User talk:Orangemarlin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:38, 28 June 2008

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

This case was held by Arbitrators following their own inquiries.

The Arbitration Committee has noted a number of controversies involving the editing of Orangemarlin and Odd nature, and acting on its own volition and in the interests of minimizing disruption, has discussed the situation privately, and published their findings and remedies in the RFAR arbitration case which is closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedy includes an admonishment to both users, and Orangemarlin placed on parole and a mentor appointed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is interesting. Was Orangemarlin given advance notice so that he could present evidence in his defense? I fear that this kind of in camera secret case could have a chilling effect - you never know if right now the arbiters are considering taking action against you. --B (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. If we were wrong, or we were right but Orangemarlin changes and it does not recur, then all will be good. But 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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That in itself is a very telling comment. Interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not look right at all. The Arbcom seems to have completely overstepped its bounds in acting as both prosecutor and jury, and in a completely closed session where no public defense could be made. Amerique^dialectics 15:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated at AN, this is a bit disconcerting for a number of reasons. The worst is the inability to mount a defense when presented with a fait accompli. This ranks right up with the MatthewHoffman "test case" where regular editors on Wikipedia were referred to as "dogs" and worse by Arbcomm members. The strange inconsistent actions of Arbcomm repeatedly, including extreme dilatory behavior in the face of some egregious offenses, and then voting based on no evidence and now no defense at all, just boggles the mind.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We did indeed look for evidence both sides..." I must have missed the page that lists the complainants, like I missed the page that showed the evidence. Can you show me the link, please? Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well guys, the Nazis did this kind of crap. I'm done here, as soon as I compose a nice goodbye message. This is laughable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid of that :(. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In solidarity. While I found that I agreed with much of the thought process the comittee underwent, and find that you have been incivil, I feel that they failed to adress the other side of the issue (the off-wiki behavior of the chosen few disruptive elements, the constant and malicious behavior of denialists), and that having "secret" trials where not even the accused is invited is beyond the pale. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each person is responsible for their own conduct. Orangemarlin for his, others for theirs. Today happened to be the turn for time to be called on this editor's misconduct, specifically. In the instances cited, it was clear that Orangemarlin was egregiously abusive, in the same serious ways, to multiple people, with gaming, and regardless of their good intentions or otherwise. That was the nature of this case. We found no justification was possible for that degree of misconduct, taken together as a whole picture. None. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Egregiously abusive"? Funny choice of words from someone reporting on their own egregious actions...actions which are an abuse of the social norms under which Wikipedia operates. But unsurprising, given the utter lack of introspection displayed here. Guettarda (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the real-world judicial system (at least the western one), this would be thrown out simply on the basis of a lack of due process. But this is not the real world.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. The most egregious error is clearly at their Finding 3. It's patently unfair to ignore the other parties' behaviour in these disputes. Still, at least there's no substantial penalty (unless you count being told to follow the rules as a serious snub). Please stick around, we need you on medical articles. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete bullshit. I'm ceasing editorial work and am just going to be riding the Arbcom and project space until this ruling is rescinded. OM, I may not always agree with or support your approach to disputes, but the Arbcom has completely overstepped all idea of due process and its own boundaries. Guys, someone started constructing an RFC on Arbcom in his userspace a while ago, I can't find the link to it, but I think that approach is the route to take. Amerique^dialectics 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it too. Seems to have missed other parts of the story. But remember dictatorships work this way--any type of defense I'd be allowed would be a formality, making me feel not so much better. It's funny, Wikipedia wants to be a democratic encyclopedia, acts in an arbitrary and dictatorial manner, and falls way short of the qualities of an academic encyclopedia. How sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though the decision came before the trial, since any evidence you might have put forth in your defense was deemed worthless sight unseen. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tell you, even though I despise certain individuals on this project, I would have been pissed if this happened to them. I'm indignant.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found the link to Lawrence's RFC on ArbCom here: User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. I think contributing to it and making it "live" may be the best way to harness community input into the situation. Amerique^dialectics 18:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This was an exceptional case" is utter nonsense -- unless you're Dubya pretending you have a reason for holding people indefinitely, without a trial (or maybe a secret trial held by a CIA/NSA cabal). Of course, OM's veiled reference to the Volksgericht should be stricken as the Volksgericht at least had the courage to at least stage a public trial. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike with the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, I'm pretty sure there's no national security issue here. A sovereign nation detaining enemy combatants in a time of war is not the same thing as Wikipedia's arbitration committee deciding to sanction a user without getting his side of it. --B (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're using metaphors here. But since it isn't a matter of national security, it would be nice that I get to state my side of the story. Oh well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue about Gitmo here; but OM is correct re metaphors. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another view

Please see the concerns I voiced to Ncmvocalist here.

This may turn out to be a pebble in comparison to the boulder that Kirill dropped on the community today, but I was just not pleased when I read that section of the Evidence at the ArbCom hearing. While it is true I voiced serious concerns about some of OM's actions at that time (and I continue to feel he made some pretty big errors in regards to that case), the ArbCom findings in regards to that Wikiquette Alert are seriously lacking in context. I haven't followed a lot of ArbCom hearings, but it seems like they might have wanted to contact the editors who were there. I mean, my words were paraphrased in the Evidence for an ArbCom hearing, and I didn't even find out about it until after the (highly controversial) ruling? :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of disgusted to read the thing again, but didn't FT2 state the reason he (and I repeat HE) didn't inform me is because I'd make some sort of defense without facts? So, he did the same thing? That's why you have public discussion--you may have still had my ass for whatever, but not in the context they did. Hey look, if Jpgordon drops me an email that HE wants me to do this or that, I'd be respectful. FT2 invented shit. That's why it was secret. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, FT2 invented the ruling, too. I suppose. So it's been said. Anyway, whatever happened this whole event is despicable and dastardly. Jim62sch^dissera! 01:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wronged

Says we:

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
PouponOnToast (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC). While Orangemarlin was frequently incivil and I feel the result was just, good faith users have the right to present a contemporaneous defence.[reply]
Ramdrake: Orangemarlin may have acted wrong, but that is not a good reason to deny him the right to respond to his accusers.
Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Secret cases and in camera trials. WTF.[reply]
Filll (talk | wpc) 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) A bad, bad sign. And they start to mount up. "Dogs" indeed...[reply]
Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I see no compelling reason for a secret trial. I was under the impression that WP didn't want to scare people away from editing. Well, this is frightening.[reply]
LeadSongDog (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) No justification seen for the star chamber.[reply]
B (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC) - you can't just sanction someone without an opportunity for them to review the accusations and present evidence of justification. --B (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amerique^dialectics 17:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Keeper76. In all fairness to the Nazi's, they at least got to have defense lawyers at their trials, or at the very least, knew the trial was in fact happening.
Stephan Schulz (talk). See my comments on the ArbCom case talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Secret trials in which the accused not only has no voice, they are even unaware of their peril? There is no excuse nor justification extant for this kind of behavior. I am deeply concerned about this action by ArbCom.[reply]
Woonpton (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Will coment on ArbCom case talk page, but a short comment here: to my mind, this decision sets a very bad precedent by condoning and even encouraging racist attitudes on Wikipedia, completely aside from the questionable nature of the process that led to the decision. No doubt OrangeMarlin was uncivil at times, but I think there's a larger issue here that's much more troubling with regard to Wikipedia's credibility and reputation than OM's incivility.[reply]
And I thought the MHoffman case was out of process. It appears that the Arbitration Committee, as it currently stands, can not be trusted. R. Baley (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kim D. Petersen (talk) I have no idea what happened here. And thats the exact problem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Malleus Fatuorum. I am shocked by this event. This has set a very serious precedent. No matter what Orangemarlin was accused of, there is a basic right of representation, or there ought to be. I am rapidly losing what little faith I had left in the way that wikipedia is run. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) see-also here.[reply]
Doc Tropics - this is so fucked up I am nearly incoherent with outrage. In a community-driven project that prides itself on tranparency and openness this is wildly unacceptable. What were they thinking? Doc Tropics 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fucked up is an understatement. This is duplicity at its lowest, slimiest level. Is there a point to WP's existence any more? Oh, yes: we must train people to be so civil that their every comment oozes with unctuous treacly insincerity. Bah. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realist2 - I dont agree with a lot of your actions but in the west at least, we try to support fair trials. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 00:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Bizarre turn of events which requires a really good explanation. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd, and someone better be held accountable so nobody else tries to do it in the future. J. Spencer (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like Guantanamo: secret trials and deliberations with no legal recourse possible. OM's actions aside, this is a bad precedent. seicer | talk | contribs 03:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think OrangeMarlin is innocent here, far from it in fact.. but the way the Committee went about the Arbitration, the actual Evidence the compiled, and their Conclusions, all three have serious problems. --Jaysweet (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know every single evidence or action that you did, but a secret hearing without letting the defense know is just as bad as a secret ruling made in a communist country. And if they can admit in plain sight that they're doing this, I think someone with a lot of power is behind this matter. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

So first of all, I refuse to further comment on the Star Chamber quality of the above. This place is a bit odd about things like this. So anyways, here's some goodbyes. I would go to all the pages, but someone will block me or something. And I don't feel like chasing everyone down:

SandyGeorgia...good work. I don't always agree with you, but you're like one of the four or five people who clean up this mess around here. Maybe you can get AIDS back to FA status.
Filll, FM, OddNature, Guettarda, Killer Puppy and anyone else who's in the cabal with me. Help clean up this mess too.
Casliber. Hey don't eat too many mushrooms while watching zombie movies.
Firsfron...still don't think you were fair. But, don't let anyone mess up that Katie article. I personally learned more about dinosaurs and the such than I ever could believe.
MastCell...quit watching House. It's not good for you.
Raul...Hopefully you read this. Thanks for everything.
Dave souza...sorry I couldn't be nicer around here. Too many crazies.
B. Well, l have more respect for you than you'll ever believe. I admire you, I hope you understand that. However, probably still won't vote for you for President. :)
ScienceApologist. Well, I'm too honorable to put up with this bullshit. I'm not sure how you do it.
Forgot ElC. One of the good guys, and makes this list very weird, since B and El C couldn't be more different.
To all the good guys (and I'm sure I missed individuals). This place really needs work. Have fun making this place better.
To all the bad guys. Meh. Don't consider this a win. Someone will replace me who's nicer, smarter, and much more devious. I'll enjoy watching it.

OK, time to go ride my R 1200 RT, smoke a cigar, drink some scotch, oh, and be over this in about I'd say 12 but it could take 13 nanoseconds. Bon chance. Au revoir. And this is not a "retired" message. Geez.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Second'd,~~ Best wishes - though I thought for a second that you said to Sandygeorgia "Maybe you can get AIDS...", which gave me a start. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm....!!?!?!???!!?? (somehow at a loss for words, so lots of characters express my feelings in a more apt manner) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Just letting you know you have at least one. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've gotten a bunch. I don't traditionally respond to emails off-wiki, because, you know, people use them against you whenever. But thanks for your kind words. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ʻAʻole pilikia (no worries). See you later (maybe). --Ali'i 17:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem true... I go for a week on holiday and on my return I see you quit... Can this possibly be true?. This is big lost for science on the internet.Many people will miss you but at least in the AD article you are simple unreplaceable. It is going to be very hard to continue with it without you. Nevertheless.... best wishesssss. I hope you decide someday to come back, and I also hope I am here to see it. --Garrondo (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't quit. Just protesting this secret trial.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you aren't watching, but read this. Wow. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I'm not stalking you, Keeper, I'm just lagging a little behind you... sheesh. Came here to post that very link. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tis okay, I type like the wind...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it. You have no idea how hard it is to type with paws instead of fingers. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←See below. WTF??? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes

Even though I didn't make the list! El_C 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the !!!!????

I am indignant, pissed, embarrassed, and humiliated. User:FT2 should be thrown out of the project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal. El_C 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My money is on an account compromise of user FT2. Wanna bet a double double on it (either animal style or protein style, depending on your view of Atkins)? Antelan^talk 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a supporter of Atkins diet, based on some research I've done on evolution of human diet. However, 10 lbs of bacon at breakfast...probably not. I don't bet on that. Look at his contributions over the past 30 days. He's done some things that indicate he's on a vendetta. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing about the protein style double double is the absence of a sterile bun to leach the succulence from the never-frozen beef patties. Antelan^talk 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser. Since this is about me, and it's getting like a Three Stooges or Keystone Kops episode, we can conclude the following:

The Arbcomm may or may not have met in secret.
User:FT2 may or may not have gotten consensus for the secret ruling based on secret evidence and secret testimony.
There may or may not have been a vote on this secret ruling based on secret evidence.
User:FT2 may or may not have interpreted the evidence in the a fair and judicious manner.
I may or may not be on parole, probation, or sanctioned.
Secret in camera sessions may or may not be allowed, happen in the future, or even be admitted to.

Do I have this right? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my understanding as well, such as it is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure that one of Casliber's shrooms hadn't mysteriously entered my food supply. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink Elephant.jpg

like wow, man.....

...bit of a Harpo Marx moment there... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PC Substitution templates

Fuck off troll (or variant thereof) --> I'm sorry but I am going to have to remove your post as I feel that it may not have been written in the best interests of you and me discussing an issue to its natural end but rather an attempt to make me feel unhappy or annoyed

add new ones below XD. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo --> Ideas not just ahead of their time, but also ahead of any evidence that supports their existence Antelan^talk 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pissed --> annoyed (erm too strong), discomfited, taken aback, thoughtful

don't ever post here again -> I request, at the generosity of your patience, that you defer until such time as porcine aviation has become commonplace before reposting that delightful notice on my talk page.

Indeed: "every comment oozes with unctuous treacly insincerity". Jim62sch^dissera! 00:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely keeping this thread for future use. Mainly because said trolls, woo-pushers, pissed off individuals, and those requested to leave this page may need a translator. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should add my comments at the bottom, given the traffic your talk page is getting...

Just in case you missed it..--Jaysweet (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo

Jimbo has responded to this issue on AN. Regards. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 02:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as "replied where" is a valid question, he replied here. Guettarda (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite line was, ". . .for the ArbCom to work quietly with people to resolve conflict in a way which preserves dignity and minimizes drama." Made me smile, it did. R. Baley (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We find it's always better to fire people on a Friday. Studies have statistically shown that there's less chance of an incident if you do it at the end of the week. --B (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there have been a long trail of errors in this process. Jaysweet comments here have made me even more confused and concerned about the actions taken against Orange. Jaysweet has a level head and hits the nail on the head every time [1].— Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I wonder why they chose to ignore that? seicer | talk | contribs 04:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen all of Jaysweet's edits, but the ones I have seen. . .well, I get the same impression: a level head. Should be an admin. R. Baley (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked him a month ago and offered to co-nom if an admin would also add their support. He said he wasn't ready yet. :-( — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he'd consider it if it was triple-nom'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 :::::Haven't seen all of Jaysweet's edits, but the ones I have seen. . .well, I get the same impression: a level head.  Should be an admin.  [[User:R. Baley|R. Baley]] ([[User talk:R. Baley|talk]]) 04:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 ::::::I already asked him a month ago and offered to co-nom if an admin would also add their support. He said he wasn't ready yet. :-( — [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#0f0">'''Realist'''</span><span style="color:#120A8F"><sup>'''''2'''''</sup></span>]] ([[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#EF9B0F ">'''''Who's Bad?'''''</span>]]) 04:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
+:::::::Maybe he'd consider it if it was triple-nom'ed. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)