect for him if he did. Doc   Tropics  00:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what your Samurai comparison is intended to convey. We're not a cut-throat bunch, and errors are expected.  FT2 is just one arbitrator, and doesn't have to shoulder any responsibility alone.  It's the only major fuck-up we've had in about four years and it happened to him.  I'd agree that he should probably take a back seat in future actions on the Committee, at least for a week or so, but asking him to step down doesn't seem appropriate somehow.  It's disproportionate to the problem caused. --Jenny 01:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, if you will compare your initial post with Doc's above post you will see a difference. That difference is why I perceive a personal attack in your post but not one in Doc's post even though you two are trying to communicate pretty much the same thing. If you can not see a difference, then that would explain a lot. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't read that possibility in the arbcomm's response, but I realise now that it's there. Kirill said there was no vote, and no one has contradicted him.  Not even FT2 (as far as I can tell).  So that appears to be factually accurate.  So what do we have?
 * Someone raised the matter.
 * Did they present it as a case? If so, they broke the rules under which the arbcomm operates.  If someone did this, we need to know, and we need assurances from them that it won't happen again.
 * There may or may not have been discussion
 * What were the parameters of the discussion? Was it discussed, or did the proposal just sit there "nem. con."?  Was it discussed as a case, or just as an "issue"?
 * Perhaps someone proposed a solution
 * If so, who did so? It's a big problem if people are discussing illegitimate cases as cases.  This is unacceptable behaviour.
 * No one objected - but apparently there was no vote
 * Again, we need to know what happened in order to determine how to proceed.
 * FT2 posted a decision which may or may not reflect the proposal that was made.
 * This seems to have been presented as a "misunderstanding". Was it a misunderstanding about how arbcomm cases are decided?  Did FT2 make the mistake of assuming that silence = consent?  Did FT2 make the mistake of assuming that something that could not be a case actually was one?  Or did FT2 simply make the mistake of assuming that the people who backed him privately were going to back him publicly as well?
 * In posting the case, we know that FT2 either ignored or was unaware of two fundamental issues - that the arbcomm can't act without a case being filed, and that it can't use secret trials just because it doesn't want to have to deal with "the other side". An arb who doesn't know policy or choses to ignore policy shouldn't be an arb.  It's a fundamental requirement for the job - that you either know policy, or consult policy if you don't know it.  If you don't do that, you lack the most basic qualifications.
 * Unfortunately, this isn't the whole story. A lot of questions remain.
 * What about the rest of the committee?
 * Whoever took this on as a case has violated the trust of the community. Anyone knowingly participated in an illegitimate case has violated the trust of the community.  Anyone who knowingly participated in a secret trial has violated the trust of the community.  These people must come clean about what they did, and apologise to the community, otherwise there can be no trust.  And we need to trust the arbcomm.  Guettarda (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, someone (an arb I think) said that the procedure arbcom used in this case is the same procedure that they use for the worst of the sock puppet cases. So the case was not illegitimate in the sense of a case being created, accepted and resolved through means that are not already standard. FT2 is new to Arbcom and maybe he did not know that that procedure was only to be used in very exceptional cases like that and certainly not to be used in cases of established contributors. Please AGF. We all make mistakes. I do think we should reduce his pay by 50% though. :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on what Charles said, there are conditions in which the arbcomm ignores the policy under which it operates. That's reasonable, under exceptional circumstances.  As you point out, FT2 is a relatively new arb (it is the end of June though).
 * Anyone running for the arbcomm must know policy inside out, so assuming that FT2 was ignorant of the policy under which the arbcomm operates isn't a reasonable assumption.
 * Charles referred to "serious socking" as the type of case the committee takes on its own and deliberates about in silence. Over the course of a few years you might deal with enough cases like this for it to become "normal".  But in 5-6 months?  You may have dealt with a few.  If that's all it takes for you to forget what policy says, then you aren't suitable for the job.
 * The most important thing though is that FT2 is still (last I've seen) insisting that he didn't do anything wrong. What he did was wrong.  It's against arbcomm policy.  He was called out by Kirill.  His decision was declared unacceptable by Jimbo.  And the committee voided what he did.
 * FT2 has not (to the best of my knowledge) acknowledged his wrongdoing, let alone apologised for it. I find that shocking.  That alone is clear evidence that he's unsuitable for the job.  Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen FT2 say clearly that he isn't in a position to discuss the affair freely because it's still in discussion on the mailing list .  I don't see any recent posting by FT2 saying he didn't do anything wrong.  In the light of that, might I ask whence comes your shock? --Jenny 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It being discussed in secret doesn't in any way stop him saying "I screwed up - I am sorry for that, and hope to be able to explain what went wrong soon". He is certainly succeeding in bringing "new levels of transparency" (I think that was the phrase) to Arbcom's business. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually if you think about it, the private discussion may have the effect of gagging him. Speculation either way would not help here, let's just be patient and recognise that this is an unusually sensitive matter that wouldn't be made better by public arguments between arbitrators about who within arbcom bears the blame. --Jenny 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have thought about it. If he didn't make a mistake then of course he couldn't make the sort of post I suggested above. DuncanHill (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that doesn't get us anywhere. That he hasn't yet made a given statement does not imply that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong.  That's a simple logical fallacy. -Jenny 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no way he could not have known that his actions were wrong. The Arbcomm should have policed itself and addressed the issue immediately.  Obviously, the arbcomm cannot police itself, so the question of their reliabiility as arbiters is raised.  Delaying and stalling by FT2 and.or the Arbcomm helps no one.  While some situations may fade in time, my prediction is that this will not.
 * Essentially, Arbcomm needs to, at the very least remove FT2. They need to discuss the problem openly.  They need to propose fixes to the community.  They must guarantee that this type of action will never occur again.  Finally, they need to restore their credibility.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, I obviously agree with pretty much everything Guettarda said. "leaves a lot to be desired" is putting it more than mildly. If the arbitrators think this statement could just mark the end of it, that's just preposterous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I agree with FPAS and Guettarda. This is beyond depressing. It is a revolting example of official fudge. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom failures - this and VU parallels?
Why is it that we seem to have systemic failures with the process (or is it with the members?) that see the POV pushers rewarded and the content pushers pushed out of the Community? There are some disturbing parallels between the haste and failure of due process of this case, and VU's. How many more will there be? Shot info (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * VU?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a former editor whose name must never be uttered by mortal men, just referred to as "Vanished User". DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. If you notice, I have made plenty of allusions to the "VU" situation on these pages.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll is referring to the temporarily desysopped admin in the Matthew Hoffman arbitration, who has presumably exercised his right to vanish. Filll has raised the Matthew Hoffman case before but having discussed it I'm really not clear why he regards this as an example of a failure by the Committee. --Jenny 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That former admin is currently an active editor under a new account. I decline to name the name, but it is getting to the point where it wouldn't be very hard for anyone investigating to figure out the new account.  If they really want to keep the new identity unconnected to the old, their editing habits are betraying them.  Maybe one of their friends could whisper this in their ear, so we don't have another Kittybrewster mess to clean up.... GRBerry 15:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that comment was helpful. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is fruitless to come back under a new identity but then start behaving recognizably like the former account. There is no absolute 'right to vanish', and certainly not unless you indeed VANISH - which means, not returning.  Certain things will be removed as a courtesy, but there is no guarantee that people won't be able to work them out - and remember, any content that was in place at database-dump time is likely irrevocably out there on mirror sites.  If you terminate an account for being honestly fearful for your safety, then return with an identifiable new account, you are taking a crazy risk.  Anyone who's likely to care enough to hunt you down won't be stopped by such a move.


 * Of course (and this is NOT a comment on this particular case) some people's true intent is to wipe their reputation clean with a new account, not genuine privacy concerns. Draw your own conclusions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And as to responding to the original post; the problem as I personally see it is that some editors become convinced that, because they are "on the side of right", they are permitted to behave badly towards other contributors who they decide are wrong.


 * This is a false and incorrect view of Wikipedia policy and will sooner or later draw sanction. Less quickly than for other editors, perhaps, because many admins will cut people some slack if they feel that they're working for a good cause, but eventually. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think all editors believe they are on the side of the right, the exception being trolls of course. That would include all who behave uncivilly as well. So it shouldn't matter their particular causes. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. I am positive FT2 still believes he was and still is "right". And many of his fellow Arbcomm members do as well. And they are not quite understanding what went wrong.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * FT2 believed in good faith that he had consensus for what he posted. Communication errors happen.  This reminds us that we need to be better about (a) checking for consensus, and (b) communicating disagreement clearly.  This is a collective responsibility, not an individual one.  FT2 is no more to blame for it than any other active arbcom member.


 * It was a mistake to post a decision about a user as 'For the committee ...'; such decisions should be placed on the Wiki for an open vote by the committee in future.


 * Orangemarlin's behavior over time is clearly problematic and changes must occur. I'm interested to see whether he is willing to do so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What I consider FT2's failing alone is that even with real unanimous ArbCom support he individually should have seen that this act was entirely unacceptable and should have refused to post it. I would expect such a sense of justice and such a backbone from any arbiter. You cannot have a secret trial in absentia. Instead, as far as I can see, he initiated the investigation, collected the evidence, presented it to the committee, (mis-)judged consensus, and posted it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I could say a lot about this, but I basically agree that the lack of understanding of the inappropriateness of this ruling, and then the post facto attempts to justify it and provide validity for it are very disappointing.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 00:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Morven, I see in your comment, as well as in others from Arbitrators, acknowledgement that FT2 should not have posted "For the committee..." but the overwhelming sentiment I see from the community (and I include myself in this) is that FT2's work should not have progressed so far in the confines of your mailing list. Certainly as much discussion can take place as you like, from here to judgement day.  But when actual actions, conclusions, decisions start being collected it needed to come onsite.  It's not merely that Orangemarlin should have known before a vote took place, but that he and all of us should have known the case was being considered.


 * It's also been said (by FT2 I believe), that several users, via e-mail, requested ArbCom look into OM's behavior. I would offer that this strains the scope of ArbCom's policy to "hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus." Taking up this case and moving so far along with it without the input of the community doesn't allow us the chance to form any sort of consensus.  Please understand me, this isn't about the righteousness of a case against Orangemarlin - I'd have supported FT2's views in the form of a RFC or normal RFAr.  This is about the manner in which things occured.  This is about FT2's announcement, and everything the went on before it.


 * I can't speak for everyone, but I don't want FT2's head for this. I think he's been one of the best arbitrators this year.  I would like to see more discussion with the community about what happened, and where things went "off the rails" as it were.  We need to reach a consensus on that before we go on...because right now, many arbitrator's statements aren't even lining up with Jimbos sparse comments on the matter, and that shakes people faith in the process.   FT2's official comment is all about Orangemarlin, and did little more than inflame things further.  --InkSplotch (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Then perhaps it is all of Arbcom who should be issuing an apology for the mess? Rather than FT2 solo? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Going back to Morven's point that "some editors become convinced that, because they are on the side of right, they are permitted to behave badly towards other contributors who they decide are wrong": That is undeniably a real phenomenon. I'd like to see some consideration of the flipside. The level of support for people who actually maintain the encyclopedia in a state of relative accuracy and respectability, and who deal directly with the unending onslaught of agenda-driven editing on high-profile topics, is utterly pathetic. It is human nature that when dealing with the 100th consecutive obvious agenda account, one will not be as patient as when dealing with the first. The lack of support, and the haste with which people jump on individual slip-ups, contributes to a ferocious burnout rate among people who do the hard work of driving this encyclopedia to be a respectable, cruft-free reference work. They get more and more curt, bitter, cynical, and uncivil. I don't think I need to list examples of this phenomenon, as they are legion and high-profile. Orangemarlin has expressed (on his talk page) a willingness to do some soul-searching and change his approach, which is great. I'd like to see some parallel consideration of whether the underlying pattern can be addressed, while ArbCom is in a mood to propose expansive measures. MastCell Talk 01:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MastCell you have hit the nail right on the head here. There are parts of Wikipedia that are under constant attack; alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, racial topics, creationism, pseudoscience, the paranormal, etc. And editing articles in these areas is very different than editing an article about a type of strawberry or an article about a town in Yorkshire. The tools and support that editors have in these areas is sadly lacking. Many ignore these pleas, or claim that there are no problems and those complaining are just chronic malcontents or worse.


 * In fact, a crisis exists in these parts of Wikipedia. The standard tools and methods don't work or cannot be used in these areas for a variety of reasons. That is why I started User:Filll/WP Challenge, so that more people could get a look at the types of problems that arise in these areas. That is why User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing exists. That is why User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal was created. There is not just one editor complaining about this. There are not just a few dozen editors complaining about this. There are literally hundreds of editors, with extensive experience on Wikipedia, and substantial outside education and experience. Some of these are senior admins. Many have produced large amounts of featured content.


 * We either correct our inadequacies, or we will have more problems like this Orangemarlin case. It is that simple.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I really can't support this. Yes, we do need to investigate conduct problems such as the systematic use of subtle methods to push a fringe point of view into a position of more prominence than it should have, but in the meantime it isn't as if we cannot discuss what they're doing openly on Wikipedia and agree that the problem exists.  Once that's known we can handle the disruption in the usual way.  The arbitration committee can help us because it has lots of experience with similar conduct.


 * It breaks down often because few people edit those articles, I agree, and often we'll have honest differences among ourselves about the importance of discussing fringe science and pseudoscience in general scientific subjects (see for instance the discussions on Talk:Nylon-eating bacteria where I seem to be in a minority of one in suggesting that referring to discussions about the bacteria on creationist and anti-creationist websites is undue weight). Sometimes we just have to accept that consensus discussion is not always going to make a decision with which we can all feel comfortable.


 * I don't know the Orangemarlin case, but it seems that there is prima facie evidence of inappropriate interactions on-wiki by that editor. That kind of conduct doesn't help to write the encyclopedia and it's that, I think, that Morven refers to when he says that being right doesn't excuse disruptive behavior.  If we're right, we also owe it to Wikipedia to be polite. --Jenny 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Responding to Filll) I'm glad you mentioned User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing, Filll. I posted three sections there (on the talk page) with questions that have gone unanswered for over a week. Would you or someone else be interested in moving that debate forward? An important point of NPOV is being able to write calmly about other points of view. Those that are too deeply entrenched in a particular point of view are often not the people that are best suited to write about the other points of view that exist for a particular topic. The crucial point is that this applies to all sides in such conflicts. This doesn't mean that fringe views shouldn't be reduced or excluded per WP:UNDUE, or that the mainstream view shouldn't form the main part of most of the articles on the topic, but it does mean that those who write about fringe views should be chosen carefully, with both uncritical supporters and vehemently critical opposers excluding themselves by reason of the strength of their arguments. What is needed is mediators who have the ability to remain uninvolved, and who can still guide the article editing as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I had not noticed any new postings to that page but I will go look. It seemed to have calmed down considerably in the last little while and I think any new ideas or suggestions are very welcome. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom still apparently claiming that they did hear a case against OM, and claiming that they have sanctioned him.
This still says that case was posted with the agreement of the committee. Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the arbs just forgot to remove that section, since it's not mentioned in Charles Matthews' schedule. You might want to poke him about that. --Conti|✉ 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Hmmm....--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I did ask on the talk page, and Charles has edited the announcements since I asked, without addressing this issue. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He has reduced it to a link to the case page. --Jenny 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand this
"We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). That would be the kind of "secret trial" that has been alleged. We do not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a). We shall make it a rule not to have such matters tracked this way in future, but the core of the problem can be said to lie in this point: trying to specify a completely rule-based system here failed us."

I actually do not understand this. I mean, it is a collection of English words but they make no sense. Please could the arbcom re-write it in clear, meaningful English. DuncanHill (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I thought it was just me. A little more clarity would be welcome. --Jenny 11:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony/Jenny, I saw your interpretation on Charles's talk page, and what you said there certainly makes a lot more sense than what was posted by arbcom. DuncanHill (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Charles has confirmed that I have the interpretation of the report about right. --Jenny 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have commented there also inasmuch as I was also too "dim" to comprehend this pronouncement, and am not entirely satisfied with it now. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He is correct that the wording isn't vague. It's specifically meaningless. --Reuben (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the second point confirms what Jimmy Wales said about the business, and puts it accurately into its proper context, it actually can't be "meaningless". Charles Matthews (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You should not compound your failures in logic and clarity with yet more non sequiturs. Really. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is the lack of clarity in the out-of-order (b comes before a?) statement that starts this thread being deflected to a totally separate statement made by Jimmy? As for the point "it can't be 'meaningless'" that would be a fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam".  Sorry, but the comment presupposes that statement (a) must have meaning because of the alleged authority of statement (b).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"The arbitration committee has issued this final report"
I am sure it has. Was it agreed unanimously? Was it nem con? Given that a major recent problem was in part a result of a lack of clarity on this very point, could arbitrators sign the statement to say that they agree with it please? DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a statement of and by the committee as a whole, which does not work on a basis of requiring unanimity. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, though, I was one of many who agree to it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Confused
What does this mean? "We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). That would be the kind of 'secret trial' that has been alleged. We do not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a)." Arbcom thought I was engaged in serious sockpuppetry? OK, I'm really lost. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Sockpuppetry is just one example where we handle cases like that. Another would be promotion of pedophilia, but we didn't want to use that as an example because people would connect your name to that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet another example is when there is some serious privacy issues involved and there seems to be none here either. So, what yet other reason the arbitrators thought present hear warranted this secret hearing? --Irpen 19:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not "yet another" at all. Privacy isn't a valid reason for summary actions, under (a). It might well be a reason to have a case under (b), or to treat some evidence as confidential. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what confuses me. I didn't engage in anything illegal, I am not a sockpuppet (although I might have set up several accounts similar to this name to keep people from causing confusion, but I don't remember), and I'm running out of situations where it should be secret.  Given the fact that much of the so-called evidence was a bit contrived, or downright incorrect, it would seem a secret hearing did nothing but embarrass ArbCom, me, and the project.  So, I'm back to my original point.  Why the in camera hearings?  If I were the only one requesting this explanation, I'd email you.  But it appears that I'm not alone, and I am confused.  Still.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear that, as usual, an attempt to short circuit normal process to avoid drama merely increased drama. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2's stated rationale for the in camera case was that Orangemarlin is so uniquely disruptive that the Committee could not be bothered to "endure" allowing him to present a defense. They did "consider" emailing him, at least, but even over email Orangemarlin was considered too dangerous to be allowed to know of the case ahead of time. Here's the diff. This is somewhat remarkable, in light of the hideous mudpits which ArbCom case pages are routinely allowed to descend into, and in light of the disruptiveness of editors routinely allowed the courtesy of a defense, but before revisionism kicks in it's probably worth going back to the original rationale for secrecy. MastCell Talk 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, good, I was trying to find where FT2 posted that rationale on-wiki. It made no sense to me at the time, but I didn't object loudly enough; I have no excuse other than being inattentive. After the "case" was posted, I did feel that it was pretty blatantly wrong to prevent someone from participating because they might defend themselves vehemently. Hindsight is cheap. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I must have been engaged in a dark pushing of WP:RS and WP:VERIFY on science articles.  I'm evil like that.  :)  I guess for the time being I shall await a "report" from Arbcom before demanding a revolution.  Or that Arbcom buys a round of drinks for me.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll buy that round, but you'll need to come to Kernville to get it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify whether you're buying it on behalf of the Committee nem. con., or in an individual capacity? :) MastCell Talk 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, if it was the Committee, we'd offer the drink in Las Vegas instead. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummmm. Las Vegas vs. Kernville?  I'm sorry, but I'm getting screwed here.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well perhaps it is time to get rid of secret trials all together, even for suspected PPAs. I get the feeling that El_C's solution adopted last year seems to have opened the flood gate for many of these secret trials. Face it, the slippery slope that it put us on came to fruition. Just by looking at the ArbCom RFC, it is clear that the community is prepped and ready to tear the walls of your walled garden down. Stop rationalizing why you must do things in secret, people aren't buying it. Maybe it is time for the community to shutdown your secret wiki, too? --Dragon695 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds neither realistic nor sensible. Most people accept that ArbCom does need to do some things "in secret", or at least discreetly enough that every wrinkle is not dissected ad nauseum. The question is why this particular case required such handling, and why Orangemarlin was not even notified of the existence of a case or asked to respond to it off-wiki. MastCell Talk 07:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "PPA" is intended to mean. However there are two actions that arbcom needs to do sometimes.  One is summarily boot somebody off (like when an admin account runs amok and the password is thought to be compromised).  The other is hold a private case.  The private case isn't what people mean by a "secret trial" because all involved get a change to see and comment on the evidence.  The summary action is just a sensibe reaction to a situation that couldn't really be handled any other way.  So no, apparently no secret trials.  The Orangemarlin case looks like a straighforward one-off goof (I'm not aware of any similar cases, ever). --Jenny 08:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that in even a 'normal' case you didn't necessarily get to see the evidence against you if it was sent to the mailing list. So I'm guessing you don't necessarily in a private case either, unless that has extra safe guards that a normal case doesn't have. Or have I got this all hopelessly confused? 87.254.72.195 (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire process is hopelessly confused. And we still have no idea regarding how Arbcomm plans to address the process of the FT2 cock-up.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Still don't see what it was about OrangeMarlin or his behaviour that put him under a). Looks like a perfectly straightforward set of allegations that could have gone through the normal public process to me. I've certainly seen worse. Why can't ArbCom collectively just say "whoops" and "sorry". Fainites barley 20:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is Jim, they're not going to address FT2's "mistake" because they considered it a minor issue that's been answered by the final statement on this (whoops, forgot to sign) SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean like the minor mistakes of the Volksgericht? This was hardly a minor mistake.  The use of nem con. seems to prove that FT2 knew very well what he was doing.  (Realistically, you should check out some of Jpgordon's comments, they're very enlightening.)  More to the point in your case is why you continue to try to defend the indefensible.  Let's pretend that the FT2 and OM roles were reversed.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And we have Godwin Sign, proving that conversation is indeed over :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Reputation for care"
This is exactly what we don't care about; we care about judgment, not "care". You still haven't worked this out properly, arbs. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We know. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what, may I ask, are you doing about it? And how on earth did you wind up investigating\auditing your own conduct and procedures? And why is this labelled "final report", when it can be nothing of the sort? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're working on it. Do you want us to act overly hastily? Again? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. I just got - justifiably - confused by the phrase "final report", which I took to mean that, as far you were concerned, this was all wound up. Apologies. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)