Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence

Spelling
Not to be pedantic, but To be pedantic, I don't think "yimself" is a word. It's in part 7. WLU (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Procedural question
I am correct to assume that this evidence was found, collected, assembled and presented to the committee by a sitting and non-recused arbitrator who also discussed this case at the private list and voted for the decisions? --Irpen 01:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill's statement that this was discussed on Arb-L and had some level of consensus, I would think that would be correct, however, it does not look like a formal vote had been taken. That is probably one of the matters under discussion now. SirFozzie (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie, please leave my question to be answered by someone in the know. You can make your guesses, I can make mine. FT2's own response would be best but any other member of arbitration committee can enlighten us better than you (or me) on this matter. --Irpen 05:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Concern about this section
Hello there. I have some concerns about a particular section of this evidence regarding a Wikiquette Alert about Orangemarlin to which I responded.

I am somewhat troubled that my name was mentioned (albeit only once, and in passing) in the Evidence for an RfArb, but until the (highly controversial) decision was announced, I had no idea that incident was even being considered as evidence by the Committee. I suppose in many cases it would be impractical to notify/consult with every single person mentioned in one of these cases... So maybe that's not big deal, but in any case, it was a weird feeling, seeing the entire community simultaneously freak, and then as I'm reading to see what all the fuss is about (thinking I am uninvolved) suddenly saying, "Heeeyyyy... that sounds familiar..."

More importantly, however, I am concerned about a disturbing lack of context with the Committee's findings regarding that Wikiquette Alert. The section in question includes these sentences:


 * The section includes Jaysweet and Ludwigs2 endorsing the concerns. Odd nature defends Orangemarlin (who doesn't comment) by responding "That's a personal attack, Ludwigs2" (it isn't).

On the surface, this is mostly true. However, it fails to acknowledge a number of key points. The most important is that not two days prior to this issue, Ludwigs2 had filed a WQA report in regards to OrangeMarlin and. Ludwigs refused to provide diffs, and in reading the talk page he pointed us too, I saw absolutely no civility issues by OrangeMarlin in that particular case, and while there was an allegation by ScienceApologist that I felt was unwise, I felt he did not breach the borderline of civility. In short, Ludwigs2 had filed a frivolous report.

When I saw the other report against OrangeMarlin, the one examined by the ArbCom, I expected to find another frivolous accusation, but in this case, there seemed to be some merit. I didn't feel OM had crossed any bright lines, but I didn't feel great about how he had comported himself either. I stated as much, and then recused myself from the thread because I felt I would have difficulty being neutral.

Then Ludwigs2 jumped in with a full assault. Much of what Ludwigs said was generally valid, but it was clear that his motivations were to attack. This wasn't a neutral editor responding to a Wikiquette Alert; this was someone who had a very fresh beef with OM looking for another angle of attack. That is when OddNature jumped in with his questionable defense of OM's actions.

The WQA is still relevant, and I do believe that the issues raised by the WQA, as well as the conduct during the WQA itself, did not reflect well on either OrangeMarlin or OddNature, just as the ArbCom's evidence says. However, the ArbCom seems to imply that OM & ON were stonewalling a neutral investigation, and that is a false characterization. The Wikiquette Alert was tainted almost from the point it got started, and certainly before OddNature showed up.

To omit any of this context from the "Evidence", and plainly mention that "Ludwigs2 endors[ed] the concerns", shows that, at least in this case, the Committee was commenting on a situation they didn't fully understand. --Jaysweet (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your statement that "much of what Ludwigs said was generally valid" is telling. I've found Ludwigs2 to be fine, and your smearing seems unnecessary. You haven't shown a motivate to attack at all; in fact you've provided no diffs or any evidence whatsoever. A look at the situation shows exactly what FT2 has described. OM is being plain abusive, alert is raised, Ludwigs2 notes that this is a repeat occurrence, and Odd nature comes in to backup OM with gaming of the civility policy where both proceed to call the IP a sock without basis. You say that Ludwigs2 has a motive to attack, but it seems clear that his motive was rather to shed light on an editor's repeated etiquette issues. Calling people socks is uncivil, inflammatory, and highly common among what Ludwigs2 calls "OM's clique" and what you seem inclined to think is a part of "battling "fringe POV-pushers".


 * The Wikiquette issue is focused on OM's reversion of valid edits, deletion 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.

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. My comments are based on invalid because they are based on a biased presentation of the evidence. II | (t - c) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without going into details just yet due to time constraints, the evidence section presents a clear and open lack of understanding of context, and the problems of incivility should have been open to examination and discussion to correct that lack of understanding before reaching a decision. Whether or not the outcome would be different, this failure to abide by reasonable and fair procedure undermines the credibility of the arbiters and makes the "ruling" moot. .. dave souza, talk 09:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Impln asked for diffs. Here is a permalink to the complete WQA that Ludwigs2 raised about OrangeMarlin and ScienceApologist.  Here is a permalink to the conversation that caused Ludwigs to raise the alert.  Note that, as I said, SA does make an allegation that Ludwigs may have a COI in regards to alternative medicine, and while I don't think it quite breached civility, I thought his phrasing was ill-advised, and I told him as much on his talk page.  I see no personal attacks by OrangeMarlin in that thread.
 * Maybe I have mischaracterized Ludwigs2, and if I have, I apologize. However, these facts remain, which I think are relevant and yet were ignored by the ArbCom:
 * While I did express concern with OM's behavior that led to the WQA, I also expressed concerns about the IP who raised it, and basically said I just wasn't sure what to make of it. "endorsing the concerns" is sort of a strong phrase for that position.
 * The only other editor who the ArbCom noted as "endorsing the concerns" had filed a separate WQA about OrangeMarlin very recently, which resulted in no action.
 * Regardless of the individual merits of each editor, I think it should be relatively uncontroversial if I say that OrangeMarlin and Ludwigs2 almost always find themselves on opposite sides of the argument.
 * Like I say, the WQA was still relevant to the case. And, even though I question Ludwigs motivations, maybe he wasn't wrong, either.  But I stand by my statement that the ArbCom's treatment of that WQA was severely lacking in context. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, the issue at hand is the secrecy. 18:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
 * I'm mostly bitching about my connection here because it is a concrete manifestation of the cost of the secrecy. If the Evidence had been compiled in public view, it's likely I would have heard about it at some point, and would have tried to make sure the incident in which I was tangentially involved was couched in the appropriate context.  Since it was conducted entirely in secret -- even kept secret from many of the involved parties -- there was no way for the community to vet the evidence for accuracy. --Jaysweet (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jaysweet, but this context you keep raising seems to be mainly empty rhetoric. Thank you for pointing out the diffs; please try to use them in your opening next time. They show that while both sides were involved in a heated debate, ScienceApologist and OrangeMarlin seem to be on the less civil side of it. SA accuses Ludwigs2 of having a conflict of interest and of hawking alt. medicine with no evidence -- that is uncivil rhetoric. If you have evidence, you can accuse COI, if you don't, then you need to can it. Vested interest and COI are different things -- we all have vested interests. If you disagree with me here, you need to respond with reasoning. I note that you say on the WQA alert that Ludwigs2 seems to display uncivility; generally, I think accusing people of uncivility without specifically referencing it is itself uncivil (note:I am identifying this as uncivility by yourself, although it was couched nicely). You actually note the COI attack I raised, but you say "SA based it on evidence" -- no evidence is available. It is remarkable that Ludwigs2, a new user, seems to display a better understanding of policies than many experienced users (let's resist the urge to scream SOCK now). Look at this section (permalink) on Ludwigs2's talk page. Compare OrangeMarlin's tone to Ludwigs2. Also, I would agree that you didn't really notice the problems at the OrangeMarlin IP WQA, which surprises me, and thus it is a bit of a stretch to say that you noticed the problem. This is a legitimate point, but I'm afraid it weighs negatively against your judgment.

The context raised by BirgitteSB, however, is significant. You should avoid rhetoric, as it makes it more difficult to follow the real issues. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't feel what I said is rhetoric, I feel it is my honest view of what happened. I didn't provide diffs initially because my wife was yelling at me to get off the computer.  I apologize for that omission.  Anyway, we've both made our case, complete with links now, and people can judge for themselves based on that.  I've said everything I have to say about this, I just kinda resent the "rhetoric" comment. :( --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry; if it makes you feel better, much of my paragraph is rhetoric as well! It's a necessary evil. Rhetoric is just words used to interpret (spin) evidence... I still think that siding with ScienceAplogist's conflict of interest allegation when no evidence was presented, and then saying that Ludwigs2 was uncivil when he seemed perfectly civil (and providing no diffs) is a bad approach. You seemed fairly calm and rational, but I can't agree with your conclusions there. Also, I'll admit that I think I misunderstood and exaggerated the gravity of some of OrangeMarlin's misbehavior. II | (t - c) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for examining this openly, II. The whole "evidence" page is framed to exaggerate the gravity of Orangemarlin's behaviour, leading to such misunderatandings. No one is claiming that he has never been incivil, but this cherry picking of incidents spread over a pretty long period and misrepresentation of the incidents to support claims of continuing "bullying" is being used to justify remedies which in my view are completely disproportionate. That's why a balanced and careful examination of the full allegations is needed befire any sanctions are imposed. . . dave souza, talk 06:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Evidence Itself ...
Is written in the most disgustingly subjective manner possible, almost as if it were written for a prosecutor in a B-movie. Of course, in this case it appears that the prosector was also one of the judges, and the defendant was never in the courtroom. It's also extraordinarily selectiveand staged, and also utterly wrong on at least one point which I will not go into for reasons of privacy. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to finding out if FT2 mostly wrote it and, if so, who appointed FT2 prosecutor, Judge and Jury, with a license to operate in secret. --Duk 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just began looking at the diffs in the first (racist) section there are parts where Ibelieve he clearly misunderstands what OM intended. FT2 inaccurately gives equal weight to OM opinion as given when he was venting with the opinion given when he was calm.  FT2 quotes a redacted statement without clarifying that it was redacted. But the most clear example of incompetence I found so far in the is in Part 6 where he declares "Orangemarlin was told not to engage in personal attacks . This was a template message, but even so his response was... inexcusable ". Here is the context.  A user User:GusChiggins21 receives his sixth block. Sandstein responds to his unblock query stating he thinks the block (1 month) too long and asks how he will behave if unblocked. OM responds I don't agree with you Sandstein. In fact, an RfC needs to be filed against this editor, since his behavior is not useful to the project. Why do you waste your time with editors like this? Did you not read his edit warring at Objections to evolution? Raul was getting tired of the WP:TEND|tendentious editing. And when Raul's block was brought up to AN/I, there was substantial support. Let this user rot in Wikipedia Hell for the full length of time. Then Sandstein gives OM a standard "No personal Attack" warning Please see Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No personal attacks|no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocks for disruption. Please Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.  Considering OM only commented on the user's conduct rather than the user I have to sympathize with OM's first instinct of What?????? How dare you. He follows with the less appealing Oh by the way, since you don't like swearing, let me proceed. Fuck. Shit. Ass. Damn. Hell. What the fuck ever. Meh. I presume this is because he believes the warning was issued for his use of the word "Hell" in the absence of an actual personal attack.  BTW this is all on his own talkpage.  I cannot understand why FT2 would declare this exchange "inexcusable" (I would call it "unappealing") or why he believes it is part of the evidence on racist issues. An above all there is, what I can only presume to be, FT2's omission of looking into whether the warning was well-founded or debatable before judging the response to the warning.  In any event I seen enough problems (and I only looked over the first section) to feel certain that this case needs a full hearing with alternate presentations of evidence.  FT2 simply isn't competent enough in terms of investigation skills and accurate presentation of evidence to base a decision off his work alone. (And for the record, to approve of using only a single person's work I would have to see an extremely high level of competence in these areas.  Humans are quite fallible things individually, even if they can manage great work as a whole.  That is a key concept of this whole project, please don't dispose of it easily or often..) -- Birgitte  SB  22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting, mitigating context. The redaction is not much of a redaction, but I'll admit I could see myself stating similar things to OrangeMarlin -- I certainly withhold my right to oppose RfAs based on people's questionable personal beliefs. I also have little patience for people who continually edit war. Unfortunately, I have even less patience for dishonesty, and dishonesty is what I see in the WQA and Twinkle case, which appear much more damning -- abusing edit summaries, deleting comments, trying to get people blocked/desysoppsed. These things seem much more serious than the racism case. There's obvious incivility in these cases, but it goes beyond incivility. But pretty much all of the cases appear to exhibit drama and instability deserving a stern warning. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to look at other section of evidence yet. However, I am not asserting that the decision in this case is incorrect. Rather I think that the presentation of the evidence is flawed and therefore there can be no confidence in a decision based on this presentation.  Frankly I believe in the vast majority of cases, when someone is in Arbitration they either did something wrong or failed to do something right pretty regularly.  I have no doubt that the parties in this case deserve a stern warning.  However they are very likely to disbelieve the validity of such a warning or any other remedies when the only evidence against them is presented in a flawed manner such as this. It is much more effective when the parties can clearly see where they went wrong what was most inappropriate.-- Birgitte  SB  02:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I have now looked over the Twinkle section of evidence (see the Workshop page for my analysis). I found clear edit-warring, misuse of Twinkle, and personal attacks (some where later taken back and some not).  However I think you need to re-think the complaints against deleting comments, dishonesty, and trying to get people de-sysopped. (Unless that is covered in the WQA bit)  Deleting comments from your own talkpage is not really worth mentioning and I truly believe claiming he called for MZMcBride to be desysopped is blowing a talkpage rant far out of proportion.  That comment does not deserve serious consideration here, in my opinion. As for dishonesty, I just don't see in the Twinkle case.-- Birgitte  SB  04:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That was covered in the WQA bit mainly. I'm not sure, actually, whether the comments were deleted from the article talk page -- I sort of got that impression, but after glancing around, I'm pretty sure it was just OM's talk page. His refusal to dialogue on the issue, instead deleting the questions, is uncivil but not dishonest. The pursuit of a block seems in bad faith; however, I'm not sure how far he took that. You're right in that I may be exaggerating the dishonesty and egregiousness of these incidents. But trying to get the anon IP blocked to forward his POV and not dialoguing is still quite troubling -- more on the civility level. OM accused the anon IP of being a sock -- and then, when another user asked him for his evidence (diff), OM said ":Your questions are rude and insulting. Support the sock, or don't. I don't care." (diff). If he doesn't care, then why is he wasting people's time? II | (t - c) 05:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just looked through WQA (before reading you reply) section which is pretty confusing. OM edit-wars with an IP who is removing info that is accurate but misattributed. OM suspects this IP is a banned sock and basically fails to assume good faith and is dismissive of his edits and concerns. And the IP turns out to the sock of someone who edit-warred with OM in the past but isn't banned? Do I have that right? Sorry I don't have the time to dig this out like I did for Twinkle. As above I still don't believe the deleting of comment on your own talk page is worth mentioning, the formal recommendation on the issue is actually quoted in this evidence. While the edit summaries are bad, I can still attribute it to sloppiness rather than dishonesty. Frankly I think he had decided this IP was a banned sock who was removing accurate information from an article and OM wasn't going to give him the time of day and probably felt pestered by the guy, so he was being careless with the edit summary. This is all poor behavior on OM's part, but not necessarily dishonesty (unless I am missing something). This all could have been prevented if he hadn't edit warred in the first place, which he absolutely must stop doing on articles as well as user talk pages. I am also not impressed by his approach here, nor his overall judgment (he definitely should have looked into the issue himself and also listened to HiDrNicks concerns no matter how certain he was about socking). However I can't believe he didn't honestly believe the IP to be a banned sockpuppet vandalizing the article by removing accurate info, even though such a belief was inaccurate. BTW I haven't really looked at the Oddnature bit. (after reading the above reply) I think the IP was a sock. I presume OM felt the IP's style to be familiar and was just too lazy to bother investigating exactly who the sock belonged to.  I presume he "didn't care" to do the work of proving the IP was a sock and wanted to simply report and have the admin at SSP deal with it.  It strikes me as a poor attitude more than dishonesty.   Certainly the sort of thing I would be concerned about in an admin, who might actually block someone off a gut feeling and not do the proper supporting evidence work.  But I don't know how I would want to sanction a non-admin for filing a report at SSP and the being uncooperative in following up on the report.  In this case I believe the IP he reported to SSP (i.e. trying to get blocked) was in fact a sock of someone OM had encountered before.   So I don't believe we can say he was seeking a block based on bad faith. I think it is plausible he saw something in the manner of the IP that he recognized. Certainly I would like to see better communication and more conscientious evidence gathering when making accusations.  And above all the edit-warring needs to end. But I don't know that it is as bad as you made it out to be above.-- Birgitte  SB  06:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a very perceptive reading of the case. As I mentioned above, I Was There(TM), heh, and that's almost exactly what I thought at the time.  --Jaysweet (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I just had a very perfunctory look at the section headed "part 1" and was immediately concerned that the evidence is presented in a subjective and misleading way. What struck me was the way Orangemarlin's comments were "interpreted". This is all I read but it's presentation is completely biased:

"Orangemarlin also asked user:Slrubenstein for advice [3]. Part of the request stated "I might be over-sensitive to racism of any time, but everything I've read from the ADL about White Pride, is that it is [racist] ... The ADL, which is oversensitive at times, says it's a code-word for racism ... What do you think?" In other words at the time OM wrote that initial comment, OM  1. knew and acknowledged he was over-sensitive to racist words,   2. cited as a source, a website that elsewhere 1 hour 22 minutes later, he stated he knew to be a source that was itself "over sensitive" to word usage and the like. He had sufficient uncertainty that he did in fact feel the need very shortly after to ask further advice on what to really think. (And then asked Jayjg as well.)"

The summary of what happened is completely inaccurate. Orangemarlin did not know and acknowledge he was over-sensitive to racist words, he said "I might be over-sensitive to racism". So he's asking Slrubenstein his opinion, he's asking for another person to comment on whether he (OM) is being oversensitive in this situation. This level of introspection and self awareness in unusual in Wikipedia editors (who tend to be opinionated) and should be taken as evidence of maturity and not criticised. The second point is no more accurately summarised than the first. Orangemarlin didn't state "he knew to be a source that was itself "over sensitive"", he said it is "oversensitive at times". Therefore he's asking for a second opinion regarding whether the source is being oversensitive in this particular situation. Asking for advice regarding one's sources and one's behaviour from an experienced editor that one trusts is evidence of maturity and wanting to do the right thing, if more Wikipedia editors were as prepared to examine their own fallibility as Orangemarlin, then this would be a nicer place to edit. The way this is summarised is not supported by the quotes provided and the summary is extremely misleading it is not an accurate summary of what Orangemarlin actually wrote. Is there some agenda here? Alun (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The most important evidence
Every reliable source supports the notion that OM is right about White Pride being a racist code word. I spent hours looking for a contrary view in reliable media, and all I found was Charlton Heston, who naively asks: Why is "Hispanic pride" or "black pride" a good thing, while "white pride" conjures up shaved heads and white hoods? Richard Cohen responds in the Washington Post, and this is worth keeping in mind, if you wonder about double standards: "The answer, of course, is that people who proclaim "white pride" often have shaved heads or wear white hoods."

There is not much more to say on this issue. I know that some editors, who defend white pride, are not racist; but it is ridiculous to punish OM for over-reacting, when he is clearly right: white pride is a racist term. Honestly, is there any respectable source opposing this notion? Where do people get this idea that white pride is not racist?

The fact that this was not acknowledged makes it very hard to tell OM that he was still wrong in many aspects of how he went about dealing with racism. Thanks to this pseudo-arbitration, there is little hope in OM actually seeing what he should have done differently. Merzul (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the racism issue was the most important, but it seems maybe FT2 thought so. The question is: if someone identify themselves as racist, does that give you free rein to vilify them on Wikipedia and turn it into a battleground? Of course not. The idea is ludicrous. From the version presented by FT2 suggests that OrangeMarlin took brief comments, and especially off-wiki statements, and then used them on-wiki to conduct a campaign against a "racist". This is unacceptable. Do you have diffs of OrangeMarlin apologizing for this behavior and recognizing that it was unacceptable? Do you have diffs of similar behavior from the offending "racists"? ImpIn | (t - c) 01:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, if someone identifies themselves as racist, and nobody here was offended or over-reacted, then I would leave the project. Having said that, I actually agree with many aspects of what FT2 is writing here, and the WQA episode is serious, but let's be honest, Arbitration is the biggest battleground of them all. The problem with certain editors is that they battle, and OM needs to realize that being a good guy does not mean (as Arnold Schwarzenegger movies teach us) that we can kill people because they are "bad guys". So the problem is turning things into a battle, well, is our response then to fight back as hard as we can, or is that too maybe just part of the problem? Merzul (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're constructing a sort of strawman picture -- many people might be offended, and you can certainly calmly state that. But elevating it into a huge drama episode is childish and unnecessary. People's racist beliefs speak for themselves. What's worst is that we can't be sure that "white pride" is racist -- the movement does leave with me with a bad taste in my mouth, but we cite and report. We don't need to spin and hurl vitriol. The white pride page appears balanced, especially with the Ingram commentary, which could even be moved to the lead. The WQA episode exhibits more than just battling -- it's flat out no-holds-barred POV-pushing dishonesty. A valid edit repeatedly reverted, comments deleted, and then an attempted block -- all because OrangeMarlin wanted a recognized false quote which supported his POV to stay in the article. The Twinkle episode is similar, but seems less sinister but more childish. Admin tries to make what she feels are valid edits and OM calls her a troll and POV pusher, and ends with OM putting up on his talkpage "Well Krimpet is a little POV warrior". The irony is that OM has this edit summary when he calls for desysopping: "This place is just filled with vindictive, childish people" (diff). As far your comments about battling: if someone is adding unsourced content, or making legitimately POV edits, you can keep reverting, and reverting. It takes hardly any time. I don't think you can make a "means justify the ends" argument here. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is indeed a mistrust of unfamiliar editors and a quickness to conclude that anyone defending the wrong POV are up to no good. Some mitigating considerations, the source that the IP used to dispute the quotation is a well-known creationist blog, so I assume OM reacted habitually, rather than deliberately trying to keep false information. I agree that this is a problem, but I'm not making a "means justify the ends" argument, what I meant was that the problem with OM is combative behaviour and I consider how people are trying to amend his behaviour as equally combative and counter-productive. I've been on the opposite side of OM and Filll in minor disputes on ID at least three times now, and I don't approve of all they do, but this is the wrong way to go about amending it. For things to improve, they themselves need to realize that something is wrong, not aggressively being shown this by other people, as this only further deepens the us-vs-them mentality, which is precisely the core problem. I hope my position is more clear now. Merzul (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You know things are wary in the world when I will agree with Charlton Heston, a character that I personally despise. One of my runs with OM was regarding his attack on H2O calling him a racist. And I still think that his comment should get him a long term block. Calling someone a racist out of the blue, and canvassing his "fellow members of the tribe" (on his own words) to support his descriptions is absurd. But I will agree with everyone above that the tone of the evidence is very disturbing and so unprofessional that it is not even funny. Samuel Sol (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Another bad content judgment
This is very very bad:

"Whilst I am not an expert on the Intelligent Design field, Wikipedia is not a battleground or soapbox. Neutral point of view actually requires all significantly-held views to be reflected, with a balanced of due weight for fringe or non-authoritative views. (Due weight would also mean including that these are not widely accepted, or authoritative rebuttals if applicable, should be given when doing so.) In this case there are other views worthy of note in the debate, that apparently do not say "ID is religion". This post gave me considerable concern, as it suggests that just maybe, Orangemarlin does not understand (or games) NPOV, itself...."

A decision based on evidence like the above will not be taken seriously by OM, and I think rightfully so; or is there any reliable third-party source backing up the view that ID is not religion? I'm not aware of any. Merzul (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On a more philosophical note, IMO Wikipedia's response to popular psuedoscience, such as ID is right now, is a litmus test for whether we can uphold WP:V and the true meaning of WP:RS, or if we will descend into Wikiality. Yes, there are a bazillion sources touting ID, and some of them aren't even that fringe-y.  But are they reliable?  I argue they are not.  If our interpretation of WP:UNDUE means we have to present ID as serious science just because a sizeable fraction of the general public has been duped into believing it is serious science, then Stephen Colbert is right, and Wikipedia is about the dubious goal of democratizing reality. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of the resentment around ID and other woo comes from editors who think the coverage looks unfair, and find it hard to understand NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" in addition to WEIGHT. These policies provide an essential safeguard against Wikiality, but implementing them is often met with the sort of accusations that lie behind this case. .. dave souza, talk 15:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by third-party? In the ID debate, nobody can be truly third-party. Either one is against it or for it. I'm sure there are many scientists who say that ID is a science; therefore, are they no longer third-party? In something like this, it is best not to state either group's position as the fact. We can say that prestigious scientific organizations have concluded that ID doesn't really make scientific sense, and that it is pseudoscientific -- but does that mean it should get the pseudoscience category, or be factually stated as pseudoscience? I don't think so. These cosmological theories are loose and unscientific to begin with. In my view, there is legitimate reason to believe that reality appears intelligently designed -- mathematics looks too much like a programming language, and biology is just too efficient. It would not surprise me if we were just a simulation for some higher-level beings. But it really doesn't make any difference whether Wikipedia says ID is pseudoscience or not anyway, because people aren't going to be influenced that much by such a statement on Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 01:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can say that all the experts who have looked at ID, including historians, theologians and the Archbishop of Canterbury, have concluded that it a religious view and not science. Several have called it pseudoscience, and are cited for that point, but the term also has specific meaning for Wikipedia policy NPOV: Pseudoscience and guidance on WP:FRINGE. Under the Wikipedia definition we must not give ID what we call NPOV: "equal validity". Whether you're a digital simulation of an entity or not, we have to follow policy. . dave souza, talk 06:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe intelligent design is religion. But obviously it does not have to be. "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own." What bothers me about this statement is that ID is not necessarily supernatural. I don't know enough about Disc. Inst.'s version, and don't particularly care, but I dislike the vilifying of what could just be philosophical speculation. Incidentally, evolution as it is usually taught cannot possibly work (I've only read vague descriptions). The discrete jumps between species are not explained at all in high-school (haven't taken biology since...). I vaguely recall reading that Stephen Jay Gould or someone proposed that evolution must have jumps, but I haven't heard much about it, and I wonder if the emergence of an entirely new species has ever been observed. Sorry to digress, but this is a curiosity of mine. The generally vague teaching of evolution in school probably contributes strongly to the intelligent design movement. II  | (t - c) 15:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "evolution as it is usually taught cannot possibly work (I've only read vague descriptions) ... but this is a curiosity of mine" Perhaps you could satisfy your curiosity by reading evolution and its related articles. Then you could understand that evolution as a process in nature has been observed and confirmed (like gravity) and as a theory has provided insight into information science, geology, history, medicine, and all the biological sciences. Also, http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/contents.php is a very interesting online book. Try it. You'll like it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I know a bit more about basic evolution than I insinuated. Punctuated equilibrium is the theory I was referring to. It never appeared anywhere in my high-school textbook. I still wonder how the jump from homo erectus to homo sapiens could possibly have happened. How does an h. erectus female give birth to an h. sapiens baby? Afterwards, how does that h. sapiens baby mate with an h. erectus female? The human evolution article is still fundamentally vague on how this happens. Its claim of cranial expansion is unreferenced, as is the aforementioned wiki article. Also, that book doesn't load for me; I've got plenty of other stuff I need to read, anyway. It's amusing to hear an academic speaking the truth over at TalkOrigins: out of 24 (biology I presume) graduate students and faculty, only 8 could given an example of speciation, only 3 could give more than one. Ouch! When the experts can't give real examples off the top of their heads, can you blame the laymen for doubting the validity of their science? Most people who have so much faith that they haven't even done their research. He then precedes to give a bunch of examples of speciation. Economics and philosophy (the areas I was educated in) are the same way, full of assumptions passed down as scripture. Science (and other disciplines) truly replace religion for an alarming number of people (not that that is a bad thing -- better that they worship science than God, in my view -- although it would be nice if they gave their metaphorical Bible more than a surface reading). Human nature does not change.  II  | (t - c) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Species creating events can be one-generation leaps, but most are not. Even gradual ones can look like leaps for various reasons. Such as when all you have is a sample individual at million year intervals. Most punctuated equilibrium cases are like that. In the geological record they are leaps, but in reality it was probably gradual over the long period between specimens found. Also a species can gradually create a new species and both live on. So the new species is in low numbers for a million years before we get a sample of it and the species it came from can co-exist - meaning the geological record can show an arbitrarily short time between the two. Even today, some women need a Cesarean because the baby's head is too big. Without human medicine, these women would die and their genes with them. That's an example of gradual evolution trying to keep up with the gradual enlargement of the human head. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea that the Gould/Eldredge concept of punctuated equilibria involves a sudden leap from one form to another in a single generation is distressingly common. In truth, it's merely an alternative to phyletic gradualism that its proponents (originally paleontologists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge) believe accounts better for the pattern of speciation shown in the fossil record.  It's an attempt, and a pretty good one, to account for the predominance of stasis in the record.  --Jenny 21:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You have to click on the links and you get pages like http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch10-a.html WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per talk page guidelines, theoretical discussions intended to illuminate understanding ID/evolution belong elswhere. This page is to discus the OM case, specifically evidence. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rbj
[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence

Complete poppycock. I have no idea why FT2 cherry-picked two edits and decided that Rbj was "hounded" but I assure you, he was not hounded and those are not why he was banned. I still have the email somewhere which I sent Arbcom when Rbj requested review, which led to everyone declining. The content of that email was basically the same as the content on the ANI thread at the time of the block, which I don't feel like digging into the past and finding.

Why Rbj was blocked:

It was established previously that Rbj traveled and his IP rotated.

Rbj, in his unblock request, points to an edit he made while evading a previous block:. This IP resolves to Verizon in Reston, VA. The IP I noticed,, resolves to Verizon in Reston, VA. The posts made by 70.108.92.189 consist of ten attacks on OM, which include: The edits are all on the dates 15 May 2007, 19 May 2007, and 20 May 2007. 15 May 2007 was when Rbj was blocked and unblocked by EVula, and Rbj was informed he would be indef blocked if he made another personal attack.
 * 22:56, 15 May 2007 Replacing page with "What a loser you are"
 * 23:00, 15 May 2007 "Orangemarlin is a sockpuppet of a Wikipedia administrator who pretends to know much more than he actually knows."
 * 10:39, 20 May 2007 Warning. "If you deal with Orangemarlin and his aliases, you're dealing with a liar, a jerk and an imposter."

68.100.207.219 resolves to COX in Atlanta. Starting on 13 May 2007 a series of attacks were placed on OM's talk page, including three, on 19 May 2007, to the section User:Wendyow - where 70.108.92.189 had also made several posts. The posts were:

19:57, 19 May 2007 Firsfon of Rochester stated that he's blocked 68.100.207.219 for one week. 15:55, 20 May 2007 Firsfon of Rochester protected OM's talk page. Looks to me as though it was the same person in the DC area on the 19th, and in Atlanta on the 20th.
 * 68.100.207.219: 13:57, 19 May 2007 "No, people hate you. They think they hate Jews, but they actually hate you. I don't hate you. I pity you and the Jews who are the victim of your intolerant arrogant overbearing attitude. Your actions elicit a reaction in others who wrongly think you are representative of Jews. That's sad. (P) My question is why do you pretend to be something you are not on your user page?"
 * 68.100.207.219: 16:11, 19 May 2007 "Ad hominem attacks are your trademark. Stick to name calling. It's quite amusing because no matter how long you keep up the charade, you can't fool yourself."
 * 68.100.207.219: 17:08, 19 May 2007 "Why don't you just admit you're an imposter?"
 * 70.108.92.189: 10:38, 20 May 2007 "This has nothing to do with a Jewish cabal or anti-semitism. It has to do with Orangemarlin being a jerk, an imposter and a sockpuppet."
 * 70.108.92.189: 10:39, 20 May 2007 "Warning. If you deal with Orangemarlin and his aliases, you're dealing with a liar, a jerk and an imposter."
 * 70.108.92.189: 10:42, 20 May 2007 "You're fighting a losing battle. This guy is a raging fanatic who oppresses all viewpoints other than his own. No rational persone questions whether Jesus lived or not. Rather, such talk is just an attempt to diminish the spiritual beliefs of others. His motive is simple and obvious. The dude you are fighting is so devoid of any spiritual life and empty inside that he feels the need to attack others to better convince himself of his own righteousness."

Compare the insults to those Rbj himself made: this is a phony little pretext that i regret offering to this bunch of POV-pushers."
 * 01:33, 26 April 2007 tell the other editors to stop misrepresenting me. tell them to stop lying.
 * 15:49, 2 May 2007 "except for abusive admins and naked POV pushers, i am not too worried about my reputation here." ... " i have little respect for the authenticity of Orange's religious sense of offense. indeed, he makes it pretty clear that he is not. this "offense" he takes here is a pretext. it's as phony as the myriad statements of "fact" he makes (which are just his opinion) and insists on giving the status of fact. he can take refuge in his Mercedes driven by his chaffeur (if that really is the case). in fact, i would expect anyone alledgedly trained in a hard science to have a bit more critical thinking. "
 * 21:46, 2 May 2007 "... i have some serious disrespect for Orange ... he is just one of a bunch of POV-pushing editors that will stoop to any level of misrepresentation to obscure the fact that they want their heavily biased anti-ID POV (which he admits to freely) represented in the article.
 * 02:33, 3 May 2007 "Orange is full of crap and it has nothing to do with being Jewish, observant or not. it has to do with misrepresentation and then hyping a faux pas to boot. thirdly, i did tell him (and others) to stop misrepresenting me. did it anyway. finally, i am not afraid of you. and if you demonstrate being abusive by hyping this up, the truth about that is more important than kissing your gluteus maximus" This is to JoshuaZ again.

There are more posts by Rbj which state his disbelief that OM has belief, and insult him. The IPs state disbelief in OMs religious belief, and insult him. No one else on Wikipedia has stated disbelief in OMs religious belief that I have been able to locate, and Rbj has insulted OM consistently and strongly for some time now. Its a duck. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: As the blocking admin, I would have been happy to clarify why Rbj was blocked. FT2 never bothered to ask me. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)