This was an exceptional case. We did indeed look for evidence both sides, and noted the good work of the user. But we were clear that what we saw was strong, compelling, and repeated evidence of a problem, and that for reasons described, this was the way to address it.
I will add, there was no other reasonable interpretation available to the matters we looked into. It was obvious, and blatant. We will accept an appeal with pleasure, but the nature of this case was egregious; I can't see any actual likely factual matter to appeal upon. There is no ambiguity in the core thrust of the evidence at all. It is repeated, and unsubtle. FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
A secret Arbcom hearing? No notice until the ruling? No opportunity to present a defense or rebut? No idea who presented evidence or raised the issue. No listing of those who participated in the hearing so we know who supports secret trials and so who not to vote for in the next Arbcom election. Not even so much as a justification for the secrecy. Amazing, utterly amazing. What new lows Wikipedia's governance has sank to.
As far as I am concerned any form of secret hearing which results in sanctions is completely unacceptable. When I decided to volunteer my time I understood that Wikipedia made no guarantees for due process or even fairness when dealing with problems. But I also felt that Wikipedia was governed by volunteers who have an understanding and respect for things like natural justice and due process. Fundamental fairness demands an individual's rights include being adequately notified of charges or proceedings and being given the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. Read Procedural due process and Natural justice.
If the Arbcom wants to continue attracting and keeping quality volunteers, they better grow a healthy respect for fundamental fairness and the role of due process. If the Arbcom expects me to respect their rulings, they first need to respect the community's reasonable expectations of being treated fairly; being the subject of secret trials is not what volunteers donating time and toil to Wikipedia expect. As far as I'm concerned they must vacate this ruling and reconvene a public hearing for me to respect their ruling. I'm disgusted. Odd nature ( talk) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT. Specifically WP is not a government or a system of justice, nor does it do "due process". It is a project to create a compedium of knowledge. While I agree that being as fair as possible to as many folk as possible is a good thing, for to do otherwise drives good contributors off, ultimately it is a project. If the net result of this case is that the editing environment is improved, in general, that's a win. I think those finding fault need to go back through the evidence. I think many people would agree that there were a number of serious issues with OM's approach and behaviour that needed addressing. Given how some of the public cases are going, and the amount of drama and discord they are generating, I think that the drama this private case engendered is likely to be less overall. That's the hope anyway, although it's too early to say, obviously. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that, since we don't have laws regarding "due process" here, it was unwise for OM and others to give ArbCom every reason not to open the recent decision-making process up for comment beforehand. Incidents like this AN/I thread, for example, demonstrate that OM has several backers ready to argue his case endlessly, even when he has clearly been behaving inappropriately. Why would ArbCom invite comment when the commenting process has been abused by tag-teaming and endless argument in the past? Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm hard-pressed to express my feelings about this unprecedented act. Take the above header as a heavily filtered and extremely civil version of the text I would have written had I an adequately expressive language at my disposal. ArbCom (or just FT2? Without Workshop and Proposed decision pages, nor any record of a discussion, there is no way to tell...) has massively overstepped its authority. In doing so, it has violated not only long and established Wikipedia traditions, but also behaved in a way that defies any sense of justice.
The most charitable interpretation is that FT2's account has been compromised and used for a bad-taste hoax. To even create a situation where this colossal fuck-up can be meaningfully discussed, we need a clear statement from all sitting arbiters about their involvement and support for this case. At the moment, I don't even know whose recall I should loudly and insistently demand.
Disgusted, -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
<-If this did not reflect a majority outcome, someone would have said so. It's not like the other 10 or so active arbitrators are shy. Thatcher 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sincerely, Gnixon ( talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Moulton has been one who has been screaming about the lack of "Due Process" for months. Let's compare:
Now in the case of User:Odd nature and User:Orangemarlin:
Interesting comparison, huh? Who had more "Due Process"? Who was treated more fairly?-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at the type of people notifying Moulton. And the type of people complaining about ON and OM. Slight difference...-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Lar you are unusual. However, Lar I do not remember you being present when Moulton was editing in the summer of 2007 and cautioning him to try to temper his editing habits and try to edit according to the policies of WP.
Of course you have also mentioned that you would be in favor of unblocking Moulton, but then changed your mind. And you have also complained about OM and ON and the terrible ID Wikiproject cabal. However, I do not remember Lar as being present in any of the contentious discussions about NPOV or NOR on any of these controversial articles and helping to forge a consensus. I only seem to remember Lar showing up post facto to scream bloody murder about ...well not quite sure what exactly (maybe dropping the f bomb? implying someone is a racist ? dont really know...), but he sure seems to be angry and wants to kick butt. Ah yes...-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Moulton was "banned". Orangemarlin is told to behave. There's a key difference. LaraLove| Talk 21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence#The_Jim62sch_Arbitration_case, FT2 says that arbcom "indicated there was a very strong basis for adding Orangemarlin as a party on that case, just over 5 months ago. By the merest hair's breadth of good faith we did not do so. Had we known of these other matters, we unquestioningly would have done so." I'm wondering what it is that arbcom sees now that it didn't see then. The evidence presented then was rather serious evidence of incivility. I think Orangemarlin has toned it down a lot since then and, speaking in particular of my differences with him, we have put that behind us. The evidence presented here in this case is downright mild and rather skewed. I have a real problem with arbcom singling out the issue concerning racism and finding fault with OM's actions there. (And just so that nobody has any question where I stand - " white pride" is racism, period. Our own article has it in Category:Racism, as well it should. If you are saying that there is something to prefer about one race over another, you are a racist, regardless of how you might try to sugar coat it.) OM pointed out what should be a tautology that we can all agree with - white pride is by definition racism - and half of Arbcom's evidence page is attacking him for it. If you are a member of a "white pride" group, someone who self-identifies as believing in "white pride", or whatever, it's not my job (or OM's job) to coddle you or tell you what a wonderful person you are - it's a you problem. That arbcom is in effect, if not in fact, coming down on the side of the racists in sanctioning OM for challenging racism is abhorrent. I'm obviously a bit sidetracked here from my original question, but I would like to see an answer - what exactly is it that was new that you didn't see before? -- B ( talk) 19:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not part of the ID Wikiproject, nor yet any part of any cabal, nor have I ever edited any of the ID pages or been interested in editing them. And I came to the conclusion several weeks ago that without some evidence that Wikipedia is committed to enforcing and protecting NPOV, there's no point in my even trying to edit here. Since then have watched without commenting as one after another case and incident have reinforced the wisdom of my decision to not get involved here, since again and again decisions are being made that weaken NPOV and RS rather than strengthening them (my one faint hope, now dashed, was the Sourcing Adjudication Board, on the chance that it would be constituted in such a way as to enforce NPOV and RS rather than further weakening them).
But this case is so outrageously egregious that I can't let it pass without commenting. I watched this unfold at the time and found it incredible that people were trying to make the case that "white pride" isn't a racist code word. Of course it's a racist code word. And I have to disagree with Sxeptomaniac; rather than not being terribly important to the case, this seemed to form the central "evidence" for part of the case, in my reading: that OM mistakenly interpreted "white pride" as a racist term and wouldn't let it go even though he was "told" that there wasn't anything racist about the term, and kept arguing (in sometimes uncivil tone) with those who kept taunting him with the term. If the goal here were really to promote a congenial atmosphere for editing, then the people who continued to poke OrangeMarlin with the term "white pride" after he made it clear it was offensive to him (and understandably so) are the ones who should have been sanctioned, or at least cautioned. What ArbCom has done here is make Wikipedia more congenial for racist attitudes by implicitly condoning and encouraging such attitudes, though I trust not intentionally. I've never had any dealings with OM other than watching this debacle in its several phases, so I can't say from observation whether he had civility problems other than not being sufficiently tolerant of racism to suit certain factions who apparently have ArbCom's ear. If he did, then those should have been dealt with (in an open case) separately. To treat his intolerance for racist attitudes as evidence of incivility leaves a very bad taste; to treat it as such egregious incivility that it had to be dealt with in secret is just simply outrageous. Woonpton ( talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well Sxeptomaniac, in this instance, as well as many others, you are not just wrong, but incredibly wrong. I guess before this is done, we will have to drag you through the mud and make you confront your "misunderstandings". I do not want to do it, but if it has to be done, I guess it will have to be done. I am very sorry about this. I wish there was some other way. Goodness gracious.--
Filll (
talk |
wpc) 15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Restoring comment (strikethrough mine) by Filll to restore context to below discussion. Comment was
removed by Filll earlier.
Kelly
hi!
16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
So we know (some of) what we are talking about, LaraLove was nice enough to provide a list of some on-site edits (at a location off-site, but i won't list it because doing so might be interpreted as a personal attack!) that might be interpreted as supportive of "white pride," without being supportive of all those messy negative connotations:
I am limiting my evidence gathering to what Lara already uncovered on this account, because the user behind it is already gone. I could provide other diffs from some of the other principals that are still active, but all the content I could gather amounts to what seems a sincere defense of "white pride" from certain administrators that apparently still enjoy widespread support from vast sections of the community. However, i don't think they or anyone who may have made similar comments here or off-site is necessarily racist... they were extremely stupid to support this guy, and the way they went about defending him by carrying on his arguments seemed pretty bad... but i can choose to ascribe this to naivete, as it is the only way i can even begin to approach "working with them" at all in any way on any project on this site. Amerique dialectics 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Er.. did I miss something? There's no Wikipedia:Appeals Review Panel, and now I got all kinds of questions about the why and who and how and when. -- Conti| ✉ 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
FT2 wrote on top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin
Done so, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Secretive hearings: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. -- Irpen 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
First, I am SO neutral of a party, it's not funny. I know not of these people, but merely the rule of law.
Let's say I was walking down the street, and cops came up to me and said "you;re coming to jail with us...you've been found guilty of XXXX, and you're off to jail for 4 years".
My reaction would be "um...I may be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but you found me guilty of something?"
Wikipedia is a community, just like your physical community. We've already established that Wikipedia is *not* a democracy.
That said, let's not let Wikipedia become a military junta, or overall police state.
Everyone deserves due process of law. Failure to provide the SAME due process to EVERYONE is a complete violation of the rule of law. You cannot skip a step and justify it in natural law.
Now, I have no doubt this person will be back ... Wikipedia is addictive. Then again, so is " power".
Do not set a precedent that you would not wish seen applied to you. Bwilkins ( talk) 22:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's clear FT2 acted wholly on his own, unilaterally, without the arbcom's consent in proclaiming this RFAR a done deal. Here FT2 claims unamious support in this matter on the arbcom: [3] But Kirill contradicts FT2's claim of arbcom support: [4] This RFAR needs to be taken down and apologies issued to OrangeMarlin and Odd nature. If there's a real issue requiring arbitration, do it the right way. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 03:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is a disgrace. An editor being tried in absentia based on secretly collected evidence without the right to face the accusers, see the evidence, rebut it and present his side of the story. There is nothing in the arbitration policy that allows such cases. Thus, this is not a valid case unless the committee explicitly states otherwise (thus expressing its "respect" to the policy that governs the committee.)
On top of that the evidence was collected, presented and argued for by a sitting arbitrator who did not recuse from the case, but discussed it in the private list and drafted a decision.
I refuse to believe that the arbcom as a body considers this mockery a valid case and until the arbcom states otherwise, this page should be blanked or userfied to FT2's space (but not deleted.) -- Irpen 05:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not letting off the issue until this "process" or "procedure" or whatever sham name the Arbs want to try and justify it with or pass it off as is completely
rescinded. I don't see how anyone can have confidence in the committee while this so-called "arbitration" remains in place.
Amerique
dialectics
19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Odd, yes? Did anyone even have the chance to oppose? Never saw nemine contradicente used on WP before. And I get bitched at for using Latin. •Jim62sch• dissera! 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I've commented over at the
evidence discussion. I'll reproduce some of it here because I think it bears repeating, and I am worried that many people will get caught up so much in the gossip that they won't give the
evidence section a careful read. I'll admit: I think that this sets a good example that the behavior shown by OrangeMarlin will not be tolerated. The
Wikiquette and
Twinkle incidents, in particular, are HIGHLY DISTURBING to the point of being blockable.
- The June Wikiquette issue is focused on OM's repeated reversion of valid edits, deletion of the comments of the anon IP and calling them uncivil when they were legitimate, then requesting a block, and calling someone a sock -- those are HIGHLY DISTURBING. I don't see why Ludwigs2 is relevant to these major civility issues. Requesting a block seems especially crazy, and doesn't represent Wikipedia well. The TW incident, as recent as May, is similarly an example of extreme POV pushing and gaming of WP policies.
- In my view, persistently spreading disinformation and then suppressing attempts to resolve the issues, reverting edits based on solid information, pursuing blocks based upon zero evidence -- these are capital offenses. There can be little defense to these problems; thus, I see why FT2 went ahead with this. Perhaps it wasn't done in the best way, but I can certainly sympathize. If these weren't so recent, allowing OM a defense would make sense. But really, the problems with this ruling have been blown way out of proportion. This just amounts to a stern warning for legitimately troubling behavior.
I don't think my comments were really valid considering that there wasn't a chance for OrangeMarlin to clarify and present his side... II | ( t - c) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
When secrecy is asserted for matters which do not obviously require it, and that secrecy is challenged by responsible people, the effect is predictable: the matter becomes much more public than it would have if carried out in the normal (semi)-public process. I gather from the "arb-com" statement that one of the motivations of secrecy was to avoid tying up the case with irrelevant and divisive arguments. Again, this case will be now so involved with other matters relating to the functioning of arb com and the community in general, that any amount of irrelevant discussion in the expected manner will seem very minor. And if OM deserves sanctions, they are much less likely to be effective now than if they had been proposed, discussed and promulgated in a way that m=people could have observed in the usual manner--he is much more likely to not change his behavior now, when there are so many procedural reasons. And the chance of the objections to the procedure carrying over into a result not ending in sanctions (even if well-deserved) is substantial. DGG ( talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This is true. There's a much better chance of the full story being heard when it's more than one person investigating and interpreting the evidence, and there seems to be little reason not to do it all in the open. This could be helpful or harmful to OrangeMarlin. If diffs can be shown that OrangeMarlin was contrite about some of his behavior, then that's a significant mitigating factor. I think the WQA was the worst in that it involved dishonesty above and beyond incivility; Twinkle incident was somewhat dishonest; racism incident was childish. I'm not terribly worried about the dishonesties and disruptiveness because they were so blatant; what worries me more is the more subtle and clever instances that may go unnoticed. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I would ask the committee that in the future legal Latin or Latin in general be kept to a bare minimum. This is the English Wikipedia, and this is not a court of law. I base this from the arbitration policy. Thanks, NonvocalScream ( talk) 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Latin is much more appropriate in articles than in ArbCom cases. Here we just need things to be as easy to understand and concise as possible. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
[Sorry, I haven't read all the n! threads on this issue, this may have already been stated]
This case should be re-opened and the Arbitration Committee should clear up the real issue with White Pride. Although I don't spend that much time editing, I do care deeply about the project, and the WMF is the only charity that I support. (It's not a big amount of money, so don't think of this as a threat in any way). My point is that I think of this project as a kind of "doing good", hence I take the values and attitudes that we as a community support very seriously.
(Where I come from: I was among other things beaten up by skinheads during high-school, and the fine distinctions between white pride and white supremacy were explained to us when me and my parents took actions with the school administration. For the record, it ended happily, the school must have told them something like "we don't care if you are, white pride and white supremacy, whatever, if that little kid should happen to come to us one more time, you are expelled..." because they never touched me again.)
A real arbitration case that also hears evidence on the potential racism expressed by prominent members of this community would be much appreciated. The evidence by User:Amerique, for example, should have been taken into account. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but racism is a serious matter, so it does matter what editors are fighting for. There are some cases when over-reaction is the right reaction!
The arbitration committee should make clear whether there were elements of racism involved, and how serious they were. That finding of fact would deeply influence the entire set of remedies. Thanks for taking this seriously, Merzul ( talk) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone would care to unprotect the page, I would be happy to submit it to MfD. This is not how we do things here, and this decision should be thrown out post haste. -- Kendrick7 talk 10:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This diff may be of interest [5]. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Disclaimer: my sole encounter with Orangemarlin was highly displeasing. Some months ago he left an uncalled for rude message at my talk at one occasion. To the best of my recollection, I have never interacted with him before or after this incident. So I am submitting this request without any personal sympathy to this editor since I have none. Irpen 21:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The ArbCom have recently published Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin thus establishing de facto a new precedent, the secret case heard entirely off-site with:
My questions are:
-- Irpen 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit, by arbitrator ( Kirill, states "As far as I'm concerned, these announcements have no authority or binding weight whatsoever. "These announcements" apparently include Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. So my question is:
-- Cardamon ( talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all,
Also, I think the notes should be made available, albeit with redaction performed when sensitive details come afoot. That's how the courts in the States do it. -- MessedRocker ( talk) 02:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that there are secretive hearings at all. It was during the hearing of the Digwuren case that I received multiple e-mails form the arbs asking me to draft a proposed solution. After I replied that it would not be ethical for me to draft a decision for them, I was found guilty of "incivility" for this edit which was not aimed at anyone editing Wikipedia. In disgust, I left the project for Russian Wikipedia. Having reviewed the recent cases, I see that the ArbCom has thoroughly disgraced itself with its repeated failures to deal with the IRC plague, which allowed certain unediting wikipedians to turn the IRC into a sysop farm, or an adminship mill, or whatever you call it. In three cases running, Arbcom has now picked and chosen what issues it wants to address and/or has created the case itself specifically to address an issue. In other words, it's changed itself into an activist agent rather than a review body. What a disgrace. -- Ghirla -трёп- 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The way and manner of which the Orangemarlin case was decided isn't new. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom was also decided in secret. It was also more extraordinary. The user was already banned and there was only one thing to consider – whether to unban the user or not. This case was a lot more complex and it was not normally opened with a request on this page like Nathanrdotcom was. hbdragon88 ( talk) 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. With all due respect to the parties involved, it seems that - to put this in a caustic, sarcastic nutshell - Mr. FT2 had it up to the proverbial "here" with something Mr. OrangeMarlin said, went off and wrote a boatload of (very well-written) text, sent it to a mailing list, there were highly advanced grunts of various sorts, and as a result of this process, an established editor is met with sanctions passed nem cot by a high-ranking kangaroo court, operating in secret quarters far away from the prying eyes of dangerous subversives. I was particularly amused with the bit over in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence#Summary/Evidence which read, "Actions that . . . deny [editors] effective recourse to dispute resolution . . . are completely unacceptable".
The last time something like this happened, it really didn't go over too well.
But hang on a minute - we're doing this to "avoid drama"! Ah, yes, the horrible evils of the big D word. A very vocal minority of people that dominate discussions around these parts tend to conflate the natural process of consensus-forming with "drama". It's a pity that this vocal minority takes such ridiculous - at times verging into "extremist" - measures to sidestep what they regard as "drama". It reminds me of my mother - bless her soul - who, for reasons best left unexplored, had a terrible aversion to a certain highway artery in the area in which I grew up. In order to make a certain simple fifteen mile journey, this wonderful woman would take a circuitous, twenty-five mile route, encountering all known forms of urban and suburban roadway evils, from traffic jams to dangerous high-speed intersections to the dreaded left-lane merge, in her quest to avoid a certain seven-mile stretch of road. Much like how my mother's route through the city took her through twice as much of whatever evils she wished to avoid, the actions taken by the "anti-drama brigade" tend to only create deeper drama - be it the BADSITES scuffling or be it the drama centering around a certain well-known contributor's talk page. I submit that the claims of "drama prevention" can be read either as an anti-social, neurotic aversion towards the very human pastime of heated discussion, or as some blatantly "catch-all" rationale to make sure a certain clique's opinions are the only opinions that will be considered. I suspect it's more the former than the latter, but anybody who denies that the latter describes the inevitable consequence of such measures should be briskly beaten about the head, neck, and nether-regions.
So, if it isn't an ArbCom decision, then what exactly is it? "A random sysop or two deciding to enact 'civility restrictions' on an editor of good standing, without input from the community" is the best I can do, but surely there's a better way to spin this?
As you seem to be saying, the NathanR case is an apple. OrangeMarlin is... well... --but I hope the ArbCom truly doesn't place Mr. Marlin's "naughty manners" in the same light as Nathan's behavior.
What a fucking disgraceful situation. Shame on you, FT2, for even thinking this could be deemed kosher, and shame on you, ArbCom, for your complete and utter lack of common sense. -- Badger Drink ( talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here: the secret hearing and the announcments by FT2 and Kirill.
There are precedents for non-public considerations of cases, and for quick actions by the Arbcom. Reasonable people can see the necessity for both. However the ArbCom should develop procedures for handling such cases. At a minimum, it should notify affected parties of claims made against them and ask for any exculpatory evidence. At the conclusion they should publish as much of the case as they can. Note that in both judicial deliberations (the U.S. Suprme Court) and in executive (secret) sessions held by ordinary committees it is standard to hold the final voting in public session or at least announce the voting results.
In the real world, the first thing that a standing committee does is elect a chair and a secretary. The Arbcom has no one who can speak for it with authority. Situations like this, where one member claims to speak for the committee but another denies his statements, confuse the community and lower the prestige of legitimate Arbcom announcements. I urge the Arbcom to choose someone as a chair, secretary, or spokesperson who can be relied upon by the community to faithfully communicate whatever Arbcom decisions makes outside of normal arbitration proceedings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I have serious concerns that evidence presented thus far in this case does not reflect a full understanding of the events it covers and also that it fails to present all these events accurately. I strongly feel that a confident decision cannot arise from this evidence alone. I urge the Committee to not certify any decision without examining alternative presentations of evidence in this case. I urge the Committee that if they ever need to try a case privately in the future to ensure that at least two people develop presentations of evidence in isolation and the parties concerned are at least allowed to review the presentations of their owns actions for errors and omissions before any decision is reached. These are the most basic requirements that must be met for the Committee to have any rational claim to confidence in it's own decision. However the greater the amount review that any evidence receives by disparate parties the higher the level of confidence that the resulting decision merits.-- BirgitteSB 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There are circumstances under which it is appropriate--indeed, necessary--for ArbCom to 1) hold an in-camera arbitration and/or 2) make a summary decision. This isn't one of them. What is even more troubling is that this was made without any opportunity for OrangeMarlin to mount a defense. The evidence appears to spell out unacceptable behavior by OrangeMarlin, but to deny him even a chance to defend himself is highly troubling, to say the least. The rationale for this action offered by FT2--which basically amounts to "We've heard this before"--is not even remotely convincing. Blueboy 96 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God." -- Jesus, Gospel acccording to John, chapter 3, verses 19-21, New American Bible. [6]
Thank you to Charles for your explanation of events. It does, however, leave some questions unanswered. (1) What was the reason behind private consideration to begin with? (2) When you say "a number" of arbiters objected to private consideration, what was that number? If it was everyone other than FT2, ok, fine, but if it was 1 or 2 (both of which are also numbers) then that points to a severe lack of judgment on arbcom's part. -- B ( talk) 16:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The following is an official statement of the ArbCom on the matter. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin was handled in a way normally reserved for serious socking. The matter is weighty with wide ramifications. Even so, a number of Arbitrators were in the end, and after review of the case, not convinced of the need for such summary implementation. This course of events could have been avoided by better use of internal ArbCom communications, and it is not going to set any precedent for the future.
I have to say that I find the "explanation" entirely unsatisfactory. As should be clear to anyone who reads the various noticeboards and talk pages, this is considered a massive fuck-up, with many experienced editors of excellent standing expressing a huge loss of trust. The explanation explains nothing. It's a minimalist description of what went wrong on the surface. It fails to explain why "the case was handled in a way normally reserved for serious socking". It's unclear what "the matter is weighty with wide ramifications" even refers to, or why it should be so. While I can understand a desire to concentrate blame in individual Arbs for what may be simple inattentiveness or a temporary blackout, I really want to know who had the idea of a secret case and how they could possibly think this a good idea.
As for the future: So after OM had been railroaded once the prosecution gets a week headstart in an "expedited" case? I'm willing to assume that nobody noticed this inherent unfairness, but I'm not impressed. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Proceeding with this case seems like a rather poor idea given the current circumstances. Proceeding with it in an "expedited" fashion seems even worse. It seems more reasonable that ArbCom should close it at this time, and not consider reopening for at least 30 days. In the meantime, there are indeed many questions that should be answered, starting with some rather pointed questions for FT2. Furthermore, it would seem minimally reasonable to expect recusal from FT2 in this case as there is a very strong appearance of inappropriate personal engagement and unprofessional conduct. Doc Tropics 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
After FT2 spending almost a month on preparing the case, we now have a new RfAR "The parties and other interested editors are invited submit their views within 48 hours regarding whether the case should be accepted... If four or more net arbitrators vote to accept the case, it will be opened and considered on an expedited basis with the parties advised to present all evidence and workshop proposals within one week." That's a really short time to do the proper amount of analysis and preparation of evidence on a number of incidents. And I came here to edit articles, with the 150th anniversary of publication of Darwin's theory just tomorrow. Orangemarlin isn't a big hazard to the community, and even less likely to be uncivil now. Why the rush? . . dave souza, talk 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This statement still leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm willing to assume good faith and take this as a simple act of egregious misbehaviour by a soon-to-be ex-arb. If that's the case, then the rest of the committee needs to come clean and say so. If that isn't the case, if the rot goes deeper, then we need major reforms in how the committee works. These are basic changes that need to be dealt with before the committee even thinks about considering this case. We need to establish that the committee still has the moral authority to hear this case.
The first thing that needs to happen is that FT2 either resigns from the committee or is expelled for it. He has blatently abused the trust of the community. He has deceived the community. He has been severely disruptive. And he has been utterly unapologetic. Someone like that cannot be in the arbcomm, he cannot have access to the committee that is unavailable to ordinary members of the community, and he cannot be trusted with Checkuser. FT2 has used his position to pursue a vendetta. He has made false claims on behalf of the arbcomm. This is far worse than pretending to have a Ph.D. Until FT2 is completely off the arbcomm, the committee must be considered tainted.
Secondly, we need a full accounting of how something like this could happen. The committee is not allowed to take cases on its own. So how was this matter even raised? And if the matter was being discussed, why did no one notify OM? FT2's deception of the community is only the most egregious offense. How did it even get to the stage where he could claim it had been discussed? Why did the rest of the committee tolerate this sort of behaviour?
Thirdly, the "solution" is totally inadequate. The so-called decision is vacated. We knew that already. But there's no way that the case can continue as normal. If FT2 wants to re-file, he has the same right to do so as any other member of the community. NONE MORE. And, like any other filer, his behaviour must be subject to the scrutiny of the committee as well. Odd Nature has quit because of FT2's lies. The hubris of saying "you have 48 hours to defend yourself", and then a week (a holiday week, no less) to file evidence... No way that is acceptable. This still smells like a kangaroo court. Guettarda ( talk) 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed a very strong appearance that FT2 has exceeded the reasonable bounds of an individual arb's authority and acted in a manner that can be only described as woefully unprofessional. So unprofessional in fact, that his very fitness to continue as an arbitrator is called into question. I am not declaring that he should be immediately recalled from his position, but I will say his actions should immediately and publicly be reviewed and explained, in full, with loss of position being a possible outcome. The fact that, as a group, ArbCom's first public reaction seems to be an attempt to gloss over FT2's impropriety and continue punishing the victim is not at all encouraging. It would be best to close the case against OM and clean up this mess before you do anything else. Doc Tropics 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda, someone (an arb I think) said that the procedure arbcom used in this case is the same procedure that they use for the worst of the sock puppet cases. So the case was not illegitimate in the sense of a case being created, accepted and resolved through means that are not already standard. FT2 is new to Arbcom and maybe he did not know that that procedure was only to be used in very exceptional cases like that and certainly not to be used in cases of established contributors. Please AGF. We all make mistakes. I do think we should reduce his pay by 50% though. :) WAS 4.250 ( talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to chime in here, I obviously agree with pretty much everything Guettarda said. "leaves a lot to be desired" is putting it more than mildly. If the arbitrators think this statement could just mark the end of it, that's just preposterous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with FPAS and Guettarda. This is beyond depressing. It is a revolting example of official fudge. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that we seem to have systemic failures with the process (or is it with the members?) that see the POV pushers rewarded and the content pushers pushed out of the Community? There are some disturbing parallels between the haste and failure of due process of this case, and VU's. How many more will there be? Shot info ( talk) 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Then perhaps it is all of Arbcom who should be issuing an apology for the mess? Rather than FT2 solo? KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This still says that case was posted with the agreement of the committee. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements#Summary_RFAR_case. DuncanHill ( talk) 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). That would be the kind of "secret trial" that has been alleged. We do not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a). We shall make it a rule not to have such matters tracked this way in future, but the core of the problem can be said to lie in this point: trying to specify a completely rule-based system here failed us."
I actually do not understand this. I mean, it is a collection of English words but they make no sense. Please could the arbcom re-write it in clear, meaningful English. DuncanHill ( talk) 10:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sure it has. Was it agreed unanimously? Was it nem con? Given that a major recent problem was in part a result of a lack of clarity on this very point, could arbitrators sign the statement to say that they agree with it please? DuncanHill ( talk) 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What does this mean?
We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). That would be the kind of "secret trial" that has been alleged. We do not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a).
Arbcom thought I was engaged in serious sockpuppetry? OK, I'm really lost. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what we don't care about; we care about judgment, not "care". You still haven't worked this out properly, arbs. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This was an exceptional case. We did indeed look for evidence both sides, and noted the good work of the user. But we were clear that what we saw was strong, compelling, and repeated evidence of a problem, and that for reasons described, this was the way to address it.
I will add, there was no other reasonable interpretation available to the matters we looked into. It was obvious, and blatant. We will accept an appeal with pleasure, but the nature of this case was egregious; I can't see any actual likely factual matter to appeal upon. There is no ambiguity in the core thrust of the evidence at all. It is repeated, and unsubtle. FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
A secret Arbcom hearing? No notice until the ruling? No opportunity to present a defense or rebut? No idea who presented evidence or raised the issue. No listing of those who participated in the hearing so we know who supports secret trials and so who not to vote for in the next Arbcom election. Not even so much as a justification for the secrecy. Amazing, utterly amazing. What new lows Wikipedia's governance has sank to.
As far as I am concerned any form of secret hearing which results in sanctions is completely unacceptable. When I decided to volunteer my time I understood that Wikipedia made no guarantees for due process or even fairness when dealing with problems. But I also felt that Wikipedia was governed by volunteers who have an understanding and respect for things like natural justice and due process. Fundamental fairness demands an individual's rights include being adequately notified of charges or proceedings and being given the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. Read Procedural due process and Natural justice.
If the Arbcom wants to continue attracting and keeping quality volunteers, they better grow a healthy respect for fundamental fairness and the role of due process. If the Arbcom expects me to respect their rulings, they first need to respect the community's reasonable expectations of being treated fairly; being the subject of secret trials is not what volunteers donating time and toil to Wikipedia expect. As far as I'm concerned they must vacate this ruling and reconvene a public hearing for me to respect their ruling. I'm disgusted. Odd nature ( talk) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT. Specifically WP is not a government or a system of justice, nor does it do "due process". It is a project to create a compedium of knowledge. While I agree that being as fair as possible to as many folk as possible is a good thing, for to do otherwise drives good contributors off, ultimately it is a project. If the net result of this case is that the editing environment is improved, in general, that's a win. I think those finding fault need to go back through the evidence. I think many people would agree that there were a number of serious issues with OM's approach and behaviour that needed addressing. Given how some of the public cases are going, and the amount of drama and discord they are generating, I think that the drama this private case engendered is likely to be less overall. That's the hope anyway, although it's too early to say, obviously. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that, since we don't have laws regarding "due process" here, it was unwise for OM and others to give ArbCom every reason not to open the recent decision-making process up for comment beforehand. Incidents like this AN/I thread, for example, demonstrate that OM has several backers ready to argue his case endlessly, even when he has clearly been behaving inappropriately. Why would ArbCom invite comment when the commenting process has been abused by tag-teaming and endless argument in the past? Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm hard-pressed to express my feelings about this unprecedented act. Take the above header as a heavily filtered and extremely civil version of the text I would have written had I an adequately expressive language at my disposal. ArbCom (or just FT2? Without Workshop and Proposed decision pages, nor any record of a discussion, there is no way to tell...) has massively overstepped its authority. In doing so, it has violated not only long and established Wikipedia traditions, but also behaved in a way that defies any sense of justice.
The most charitable interpretation is that FT2's account has been compromised and used for a bad-taste hoax. To even create a situation where this colossal fuck-up can be meaningfully discussed, we need a clear statement from all sitting arbiters about their involvement and support for this case. At the moment, I don't even know whose recall I should loudly and insistently demand.
Disgusted, -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
<-If this did not reflect a majority outcome, someone would have said so. It's not like the other 10 or so active arbitrators are shy. Thatcher 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sincerely, Gnixon ( talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Moulton has been one who has been screaming about the lack of "Due Process" for months. Let's compare:
Now in the case of User:Odd nature and User:Orangemarlin:
Interesting comparison, huh? Who had more "Due Process"? Who was treated more fairly?-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at the type of people notifying Moulton. And the type of people complaining about ON and OM. Slight difference...-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Lar you are unusual. However, Lar I do not remember you being present when Moulton was editing in the summer of 2007 and cautioning him to try to temper his editing habits and try to edit according to the policies of WP.
Of course you have also mentioned that you would be in favor of unblocking Moulton, but then changed your mind. And you have also complained about OM and ON and the terrible ID Wikiproject cabal. However, I do not remember Lar as being present in any of the contentious discussions about NPOV or NOR on any of these controversial articles and helping to forge a consensus. I only seem to remember Lar showing up post facto to scream bloody murder about ...well not quite sure what exactly (maybe dropping the f bomb? implying someone is a racist ? dont really know...), but he sure seems to be angry and wants to kick butt. Ah yes...-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Moulton was "banned". Orangemarlin is told to behave. There's a key difference. LaraLove| Talk 21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence#The_Jim62sch_Arbitration_case, FT2 says that arbcom "indicated there was a very strong basis for adding Orangemarlin as a party on that case, just over 5 months ago. By the merest hair's breadth of good faith we did not do so. Had we known of these other matters, we unquestioningly would have done so." I'm wondering what it is that arbcom sees now that it didn't see then. The evidence presented then was rather serious evidence of incivility. I think Orangemarlin has toned it down a lot since then and, speaking in particular of my differences with him, we have put that behind us. The evidence presented here in this case is downright mild and rather skewed. I have a real problem with arbcom singling out the issue concerning racism and finding fault with OM's actions there. (And just so that nobody has any question where I stand - " white pride" is racism, period. Our own article has it in Category:Racism, as well it should. If you are saying that there is something to prefer about one race over another, you are a racist, regardless of how you might try to sugar coat it.) OM pointed out what should be a tautology that we can all agree with - white pride is by definition racism - and half of Arbcom's evidence page is attacking him for it. If you are a member of a "white pride" group, someone who self-identifies as believing in "white pride", or whatever, it's not my job (or OM's job) to coddle you or tell you what a wonderful person you are - it's a you problem. That arbcom is in effect, if not in fact, coming down on the side of the racists in sanctioning OM for challenging racism is abhorrent. I'm obviously a bit sidetracked here from my original question, but I would like to see an answer - what exactly is it that was new that you didn't see before? -- B ( talk) 19:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not part of the ID Wikiproject, nor yet any part of any cabal, nor have I ever edited any of the ID pages or been interested in editing them. And I came to the conclusion several weeks ago that without some evidence that Wikipedia is committed to enforcing and protecting NPOV, there's no point in my even trying to edit here. Since then have watched without commenting as one after another case and incident have reinforced the wisdom of my decision to not get involved here, since again and again decisions are being made that weaken NPOV and RS rather than strengthening them (my one faint hope, now dashed, was the Sourcing Adjudication Board, on the chance that it would be constituted in such a way as to enforce NPOV and RS rather than further weakening them).
But this case is so outrageously egregious that I can't let it pass without commenting. I watched this unfold at the time and found it incredible that people were trying to make the case that "white pride" isn't a racist code word. Of course it's a racist code word. And I have to disagree with Sxeptomaniac; rather than not being terribly important to the case, this seemed to form the central "evidence" for part of the case, in my reading: that OM mistakenly interpreted "white pride" as a racist term and wouldn't let it go even though he was "told" that there wasn't anything racist about the term, and kept arguing (in sometimes uncivil tone) with those who kept taunting him with the term. If the goal here were really to promote a congenial atmosphere for editing, then the people who continued to poke OrangeMarlin with the term "white pride" after he made it clear it was offensive to him (and understandably so) are the ones who should have been sanctioned, or at least cautioned. What ArbCom has done here is make Wikipedia more congenial for racist attitudes by implicitly condoning and encouraging such attitudes, though I trust not intentionally. I've never had any dealings with OM other than watching this debacle in its several phases, so I can't say from observation whether he had civility problems other than not being sufficiently tolerant of racism to suit certain factions who apparently have ArbCom's ear. If he did, then those should have been dealt with (in an open case) separately. To treat his intolerance for racist attitudes as evidence of incivility leaves a very bad taste; to treat it as such egregious incivility that it had to be dealt with in secret is just simply outrageous. Woonpton ( talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well Sxeptomaniac, in this instance, as well as many others, you are not just wrong, but incredibly wrong. I guess before this is done, we will have to drag you through the mud and make you confront your "misunderstandings". I do not want to do it, but if it has to be done, I guess it will have to be done. I am very sorry about this. I wish there was some other way. Goodness gracious.--
Filll (
talk |
wpc) 15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Restoring comment (strikethrough mine) by Filll to restore context to below discussion. Comment was
removed by Filll earlier.
Kelly
hi!
16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
So we know (some of) what we are talking about, LaraLove was nice enough to provide a list of some on-site edits (at a location off-site, but i won't list it because doing so might be interpreted as a personal attack!) that might be interpreted as supportive of "white pride," without being supportive of all those messy negative connotations:
I am limiting my evidence gathering to what Lara already uncovered on this account, because the user behind it is already gone. I could provide other diffs from some of the other principals that are still active, but all the content I could gather amounts to what seems a sincere defense of "white pride" from certain administrators that apparently still enjoy widespread support from vast sections of the community. However, i don't think they or anyone who may have made similar comments here or off-site is necessarily racist... they were extremely stupid to support this guy, and the way they went about defending him by carrying on his arguments seemed pretty bad... but i can choose to ascribe this to naivete, as it is the only way i can even begin to approach "working with them" at all in any way on any project on this site. Amerique dialectics 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Er.. did I miss something? There's no Wikipedia:Appeals Review Panel, and now I got all kinds of questions about the why and who and how and when. -- Conti| ✉ 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
FT2 wrote on top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin
Done so, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Secretive hearings: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. -- Irpen 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
First, I am SO neutral of a party, it's not funny. I know not of these people, but merely the rule of law.
Let's say I was walking down the street, and cops came up to me and said "you;re coming to jail with us...you've been found guilty of XXXX, and you're off to jail for 4 years".
My reaction would be "um...I may be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but you found me guilty of something?"
Wikipedia is a community, just like your physical community. We've already established that Wikipedia is *not* a democracy.
That said, let's not let Wikipedia become a military junta, or overall police state.
Everyone deserves due process of law. Failure to provide the SAME due process to EVERYONE is a complete violation of the rule of law. You cannot skip a step and justify it in natural law.
Now, I have no doubt this person will be back ... Wikipedia is addictive. Then again, so is " power".
Do not set a precedent that you would not wish seen applied to you. Bwilkins ( talk) 22:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's clear FT2 acted wholly on his own, unilaterally, without the arbcom's consent in proclaiming this RFAR a done deal. Here FT2 claims unamious support in this matter on the arbcom: [3] But Kirill contradicts FT2's claim of arbcom support: [4] This RFAR needs to be taken down and apologies issued to OrangeMarlin and Odd nature. If there's a real issue requiring arbitration, do it the right way. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 03:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is a disgrace. An editor being tried in absentia based on secretly collected evidence without the right to face the accusers, see the evidence, rebut it and present his side of the story. There is nothing in the arbitration policy that allows such cases. Thus, this is not a valid case unless the committee explicitly states otherwise (thus expressing its "respect" to the policy that governs the committee.)
On top of that the evidence was collected, presented and argued for by a sitting arbitrator who did not recuse from the case, but discussed it in the private list and drafted a decision.
I refuse to believe that the arbcom as a body considers this mockery a valid case and until the arbcom states otherwise, this page should be blanked or userfied to FT2's space (but not deleted.) -- Irpen 05:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not letting off the issue until this "process" or "procedure" or whatever sham name the Arbs want to try and justify it with or pass it off as is completely
rescinded. I don't see how anyone can have confidence in the committee while this so-called "arbitration" remains in place.
Amerique
dialectics
19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Odd, yes? Did anyone even have the chance to oppose? Never saw nemine contradicente used on WP before. And I get bitched at for using Latin. •Jim62sch• dissera! 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I've commented over at the
evidence discussion. I'll reproduce some of it here because I think it bears repeating, and I am worried that many people will get caught up so much in the gossip that they won't give the
evidence section a careful read. I'll admit: I think that this sets a good example that the behavior shown by OrangeMarlin will not be tolerated. The
Wikiquette and
Twinkle incidents, in particular, are HIGHLY DISTURBING to the point of being blockable.
- The June Wikiquette issue is focused on OM's repeated reversion of valid edits, deletion of the comments of the anon IP and calling them uncivil when they were legitimate, then requesting a block, and calling someone a sock -- those are HIGHLY DISTURBING. I don't see why Ludwigs2 is relevant to these major civility issues. Requesting a block seems especially crazy, and doesn't represent Wikipedia well. The TW incident, as recent as May, is similarly an example of extreme POV pushing and gaming of WP policies.
- In my view, persistently spreading disinformation and then suppressing attempts to resolve the issues, reverting edits based on solid information, pursuing blocks based upon zero evidence -- these are capital offenses. There can be little defense to these problems; thus, I see why FT2 went ahead with this. Perhaps it wasn't done in the best way, but I can certainly sympathize. If these weren't so recent, allowing OM a defense would make sense. But really, the problems with this ruling have been blown way out of proportion. This just amounts to a stern warning for legitimately troubling behavior.
I don't think my comments were really valid considering that there wasn't a chance for OrangeMarlin to clarify and present his side... II | ( t - c) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
When secrecy is asserted for matters which do not obviously require it, and that secrecy is challenged by responsible people, the effect is predictable: the matter becomes much more public than it would have if carried out in the normal (semi)-public process. I gather from the "arb-com" statement that one of the motivations of secrecy was to avoid tying up the case with irrelevant and divisive arguments. Again, this case will be now so involved with other matters relating to the functioning of arb com and the community in general, that any amount of irrelevant discussion in the expected manner will seem very minor. And if OM deserves sanctions, they are much less likely to be effective now than if they had been proposed, discussed and promulgated in a way that m=people could have observed in the usual manner--he is much more likely to not change his behavior now, when there are so many procedural reasons. And the chance of the objections to the procedure carrying over into a result not ending in sanctions (even if well-deserved) is substantial. DGG ( talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This is true. There's a much better chance of the full story being heard when it's more than one person investigating and interpreting the evidence, and there seems to be little reason not to do it all in the open. This could be helpful or harmful to OrangeMarlin. If diffs can be shown that OrangeMarlin was contrite about some of his behavior, then that's a significant mitigating factor. I think the WQA was the worst in that it involved dishonesty above and beyond incivility; Twinkle incident was somewhat dishonest; racism incident was childish. I'm not terribly worried about the dishonesties and disruptiveness because they were so blatant; what worries me more is the more subtle and clever instances that may go unnoticed. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I would ask the committee that in the future legal Latin or Latin in general be kept to a bare minimum. This is the English Wikipedia, and this is not a court of law. I base this from the arbitration policy. Thanks, NonvocalScream ( talk) 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Latin is much more appropriate in articles than in ArbCom cases. Here we just need things to be as easy to understand and concise as possible. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
[Sorry, I haven't read all the n! threads on this issue, this may have already been stated]
This case should be re-opened and the Arbitration Committee should clear up the real issue with White Pride. Although I don't spend that much time editing, I do care deeply about the project, and the WMF is the only charity that I support. (It's not a big amount of money, so don't think of this as a threat in any way). My point is that I think of this project as a kind of "doing good", hence I take the values and attitudes that we as a community support very seriously.
(Where I come from: I was among other things beaten up by skinheads during high-school, and the fine distinctions between white pride and white supremacy were explained to us when me and my parents took actions with the school administration. For the record, it ended happily, the school must have told them something like "we don't care if you are, white pride and white supremacy, whatever, if that little kid should happen to come to us one more time, you are expelled..." because they never touched me again.)
A real arbitration case that also hears evidence on the potential racism expressed by prominent members of this community would be much appreciated. The evidence by User:Amerique, for example, should have been taken into account. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but racism is a serious matter, so it does matter what editors are fighting for. There are some cases when over-reaction is the right reaction!
The arbitration committee should make clear whether there were elements of racism involved, and how serious they were. That finding of fact would deeply influence the entire set of remedies. Thanks for taking this seriously, Merzul ( talk) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone would care to unprotect the page, I would be happy to submit it to MfD. This is not how we do things here, and this decision should be thrown out post haste. -- Kendrick7 talk 10:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This diff may be of interest [5]. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Disclaimer: my sole encounter with Orangemarlin was highly displeasing. Some months ago he left an uncalled for rude message at my talk at one occasion. To the best of my recollection, I have never interacted with him before or after this incident. So I am submitting this request without any personal sympathy to this editor since I have none. Irpen 21:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The ArbCom have recently published Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin thus establishing de facto a new precedent, the secret case heard entirely off-site with:
My questions are:
-- Irpen 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit, by arbitrator ( Kirill, states "As far as I'm concerned, these announcements have no authority or binding weight whatsoever. "These announcements" apparently include Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. So my question is:
-- Cardamon ( talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all,
Also, I think the notes should be made available, albeit with redaction performed when sensitive details come afoot. That's how the courts in the States do it. -- MessedRocker ( talk) 02:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that there are secretive hearings at all. It was during the hearing of the Digwuren case that I received multiple e-mails form the arbs asking me to draft a proposed solution. After I replied that it would not be ethical for me to draft a decision for them, I was found guilty of "incivility" for this edit which was not aimed at anyone editing Wikipedia. In disgust, I left the project for Russian Wikipedia. Having reviewed the recent cases, I see that the ArbCom has thoroughly disgraced itself with its repeated failures to deal with the IRC plague, which allowed certain unediting wikipedians to turn the IRC into a sysop farm, or an adminship mill, or whatever you call it. In three cases running, Arbcom has now picked and chosen what issues it wants to address and/or has created the case itself specifically to address an issue. In other words, it's changed itself into an activist agent rather than a review body. What a disgrace. -- Ghirla -трёп- 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The way and manner of which the Orangemarlin case was decided isn't new. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom was also decided in secret. It was also more extraordinary. The user was already banned and there was only one thing to consider – whether to unban the user or not. This case was a lot more complex and it was not normally opened with a request on this page like Nathanrdotcom was. hbdragon88 ( talk) 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. With all due respect to the parties involved, it seems that - to put this in a caustic, sarcastic nutshell - Mr. FT2 had it up to the proverbial "here" with something Mr. OrangeMarlin said, went off and wrote a boatload of (very well-written) text, sent it to a mailing list, there were highly advanced grunts of various sorts, and as a result of this process, an established editor is met with sanctions passed nem cot by a high-ranking kangaroo court, operating in secret quarters far away from the prying eyes of dangerous subversives. I was particularly amused with the bit over in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence#Summary/Evidence which read, "Actions that . . . deny [editors] effective recourse to dispute resolution . . . are completely unacceptable".
The last time something like this happened, it really didn't go over too well.
But hang on a minute - we're doing this to "avoid drama"! Ah, yes, the horrible evils of the big D word. A very vocal minority of people that dominate discussions around these parts tend to conflate the natural process of consensus-forming with "drama". It's a pity that this vocal minority takes such ridiculous - at times verging into "extremist" - measures to sidestep what they regard as "drama". It reminds me of my mother - bless her soul - who, for reasons best left unexplored, had a terrible aversion to a certain highway artery in the area in which I grew up. In order to make a certain simple fifteen mile journey, this wonderful woman would take a circuitous, twenty-five mile route, encountering all known forms of urban and suburban roadway evils, from traffic jams to dangerous high-speed intersections to the dreaded left-lane merge, in her quest to avoid a certain seven-mile stretch of road. Much like how my mother's route through the city took her through twice as much of whatever evils she wished to avoid, the actions taken by the "anti-drama brigade" tend to only create deeper drama - be it the BADSITES scuffling or be it the drama centering around a certain well-known contributor's talk page. I submit that the claims of "drama prevention" can be read either as an anti-social, neurotic aversion towards the very human pastime of heated discussion, or as some blatantly "catch-all" rationale to make sure a certain clique's opinions are the only opinions that will be considered. I suspect it's more the former than the latter, but anybody who denies that the latter describes the inevitable consequence of such measures should be briskly beaten about the head, neck, and nether-regions.
So, if it isn't an ArbCom decision, then what exactly is it? "A random sysop or two deciding to enact 'civility restrictions' on an editor of good standing, without input from the community" is the best I can do, but surely there's a better way to spin this?
As you seem to be saying, the NathanR case is an apple. OrangeMarlin is... well... --but I hope the ArbCom truly doesn't place Mr. Marlin's "naughty manners" in the same light as Nathan's behavior.
What a fucking disgraceful situation. Shame on you, FT2, for even thinking this could be deemed kosher, and shame on you, ArbCom, for your complete and utter lack of common sense. -- Badger Drink ( talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here: the secret hearing and the announcments by FT2 and Kirill.
There are precedents for non-public considerations of cases, and for quick actions by the Arbcom. Reasonable people can see the necessity for both. However the ArbCom should develop procedures for handling such cases. At a minimum, it should notify affected parties of claims made against them and ask for any exculpatory evidence. At the conclusion they should publish as much of the case as they can. Note that in both judicial deliberations (the U.S. Suprme Court) and in executive (secret) sessions held by ordinary committees it is standard to hold the final voting in public session or at least announce the voting results.
In the real world, the first thing that a standing committee does is elect a chair and a secretary. The Arbcom has no one who can speak for it with authority. Situations like this, where one member claims to speak for the committee but another denies his statements, confuse the community and lower the prestige of legitimate Arbcom announcements. I urge the Arbcom to choose someone as a chair, secretary, or spokesperson who can be relied upon by the community to faithfully communicate whatever Arbcom decisions makes outside of normal arbitration proceedings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I have serious concerns that evidence presented thus far in this case does not reflect a full understanding of the events it covers and also that it fails to present all these events accurately. I strongly feel that a confident decision cannot arise from this evidence alone. I urge the Committee to not certify any decision without examining alternative presentations of evidence in this case. I urge the Committee that if they ever need to try a case privately in the future to ensure that at least two people develop presentations of evidence in isolation and the parties concerned are at least allowed to review the presentations of their owns actions for errors and omissions before any decision is reached. These are the most basic requirements that must be met for the Committee to have any rational claim to confidence in it's own decision. However the greater the amount review that any evidence receives by disparate parties the higher the level of confidence that the resulting decision merits.-- BirgitteSB 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There are circumstances under which it is appropriate--indeed, necessary--for ArbCom to 1) hold an in-camera arbitration and/or 2) make a summary decision. This isn't one of them. What is even more troubling is that this was made without any opportunity for OrangeMarlin to mount a defense. The evidence appears to spell out unacceptable behavior by OrangeMarlin, but to deny him even a chance to defend himself is highly troubling, to say the least. The rationale for this action offered by FT2--which basically amounts to "We've heard this before"--is not even remotely convincing. Blueboy 96 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God." -- Jesus, Gospel acccording to John, chapter 3, verses 19-21, New American Bible. [6]
Thank you to Charles for your explanation of events. It does, however, leave some questions unanswered. (1) What was the reason behind private consideration to begin with? (2) When you say "a number" of arbiters objected to private consideration, what was that number? If it was everyone other than FT2, ok, fine, but if it was 1 or 2 (both of which are also numbers) then that points to a severe lack of judgment on arbcom's part. -- B ( talk) 16:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The following is an official statement of the ArbCom on the matter. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin was handled in a way normally reserved for serious socking. The matter is weighty with wide ramifications. Even so, a number of Arbitrators were in the end, and after review of the case, not convinced of the need for such summary implementation. This course of events could have been avoided by better use of internal ArbCom communications, and it is not going to set any precedent for the future.
I have to say that I find the "explanation" entirely unsatisfactory. As should be clear to anyone who reads the various noticeboards and talk pages, this is considered a massive fuck-up, with many experienced editors of excellent standing expressing a huge loss of trust. The explanation explains nothing. It's a minimalist description of what went wrong on the surface. It fails to explain why "the case was handled in a way normally reserved for serious socking". It's unclear what "the matter is weighty with wide ramifications" even refers to, or why it should be so. While I can understand a desire to concentrate blame in individual Arbs for what may be simple inattentiveness or a temporary blackout, I really want to know who had the idea of a secret case and how they could possibly think this a good idea.
As for the future: So after OM had been railroaded once the prosecution gets a week headstart in an "expedited" case? I'm willing to assume that nobody noticed this inherent unfairness, but I'm not impressed. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Proceeding with this case seems like a rather poor idea given the current circumstances. Proceeding with it in an "expedited" fashion seems even worse. It seems more reasonable that ArbCom should close it at this time, and not consider reopening for at least 30 days. In the meantime, there are indeed many questions that should be answered, starting with some rather pointed questions for FT2. Furthermore, it would seem minimally reasonable to expect recusal from FT2 in this case as there is a very strong appearance of inappropriate personal engagement and unprofessional conduct. Doc Tropics 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
After FT2 spending almost a month on preparing the case, we now have a new RfAR "The parties and other interested editors are invited submit their views within 48 hours regarding whether the case should be accepted... If four or more net arbitrators vote to accept the case, it will be opened and considered on an expedited basis with the parties advised to present all evidence and workshop proposals within one week." That's a really short time to do the proper amount of analysis and preparation of evidence on a number of incidents. And I came here to edit articles, with the 150th anniversary of publication of Darwin's theory just tomorrow. Orangemarlin isn't a big hazard to the community, and even less likely to be uncivil now. Why the rush? . . dave souza, talk 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This statement still leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm willing to assume good faith and take this as a simple act of egregious misbehaviour by a soon-to-be ex-arb. If that's the case, then the rest of the committee needs to come clean and say so. If that isn't the case, if the rot goes deeper, then we need major reforms in how the committee works. These are basic changes that need to be dealt with before the committee even thinks about considering this case. We need to establish that the committee still has the moral authority to hear this case.
The first thing that needs to happen is that FT2 either resigns from the committee or is expelled for it. He has blatently abused the trust of the community. He has deceived the community. He has been severely disruptive. And he has been utterly unapologetic. Someone like that cannot be in the arbcomm, he cannot have access to the committee that is unavailable to ordinary members of the community, and he cannot be trusted with Checkuser. FT2 has used his position to pursue a vendetta. He has made false claims on behalf of the arbcomm. This is far worse than pretending to have a Ph.D. Until FT2 is completely off the arbcomm, the committee must be considered tainted.
Secondly, we need a full accounting of how something like this could happen. The committee is not allowed to take cases on its own. So how was this matter even raised? And if the matter was being discussed, why did no one notify OM? FT2's deception of the community is only the most egregious offense. How did it even get to the stage where he could claim it had been discussed? Why did the rest of the committee tolerate this sort of behaviour?
Thirdly, the "solution" is totally inadequate. The so-called decision is vacated. We knew that already. But there's no way that the case can continue as normal. If FT2 wants to re-file, he has the same right to do so as any other member of the community. NONE MORE. And, like any other filer, his behaviour must be subject to the scrutiny of the committee as well. Odd Nature has quit because of FT2's lies. The hubris of saying "you have 48 hours to defend yourself", and then a week (a holiday week, no less) to file evidence... No way that is acceptable. This still smells like a kangaroo court. Guettarda ( talk) 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed a very strong appearance that FT2 has exceeded the reasonable bounds of an individual arb's authority and acted in a manner that can be only described as woefully unprofessional. So unprofessional in fact, that his very fitness to continue as an arbitrator is called into question. I am not declaring that he should be immediately recalled from his position, but I will say his actions should immediately and publicly be reviewed and explained, in full, with loss of position being a possible outcome. The fact that, as a group, ArbCom's first public reaction seems to be an attempt to gloss over FT2's impropriety and continue punishing the victim is not at all encouraging. It would be best to close the case against OM and clean up this mess before you do anything else. Doc Tropics 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda, someone (an arb I think) said that the procedure arbcom used in this case is the same procedure that they use for the worst of the sock puppet cases. So the case was not illegitimate in the sense of a case being created, accepted and resolved through means that are not already standard. FT2 is new to Arbcom and maybe he did not know that that procedure was only to be used in very exceptional cases like that and certainly not to be used in cases of established contributors. Please AGF. We all make mistakes. I do think we should reduce his pay by 50% though. :) WAS 4.250 ( talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to chime in here, I obviously agree with pretty much everything Guettarda said. "leaves a lot to be desired" is putting it more than mildly. If the arbitrators think this statement could just mark the end of it, that's just preposterous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with FPAS and Guettarda. This is beyond depressing. It is a revolting example of official fudge. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that we seem to have systemic failures with the process (or is it with the members?) that see the POV pushers rewarded and the content pushers pushed out of the Community? There are some disturbing parallels between the haste and failure of due process of this case, and VU's. How many more will there be? Shot info ( talk) 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Then perhaps it is all of Arbcom who should be issuing an apology for the mess? Rather than FT2 solo? KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This still says that case was posted with the agreement of the committee. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements#Summary_RFAR_case. DuncanHill ( talk) 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). That would be the kind of "secret trial" that has been alleged. We do not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a). We shall make it a rule not to have such matters tracked this way in future, but the core of the problem can be said to lie in this point: trying to specify a completely rule-based system here failed us."
I actually do not understand this. I mean, it is a collection of English words but they make no sense. Please could the arbcom re-write it in clear, meaningful English. DuncanHill ( talk) 10:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sure it has. Was it agreed unanimously? Was it nem con? Given that a major recent problem was in part a result of a lack of clarity on this very point, could arbitrators sign the statement to say that they agree with it please? DuncanHill ( talk) 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What does this mean?
We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). That would be the kind of "secret trial" that has been alleged. We do not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a).
Arbcom thought I was engaged in serious sockpuppetry? OK, I'm really lost. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what we don't care about; we care about judgment, not "care". You still haven't worked this out properly, arbs. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)