Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Please note that no further evidence is required. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

This case is presented by the Arbitration Committee.

These are a sample of incidents examined during the investigation. The committee is of the opinion that other similar incidents exist, were further inquiry to be made. Some evidence has been found to be suggestive.

It is important to note that during the course of the incidents described, allegations were both made, and rebutted. We have not investigated whether individuals personally do hold views alleged, or views they profess instead. That is not a matter for Wikipedia Arbitration in this case. We have examined what they did, and whether conduct was appropriate or not appropriate between editors, vis a vis Wikipedia, the community, our norms and policies, and the project.

Background to the case

To forestall querulous speculation, some indication how this case came about is included.

Background - not evidence.

I spent part of the weekend 14-15 June, and considerable time since, looking into the affairs and actions of Orangemarlin ( talk · contribs). I started from scratch with no involvement or preconceptions, simply as part of untangling the loose ends of the racism disputes, at the request of two users who independently asked if Arbcom would look into his actions, and also coming shortly after my own disquieting review of the Rbj ban and the part played by Orangemarlin. What I found disturbs me greatly in terms of a sustained habit of harassment and gaming against users whose views Orangemarlin considers in opposition to his own. Initially the concerns seemed to need only a quiet email in the wake of recent racism allegations, but as I reviewed his edits it gradually became more clear he was (in all seriousness) gaming - using attacks, serial bullying, and near-defamatory name-calling where that will work, and then pleading emotional upset and victimhood when criticized. Policies sometimes appear to be cited or pooh-poohed depending if they help him at the time. The ban appeal showed this was a serial pattern, dating back to at least mid 2007 or earlier. Three new and serious cases and other complains elsewhere, have sprung up in the last two weeks alone. The racism case which started it was not the most serious. Seeing the whole picture, the Committee decided to take on the case as requested and performed a more thorough investigation of various incidents in which Orangemarlin had participated prominently. Orangemarlin is involved in both the "Intelligent Design" issue, recently at RFAR, and the recent spate of racism issues involving user:the undertow. However, this case is completely separate from those both in origins, and focus. No other editor was at any time a party in this inquiry other than Orangemarlin (other than at a late stage, Odd nature, whose direct involvement in one incident examined led to admonishment). A repeating feature of Orangemarlin's cases seems to be highly spurious claims and questionable cites, which he speaks of in a verbal style that implies they are "given", and pushes until others agree. As well as the racism issue where this inquiry started, he was nearly a party in the Jim62sch RFAR case. By chance I had recently emailed the list about concerns stemming from the Rjb ban (2007) in which he was pivotal. Three more incidents have occured recently of the same behaviour, and further user complaints. Even independently, each was each serious in their own right. To be blunt, in a number of these cases, Orangemarlin (and not always alone) has engaged with other less established editors in an inappropriate manner that has damaged our in-house processes. In the cases reviewed, users have been set up in a way that they cannot then get a calm neutral hearing against accusations of POV, racism, or other claims, and subsequently Orangemarlin has sought blocking or bans. These include pivotal roles in some ill-founded RFA cases, a ban, behavior we feel is akin to harassment, unfounded or very tenuously founded accusations of horrible things (inappropriately), and gaming it (victimhood/smoke) when called on it, only to do it all over again, since 2007. It should be strongly noted that Orangemarlin also makes many good contributions, especially in the science/non-science area. In summary, Orangemarlin has been an editor who has engaged with the project well in some ways, and problematically in others. Sample of incidents of concern: Racism allegations surrounding Undertow/Swatjester/LaraLove Dihydrogen Monoxide request for adminship Jim62Sch Arbitration case Rbj ban and appeal Avruch request for adminship IP editor/BLP reinsertion/request for misuse of admin tools Concerns over use of twinkle and incivility.

Evidence presented

"The racism issue" (Undertow, LaraLove, Dihydrogen Monoxide RFA)

Note - other cases listed are more obvious, and more egregious. However, few show so well, the pattern of gradual escalation and gaming as this one, nor the crossplay of tactics (as opposed to misunderstanding) or the thinking behind them. Hence this case is placed first.

Part 1

Orangemarlin drew upon Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO, or Giggy)'s off-wiki blog post on the undertow business [1], and ran with it at DHMO's RFA ( non-blanked view), smearing him.

One of the early posts on the theme was at 16:12 May 29, where Orangemarlin wrote [2] "White pride is considered an anti-Semitic and racist term by the Anti-defamation league. I stand by my consistent statements over the past couple of years that naively supporting racist code-words is still racist. And as far as admins go, I had enough of admins supporting racist POV-pushers on this project. And maggot [ User:SynergeticMaggot], please redact your personal attack for stating my well-founded opinion is fallacious." In the wider world, this may be fine, but the on-wiki world draws a bright line about off-wiki disputes that an editor may have with other editors (including ideological disputes) being kept off-wiki.

The first serious sign of concern was that at 19:34 the same day 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.)

Whilst "sanity checks" are to be commended, this certainly raises a number of questions and concerns:

1. Orangemarlin had already brought the matter on-wiki. If the risk that he was over-sensitive, or that the source was one likely to be over-reactive, was already known to him, or was a doubt/uncertainty OM clearly had at the time, then it was reckless to write on the RFA that the term was considered anything more (by a source known to be oversensitive and possibly somewhat biased),
2. If OM himself (a sensitive person and anti-racist) felt the need to check that his interpretation was reasonable, then he should have certainly not been so harsh on DHMO for possibly being someone who might well not see it as sternly as he would,
3. OM should not have brought an attack onto an RFA for what he tacitly (and later, explicitly) admits is likely to be related to innocence of racist issues and nothing to do with tool use or wiki editing,
4. OM should not have implied that supporting the RFA would be akin to "admins supporting racist POV-pushers on this project" [4].

Orangemarlin also described SynergeticMaggot's statement (that the view was fallacious/didn't stack up in his view), as a "personal attack" on himself [5], which was itself grossly mis-stating what is and is not a personal attack. OM has done this before, in other disputes (ie, redesignated a criticism as a personal attack). See elsewhere in this case.

A while later on the same RFA, Orangemarlin posted that some user (DHMO) had "come under the influence of the cabal of racists" [6] (later redacted to "[had] come under the influence of a POV that I cannot understand or support"). I shake my head at this. Two replies both called it ridiculous, and the comment was then struck out by OM himself and redacted - leaving the original visible.

I then turned to DHMO's blog post, that OM linked to, as well as the ADL's post on terminology which OM had also linked to. These were supposedly the two main evidences of the matter when first raised.

DHMO had written on his blog - an off-wiki post (crossref "not importing disputes") – these words only: - "in the request for arbitration, Swatjester suggested that the undertow should be sanctioned - should be desysopped - for being a White pride-ist. This is distinct from a White supremacist, which is a racist term (according to our articles on the two terms)". In other words DHMO did not give any personal view. He discussed a dispute, cited the distinction within existing articles in a balanced manner, and gave that as his source, noting that "this is distinct... according to our articles". The fact Orangemarlin considered it not distinct, then attributed ignorance on a non-wiki issue to him, then later upgraded it apparently to being influenced by some "cabal of racists" (later redacted) is a serious concern in OM's conduct and handling. All of this - when it came to DHMO - was off-wiki, and should have stayed there. Orangemarlin helped import it, and was probably the main instigator of it. DHMO's personal opinion was either not stated, or at best, off-wiki. On the basis of a blog post citing our own articles, OM strongly attributed motives or "guilt by ignorance" to DHMO, then escalated this, until finally OM deemed DHMO thoroughly condemned of racism, or racism by omission or ignorance, or racism by enabling, or the like, in doing so.

I next checked the other link OM cited for all this, on Slrubenstein's page [7]. I found this was not a page on White Pride and "code words" (as he had claimed) at all. It was a page on a specific person described as a racist, Don Black, and his specific website " Stormfront"... and it noted that he used the wording "White Pride World Wide" as his slogan. But it is not in any way an article on the term, nor does it anywhere say that the term is mostly used by racists. It says one named racist uses it, and does not support what Orangemarlin had said. Perhaps many racists do use the term. It seems likely. But the fact of this case is, Orangemarlin attacked another editor, based on a tenuous and misconstrued understanding of a neutral blog post backed by a claim that a site defined a term it didn't and which an hour later he admitted he had known was biased and sensitive and was himself unsure of to an extent..... only afterwards admitting to actual uncertainty and cause for questioning the issue. The request for help cited a page as evidence – but it wasn't. These are obviously signs of concern too.

Part 2

24 hours after the above on May 30, OrangeMarlin posted in an angry manner to Majorly [8] a personal attack on DHMO. Specifically, "I did not canvass shit. I asked slrubenstein and Jayjg, both of whom are fellow members of the tribe as to whether or not I was out of bounds on considering DHMO a racist, anti-semitic enabling pig." Regardless of whether or not it was wrong, he should have withdrawn it, knowing that kind of stuff isn't okay on-wiki.

(Putting a gratuitous offence in "ask" quotes doesn't change it from being a gratuitous offence. To make this clear, change it slightly to: "Dear <name>. I wonder if I'm out of line to call _____ a scum sucking welfare defrauding wife beating rapist scumbag? [much more vitriol] ... Naturally, if I am wrong I will apologize." We are in the real world, and the device of self-quotation doesn't change a personal attack. It makes it worse.)

He follows this with more personal attacks. Note this is all still basically, all still merely based on the one blog post quoted above that cited Wikipedia, which is itself inadequate to back the claim and itself completely off-wiki and improper to import. In this instance, he was told by another user, "You must be respectful or at least voice your opinion in such a way. By calling someone a "pig" your actually being incivil and disrespectful. Enabling racism isn't a good thing, but by getting out of control and risking a block isn't good either..." [9]

His response [10] is worth pulling apart, line by line:

1. "Racism is uncivil, and, therefore, can be treated in any manner chosen." - wrong. We have norms here and one of those is, we do not handle concerns "any way we like", and we do not, having imported a concern over a user, then use that to claim we must continue to fight it against him, when that user has not brought it on-wiki.
2. "There is no reason to treat a racist, anti-semitic pig anything but uncivilly" - horribly wrong. Repeats a defamation/personal attack (as this clearly is likely to be taken to refer to DHMO), and then alleges our view of his /off-wiki/ blog, that he may be less aware of our own sensitivity to racism, means we can defame him, be uncivil to him, call him as we wish. If most admins saw this at random, they would have blocked on the spot - and not just for 24 hours.
3. "There is no reason to treat a racist, anti-semitic pig anything but uncivilly... I do not know if DHMO is an overt racist, but he enables it because he lacks the critical thinking to understand (racist terminology)" - a horrible, horrible line of thinking for on-wiki, and read the above points again. To call the guy these things and the next sentence admit he actually has zero evidence except he sees it enables it by not being racism-clued... horrible. No, no, no, no, no. At worst an email to explain to him.
4. "But, as long as he leaves me alone, I won't be bothered..." - after all Orangemarlin does, all he imports, all he writes, his final concern in this post is "as long as DHMO doesn't bother HIM, HE wont act up more". This comes across as more than a slight flavor of an attempt to wear the clothing of the wronged party.

Orangemarlin then is addressed by SirFozzie, and Orangemarlin's initial "okay" reply is struck out in favor of this [11]. This is almost a classic "I am gonna import MY dispute, my views, to wiki, and fight them there" ( WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND). The diff is worth re-reading, and I have not quoted it here. What may be the case in the rest of the world, isn't so here. Here we do not import disputes, impugn others, and use user and project space to fight for the meanings of words we believe in. That is no less so, for "your stuff", than any other person's with a personal view on some issue.

Also note that he writes "I'm going blind by reading how White Power is completely acceptable, and that admins here can have that racist/anti-semitic background" - yes, people here may have views off-wiki one don't believe in. However, he adds "Why should I ignore it? Why should I be the one who reads this offensive language and sit back and smile" where in fact he decided his own reading of it on a blog and imported it. And further writing "So, I've had to read where I'm a member of some ridiculous cabal", not recalling that in fact he started that notion in this case, by writing [12] that DHMO had "come under the influence of the cabal of racists".

He seems to overlook that in all of this train wreck, he threw several of the first serious stones. He imported DHMO's blog and decided to construe it as badly as possible and with deep personal attacks. He used the term "cabal". He attacked DHMO. Then he wrote DHMO did it. He writes that he is accused of being "some ridiculous cabal". He express a hope he will be left alone in a personal story seeking sympathy at great length ("...instead of taking what appears to be a gleeful opportunity to slap me about side my head for expressing an opinion..."), expressing none for those he enabled to be attacked. Again, more about him... him... him. Others maybe have feelings? Like about being called "racist pigs"? To coin a net-ism:- " wtf??"

Part 3

In that same post, Orangemarlin writes "I was offended by someone using the term Jew Comedian, and the undertow said that that is not offensive, when it is, and DHMO supports that opinion". Digging behind this post, the background is a post [13], to which the undertow commented [14]. The thing is, the post about a jewish comedian being called "brilliant" is something that Orangemarlin did not have to over-react to ("There should definately be a mention of Ari Shaffir, a brilliant (in my opinion) Jew comedian. He did a piece in his series 'The Amazing Racist' in a Ku Klux Klan robe, it was hilarious and has had many hits on youtube." Jew -> Jewish = big drama?).

Undertow's reply was a note about keeping personal views off Wikipedia; if the editor was in fact a racist and a KKK member, that was not an edit which necessitated a reaction of this kind, and nobody has claimed this was a habitual pattern of incivility previously warned. In rejecting that diff as grounds for a block, undertow was quite probably correct.

Part 4

Back at DMHO's RFA, note that he posted on the one hand [15] "I asked slrubenstein and Jayjg, both of whom are fellow members of the tribe as to whether or not I was out of bounds on considering DHMO a racist [...] If I were wrong, which I am apparently not, then I'd retract my vote, and support his nomination".

He also posted [16] "DHMO, in his naivete, does not understand that issue in a way that he should. Though he may not be a racist (and clearly, he's not)..."

One surely wonders where the retraction and support went? Or failing which as a person of honor, an apology to DHMO for the hurt he caused him through his own personal inability to keep emotions, and assumptions, and "attack first check second" pre-judgements off Wikipedia?

Part 5

OrangeMarlin posted at RFAR [17], a noteworthy post too -- of description for arbcom, of the above events: "Also, in reference to Orderinchaos, racism is racism. In every case where I've pushed that racism was apparent, two editors were indefinitely blocked, one admin kind of resigned, and....oh that's it. So if that's disruption, you have an odd definition of it." Many consider quite a lot is missing here, a kind of credit is being taken for the above actions, and the entire harm caused is a mere, "oh thats it".

Hmm.......

Also at RFAR, LaraLove posted [18] "Orangemarlin has grossly understated his behavior in calling people racists with absolutely no evidence that it is either true or relevant. His summary of editors for whom have been the target of his racist claims is woefully selective. Wherever this case ends up, I can provide many diffs to demonstrate what I believe to be inappropriate behavior by Orangemarlin in where he makes false claims against editors and then attempts to garner support for these false claims from others." Orangemarlin responds to this by posting at Swatjester's page [19] "I guess personal attacks are allowed when made by an admin during an RfAR. Oh well, I guess White Pride is a wonderful POV, they're just misunderstood". In fact LaraLove's words contain no personal attack at all. One must ask, does Orangemarlin actually understand No personal attacks policy? I am at a loss to reconcile Orangemarlin seeing a personal attack in that post by a critic – compared to his complete lack of seeing a personal attack and denial, when it is his own visibly virulent posts that are in question.

[20] "certain editors insist that because I call a racist 'a racist', I'm violating the principle of civility". No. Its because the speaker has hugely attacked them first, on flimsy to spurious grounds, and shifted his ground in some matters as to justify his own actions, whilst complaining at others', that he is being criticized. And - as a complete outsider - I have to say, rightly so.

Again notice the change of footing - [21] "There is no reason to treat a racist, anti-semitic pig anything but uncivilly", and [22] has it explained to him further. This is not a user who innocently does not understand civility and the need for it. This is a user who has made a wilful decision to adopt a personal policy of incivility when it suits him.

Part 6

Please note that this is far from the first time almost identical concerns have been raised. [23], evidencing posts like this:

• [24] "You see, I use the system to stop POV-warriors. Oh, BTW, Ferrylodge, being a christian pov-pusher, would never have Chutzpah. I, being a good Jew, get to use that word. No more anti-semitism from you."

• [25] "I think we should execute a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get shot too, so be it. I guess that sounds a bit fascist of me".

• Orangemarlin was told not to engage in personal attacks [26]. This was a template message, but even so his response was... inexcusable [27] "What?????? How dare you." (that was it), and [28] "Oh by the way, since you don't like swearing, let me proceed. Fuck. Shit. Ass. Damn. Hell. What the fuck ever. Meh".

Part 7

In short, OrangeMarlin imported a dispute, because he felt strongly about it. But communal norms and defamation do not cease to exist, or exist only as interpreted in one's construction, because one has strong feelings. Others have strong feelings on many things. To contain those feelings and prevent disputes, is the purpose of those norms, and not to argue that somehow these insults and attacks are privileged , or (in his words above) "Racism is uncivil, and, therefore, can be treated in any manner chosen ... There is no reason to treat a racist, anti-semitic pig anything but uncivilly ..." He have been warned on these, and seen others express concern, many times in the past. He's ignored them.

Orangemarlin - To be blunt, racism is not something acceptable in general, in any way. But users' personal battles need to stay at the door or under good control on both sides of the fence - or they risk being banned. The descriptions and attitudes change with the wind in the above - civility is fine if used for what he deems okay, a user is racist or maybe not, all sorts of contradictions are visible. This is not what we need in our long term users.

OrangeMarlin must take this decision as a serious suggestion to approach issues on the straight and narrow, in future. The next time he acts in manners such as above, significantly harsher sanctions will be applied. Importing an off-wiki dispute, impugning an editor, whilst unable to decide if he is a "pig" a "racist" an "enabler" or merely not racism-aware as he is on subtleties of words he yimself felt the need to check, then deciding he isn't racist but justifying attacking him and shrugging of the harm done, will not be tolerated.

And no to DHMO too, if he had imported his views. But he had merely commented on his blog that our articles said X in respect of a dispute between other editors... and it was on that statement almost alone, that Orangemarlin built a huge and hurtful edifice in the terms evidenced above.

The Rbj ban case (2007, Intelligent Design related)

Orangemarlin turned up in the Rbj appeal (sent to sitting arb list June 2), where user Rbj was essentially hounded into a community ban on the basis of quite dubious allegations. Orangemarlin was the main user who labeled Rbj as a creationist (roughly similar category to the claim "DHMO is a racist" when one looks at what Rbj was actually saying), and therefore Orangemarlin was central to the campaign that resulted in provoking, frustrating, labelling, and getting Rbj removed from the wiki.

• [29] labels a mistaken but basically non-vandalistic and probably quite good faith edit, as "anti-semitism". Rbj had edited his comment to replace "G-d" by "God", an act offensive to Orangemarlin as an orthodox jew, but which a third party would have not known of and would have seen as clarifying a weird post. In fact, Orangemarlin wrote "Why would you do that rbj? I consider that a personal attack, and quite anti-semetic" – "over the top", inappropriate, and bad faith. This immediate bad-faith labeling of posts Orangemarlin doesn't like, as personal attacks, is something he does to paint a user black at the start. This was how the DHMO RFA was derailed, how he got into the racism issue on LaraLove, and how Rbj finally got banned. Same tactic. It is – as Orangemarlin uses it – a weapon to attack or put them off-balance, and not a mere question. Full details of this case await consideration of the appeal, which is still in progress.

• [30] says basically "I don't have to prove what I believe, because the facts back me up. I've got a well-written Federal District Court decision that states plain and simply that ID is religion". 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....

Avruch's RFA

On June 17, two weeks after Dihydrogen Monoxide's RFA, Orangemarlin opposed Avruch's RFA. He did it in the following terms: "Strongest possible oppose" [31].

His evidence was the following posts by Avruch, and Orangemarlin's chosen characterization of them [32], which speak for themselves:

• Avruch's post "Avruch refactored his support to even more strong support an obviously flawed candidate, one who has continued an uncivil and personal attacking accusation of several good editors as being part of some cabal. I cannot personally trust someone who even peripherally involved themselves in supporting this huge continuing and annoying personal attacks on good editors."

(Again in passing, a common theme. Incivility is noted, sometimes even when not present, and others are to be criticized for it. Orangemarlin is not ignorant of our civility standards. Rather, he wilfully games it, part of which is accusing others of it, and part of which is operating a double standard for himself.)

• Avruch's post "Attacking Swatjester -- This alone causes me to oppose Avruch strongly and passionately."

• Avruch's post "A related issue -- I think events have proven Avruch dead wrong on his comments."

• Avruch's post "This is a fundamental point. -- Admins must be better in heated situations. Good admins can foster compromise not cause dissensions. The undertow issue has blown up from a minor reversion of one article to a huge war between so-called groups on Wikipedia. Should Avruch predicted the future, I'm not saying that. But Avruch should have identified the problems with the undertow, and instead of giving unfettered support to him, and more or less attacking viewpoints of many other editors, there might (and of course I can't know this for sure) have been a different conclusion."

• Avruch's post "In this one case, it's probably not a reason for anyone but me to be strong opposed, but he is dead dead dead wrong. There is no way in a thousand essays of a thousand words could I be convinced that Avruch's opinion is anything less than enabling an editor that, of course, was eventually indefinitely blocked."

In fact a review of the comments shows the kind of level thinking we most want to encourage in administrators, from Avruch, and clear insightful comments. Avruch was enacting appropriate policy and wiki-based thinking. Orangemarlin opposed because of an agenda about actively bringing his battleground on wiki.

In a telling part of the thread, and as with the IP discussed elsewhere ("Its a sock, not going to argue") and Krimpet's post regarding Rosilind Picard ("Deleted using a fine automated tool, which saves me valuable time dealing with trolls"), Orangemarlin responded to questions by third parties by characterizing objections to his RFA !vote as unreasonable, improper, or bad-faith motivated ("Not going to engage in your baiting"), as opposed to a crucial part of consensus-development and discussion, and thus to be dismissed or not responded:

OPPOSE: "Strongest possible oppose. Purveyor of wikidrama ... [33] (1) Avruch refactored his support to even more strong support an obviously flawed candidate, one who has continued an uncivil and personal attacking accusation of several good editors as being part of some cabal. [...]" [34]

(The hypocrisy of this statement is in itself, notable, especially followed as it is by a claim by Orangemarlin that "I cannot personally trust someone who even peripherally involved themselves in supporting ... personal attacks on good editors")

Q: Isn't calling Giggy "an obviously flawed candidate" uncivil and likely to lead to Wikidrama in itself? [35]

A: Giggy isn't the point here. Not going to engage in your baiting. [36]

Finally, this cite from the oppose rationale [37], which is of serious concern. Orangemarlin exclusively emphasizes NPOV (including fringe, weight, rs) to the total exclusion (and in some cases disparagement) of all other matters, using this as another self-created allegation about an editor again (as elsewhere) to disparage an editor. Disturbingly, I have the strong impression that this focus on NPOV is gamed, in that even the emphasis on NPOV in which Orangemarlin implicitly claims for himself, is questionable in practice as to understanding and application.

"As for "excusing anti-Semitism", history is littered with Jews who have done that. However, I have no clue as to whether or not you're Jewish (I assumed so, but there are lot of fundamentalist christian types like messianic "Jews" who populate these pages)--my point was giving assistance to GSTS was disgusting ... Giggy's RfA was going to die with or without my support or oppose. But I believe he would have eventually imploded, much as undertow has. You're more scary to me in that you won't implode, so we're stuck with you as an admin, despite your choosing "civility" and "AGF" as the great moral code of Wikipedia, rather than infinitely more important ones like NPOV, RS, FRINGE, and WEIGHT. You'd rather be "nice" than take a stand. That's sad."

Wikiquette alert thread (attempt to procure bad adminship against an editor and derail legitimate issues)

Main article: Permalink: [38]

Complaint raised by an IP user. Checkuser shows they look like a genuine IP editor (IP is not uses by any logged in user, and usage predates the dispute enough to look genuine).

In brief, an IP user (where sock puppetry concerns legitimately existed and were denied) made an edit to an ID related topic to correct a BLP-vio (harmful misattribution of a negative quote, see [39] and reply [40]), which were reverted by Orangemarlin. During the course of discussion at Wikiquette alerts and other venues the following took place:

[41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

1. IP user provides diffs, asks "See DIFF1 and DIFF2. Are you in favor of fake quotes being included on Wikipedia?"
2. Orangemarlin deletes their comment with edit summary "Deleting uncivil commentary".
3. IP user reposts question as "Removed quote is fake, see DIFF1 and DIFF2" and edit summary "Alright, then try this. Will you respond now? Please and thank you? With sugar on top?"
4. Orangemarlin removes as "Once again, deleting uncivil commentary".
5. Steve Crossin, a user in good standing and member of Medcab, posts the question saying "I think it may be best if you either 1) Discuss the matter with the anonymous user, or 2)Post a thread to ANI. I don't think that just reverting another editors questions will help the situation go away. Thanks".
6. Orangemarlin says "It's because the editor is vandalizing the article".
7. IP user states "Removing a fake quote (with references provided in the edit summary proving it fake) is not vandalism.".
8. Orangemarlin deletes and solicits a block for the above, with edit summary "Removing uncivil commentary and requesting Administrator intervention for a block".
9. The other user in good standing, who advised the IP that the edit was valid, then commented to Orangemarlin "This user approached me after you reverted this edit of his and issued him a final warning for disruptive editing. The edit that you wholesale reverted was not vandalism ... I hope that in the future you will be more careful before warning editors against making constructive edits" [49].
10. Orangemarlin's reply was "He's a sock. Case closed" [50].

(Again a common side theme. The posts #1 and #3 are deleted as "uncivil". Compare to posts by Orangemarlin not deemed "uncivil". The definition of civility policy and its enforcement varies according to party - claimed for non-existent matters as a pretext for deleting, ignoring, or even asking for blocks, and ignored, denied, or denied as relevant, to Orangemarlin's own egregious edits.)

Orangemarlin further tagged the users page as a suspected sock. The user, in accordance with WP:UP#CMT ("Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history. Repeatedly replacing warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption; removal of template warnings is rarely an urgent or important matter") removed the tag. Orangemarlin reinstated with the edit summary "Actually, you cannot remove until the case is discussed and decided upon" and then reinstated a second time in direct contravention of user page norms with edit summary "Once again, it must be adjudicated before removing tag". We are unaware of any community practice to this effect. [51] and [52]. The reinstatement of tags in this way may be uncivil.

In the course of the SSP report a user in good standing asked some questions to both parties. Orangemarlin responded incorrectly to that user, "Your questions are rude and insulting". In fact the questions and manner of asking were neither rude, nor improper. [53] and [54].

During the discussion, Orangemarlin also sought page semi-protection, to prevent the user from posting his concerns [55]. The reason given was "Anonymous editor has dropped the same comment on my page three times. I don't have the energy for a 3RR, so if someone can semi-protect my page for a couple of days, until the editor gives up and moves on". The fact that the comment was dropped because he was non-responsive, the comments were responsive within a dialog and not mere "repeats", and it was a BLP issue improperly frustrated by Orangemarlin himself, becomes transposed into an IP editor effectively spamming his talk page who needs protection until he gives up and goes away. This kind of transformation of a legitimate complainant, to nuisance, to disruptive user, lay behind the escalation of Rbj's community ban too, and is a feature visible more than once in Orangemarlin's approach to editors he disagrees with.

The SSP case is closed when the IP user self-identifies as a past user who now edits as an IP, and Raul654 comments this seems to be legitimately used without sockpuppetry evidence. [56] and [57]. Despite accusations made, and searching, I am unable to find evidence that this user was in fact ever found to be puppeting, beyond a suspicion that he might be the same as User:Kdbuffalo, which was at no point endorsed by any actual finding, and the block log is scanty. Block log/Jinxmchue.)The most recent log entry is admitted (and rather obvious) block evasion by logging in/out, dated 1 – 2 Dec 2007.) Orangemarlin posts "Should have remembered. It's User:JinxMchue, who has abused socks before" [58].

Dialog which attempted to raise these issues, which to my mind exist and do warrant a response if raised, were made untenable by the responses of User:Odd nature who provided support to Orangemarlin at [59]. 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). Odd nature also ignored in entirety, the clear and well documented evidence of misconduct by Orangemarlin which the IP had actually and civilly posted in a completely appropriate manner. In briefly searching, I could not readily find a case where Odd nature strongly and clearly criticizes Orangemarlin for personal attacks, or where Odd nature shows signs of willingness to request administrator action if Orangemarlin's conduct is not remedied.

Posts by the IP, stating that Orangemarlin's behaviour is of more concern that his incident of logged out editing 6 months earlier (which I would agree with on the evidence of this specific case) are dismissed by Odd nature in an intimidating manner with demands that the IP assumes good faith, by repeating Orangemarlin's incorrect asserting that the IP is "inserting POV" (even though at this point it's clear the IP is not, and cites are shown that the edit was in fact a BLP-vio correction), and by ignoring of others requests to examine the issues raised.

Because those issues were forced to be ignored in their usual place on-wiki, for that reason they are raised here instead.

The misuse of Twinkle case

An administrator, Krimpet ( talk · contribs), made an edit to a known contentious biographical article, Rosalind Picard. The contentious issue in this BLP is broadly, the approach that is to be taken in representing Picard's signature on material which was then used by an Intelligent Design organization to represent that scientists have doubts about evolutionary matters. A number of users and banned users have sought a strong view either side - that she was a creationist, that she was not.

The edit summaries and actions on the article itself were as follows:

[60] [61] Krimpet - "This statement seems overly tangential and coatracky - the article is about the person, not the petition" and "information on beliefs"

[62] Orangemarlin - "Removed whitewash using TW"

[63] Krimpet - "Blindly reverting revisions to a BLP as "whitewash" with automated tools is unacceptable - if you have a problem with my revision of the paragraph, please explain your actions in depth."

[64] Orangemarlin - "Revert per WP:NPOV using TW"

After some article activity, Krimpet attempted to discuss with Orangemarlin. The response was [65] "Deleted using a fine automated tool, which saves me valuable time dealing with trolls..using TW". Twinkle was removed for misuse [66] (later reinstated). orangemarlin responds with an uncivil comment [67] and a later call for a desysopping [68]. A number of users felt that either the revert, or the comments, or the later resoponses, were out of line SWATjester MZMcBride Raul654 Cla68 (issues a formal warning).

Having reverted and descirbed Krimpet as a "troll", and deleted her request to discuss from his talk page, the next edits are interesting. Discussion rejected, Krimpet raises Orangemarlin's conduct at ANI ( post ANI thread), which Orangemarlin replies "leave me alone", then deleted the thread on his user talk page [69] [70]. This willingness to name call, only to then affect as if a harassed party and require they deal with the problem without any change from him, when the person insulted seeks to engage the matter, is noted previously.

Orangemarlin doesn't leave it closed. He soon adds a further note in place of the original thread [71] "Well, apparently Krimpet is a little POV warrior who has chosen to escalate it". The matter then progressed to ANI. During the ANI thread evidence was presented that orangemarlin has been canvassing to bypass 3RR, suggesting a lack of understanding of 3RR: [72] "I'm going to be using my last revert. POV warriors are showing up to whitewash her article, removing her Intelligent design support.".

The Jim62sch Arbitration case

Orangemarlin was discussed in the Jim62sch case, where he was one of the "others" covered by our finding that "others" had been strident, made statements which we felt might reasonably be interpreted as threats. Orangemarlin and Jim62sch had shared computers according to Checkuser, and in this case we felt it was likely they were people who knew each other offline. One sitting arbitrator felt that "Orangemarlin's actions amount to blustering to try and distract from the real issue, which is that using threats on one's Wikipedia opponents is not acceptable". Another felt that "Some diffs from Orangemarlin that Thatcher cites on the workshop are very concerning. We considered this conduct to be completely unacceptable", and 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.

Summary

Over the course of many incidents, lasting over a period of at least a year, there is consistent evidence that Orangemarlin has adopted a disturbing modus for dealing with editors he feels (often without cause) are "wrong". This includes making damaging accusations which he repeats or refuses to discuss in a balanced manner, rejection of intervention by other well established uninvolved users and administrators, threats (including to obtain blocking for continued complaints), and uncivil responses to bona fide concerns. As a result of Orangemarlin's activities, a number of users in very different incidents and times, have each found themselves smeared, and that smear follows and taints them, and is not supported by the evidence.

Further these had serious results. In one case (anon IP) a BLP violation was forcibly reinstated despite diffs presented by an anon editor, in another (RFAR/Jim62sch) a user was harassed, in another (Rbj) a community ban was pushed for and obtained which was flawed, in another allegations of racism were made which were questionable or flawed, and on two occasions (Dihydrogen Monoxide and Avruch) attempts to derail RFAs on spurious or tenuous grounds took place.

Orangemarlin edits in an area for which he is to be commended, and with unimpeachable aims. It is likely that many of his actions are appropriate and in good judgement. But many – including some serious ones – clearly are not. Actions that blacken or drive off editors on spurious, hurtful grounds, or deny them effective recourse to dispute resolution or drown them out when they try, are completely unacceptable.

Orangemarlin's conduct in many of these cases is of a user who wilfully chose to refuse to know it, and games the system and policies to divert responsibility and concerns, rather than one who genuinely had no cause to be aware. In at least one case another editor, Odd nature ( talk · contribs), supported Orangemarlin in a highly questionable manner that did not appear to be based on the actual issue under discussion. My impression - untested at this time - is that this happens other times too.

Orangemarlin's work in a contentious and valuable area does not in any way make permissible this kind of use of wiki-skills to do harm to other well-meaning contributors, to further his own personal views, or to disparage and ignore users with genuine concerns.

Presented by FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee