User talk:Orangemarlin

Best wishes: even though I didn't made the list! El_C 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

It's a reference to Justice Kennedy's opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, about gitmo. "Departure from the rule is appropriate in “exceptional” circumstances." But it's crap that you don't even get the opportunity to defend yourself. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Swat, I love you man.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 06:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize this is all Swat's fault. Just saying.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.
• 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.
• Filll (talk | wpc) 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) A bad, bad sign. And they start to mount up. "Dogs" indeed...
• 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.
• LeadSongDog (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) No justification seen for the star chamber.
• 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)
• Amerique^dialectics 17:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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.
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) see-also here.
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Secrets do not prevent drama, they create it. Brusegadi (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• WTF? You couldn't write this stuff. Sophia 06:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• And what's with the practice of doing something really controversial, then *seemingly*, almost making it a point not to be around to deal with the immediate fallout? El_C 07:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• This is really awful. If this was so sensitive that FT2 felt that it couldn't be discussed on wiki, why did he feel the need to post volume after volume after volume about all of your transgressions. And lets face it, if he had time tor write all of those tomes, he certainly should have made time to answer any questions you and the rest of us might have had about this. Boo. Hiss. AniMate 08:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• dave souza, talk – I'm shocked by this, both by the blatant failure of justice and the failure to see that their actions completely undermine the credibility of the arbiters. Civility is important, and indeed you must improve your behaviour as you have promised, but the grotesque incivility of this secret trial is a much bigger issue. . 09:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• User:Peter Damian. Only just heard about this, sorry. Peter Damian (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• While there are circumstances under which ArbCom should (or must) hold an in camera hearing or make a summary decision, this doesn't even come close. Even if OM was incivil, the fact he wasn't even allowed to mount a defense ... disturbing in the extreme, unless there's something more to this. Blueboy96 20:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not much one to add my name to these sort of things... but I suppose these truly are exceptional circumstances. In the words of FT2 himself (made on the sham of an 'evidence' page for this very case, no less), "Actions that . . . deny [editors] effective recourse to dispute resolution . . . are completely unacceptable". A pity he can't seem to pay attention to his own marvelous prose. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Kendrick7^talk Whiskey tango foxtrot 10:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• "A long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done". Secret trials are unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Email

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. The Arbcomm may or may not have met in secret.
2. User:FT2 may or may not have gotten consensus for the secret ruling based on secret evidence and secret testimony.
3. There may or may not have been a vote on this secret ruling based on secret evidence.
4. User:FT2 may or may not have interpreted the evidence in the a fair and judicious manner.
5. I may or may not be on parole, probation, or sanctioned.
6. 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)

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

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)

File:Pink Elephant.jpg

like wow, man.....

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

Hang in there, mate, hopefully this will be sorted out soon. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

ROFL.•Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

.........and don't forget lots of these...sorta like a treacle-flavoured enema...

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)

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

Jimbo

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Geez, my talk page is like the local bar. We all sit down to chat on a whole range of subjects. I thought Jaysweet was an admin. That happens too much around here. People who should be admins aren't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, anyway I wish you luck in resolving this, regards. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was fun. You misunderstood me?  :( I like the conversation, because it was something different than the drama. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well for me it's exactly like a bar. . . :-) No popcorn though >:( R. Baley (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I thought you were generally pis*ed off, which your entitled to be considering the obvious. I have watched this episode develope with some confusion, its certainly worrying. Its a shame that all this was posted, then he went out to watch a movie or something when everyone is screaming and shouting. He will return to quite a shock I imagine. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a little pssd off. Also there's the ">" (angry eyebrows) in my above comment. . .if that doesn't say it all then I don't know what does. ;-) R. Baley (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was pissed off this morning, not because of ruling, but at first because I hadn't seen it. I just assumed I had ignored it. Then I realized it was a secret. Then I got pissed. Then I got over it. You know that thing called "unintended consequences"? I got to see people's character--good and bad. There are a couple of admins who were popping champagne corks, then realized maybe it was premature. Then there are others who really showed me something. I'm not going to agree with them (User:B and I probably are never going to share a bong hit) on a whole host of issues, but I'm going to respect them immensely. Changed my attitude completely. Of course, some whom I didn't respect, I don't respect even more. Oh well, I'm not pissed about anything right now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks R Baley. Well written. I still think it's strange that no one is supporting FT2. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the elite might stick with him/her but the elite will always be in the vast minority. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how did the "elite" become the elite? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

By posting on Wikipedia Review. The WR crowd (LaraLove, Lar, SirFozzie, Giggy, Viridae, Sceptre... you know who they are) have mostly been saying "well, it was out of process, and not done transparently, and so on, and yes we've been calling for transparency and adherence to process, but we've been wanting to get rid of OM for a long time so it's OK." 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.212.94 (talk)

What came first, the chicken or the egg? How the hell would I know? Lol :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Feudalism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

←BTW, where is the freaking popcorn? I prefer real butter not that fake stuff in theatres. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, at least your trying to see the funny-ish side of it. My watchlist has been really quiet today. It seems even the vandals are watching in horror. (Might be my quote of the day) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My watchlist is filled with stuff. I haven't done a real edit all day. I'm going to do one, just for the hell of it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But, will the elite approve?  ;) The world wonders. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My watchlist that's usually filled with IP vandals and various medical articles at the top, now has probably 100 or 200 user talk pages at the top. I look at a few of the pages, and the discussion about this case. One person on whose talk I just posted was convinced I was told of this, so it must be fair. I wasn't. And it isn't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Emot-munch.gif

A salve

Enjoy some "allopathic" levity. Antelan^talk 05:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of that. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazed

I just do not know what to say. And for me to say that, that is quite a bit. I am stunned. Yeah, obviously doing it in secret will cut down the drama, eh? --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

Perhaps everyone who wants Wikipedia to be a great encyclopedia can learn from this incident that we are now too big for rules like "Ignore all rules" and unthinking decisions that include extremest language like "whatever it takes". Perhaps we can learn that process and treating people like we would wish to be treated (with civility at the very least) is important. Nah, who am I kidding. People come for the encyclopedia and stay for the drama. Gotta go buy some more popcorn. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude. I don't agree with you with very much, but I do agree here on two points: 1) The drama around here is amazing. 2) Popcorn....I wish I had some. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I feel your pain. Fred Bauder once gave me an indef block out of the blue with zero prior communication with me or anyone else. He quickly reverted himself though when brought to his senses by actually talking to people about it. He did not even think to talk to me on my talk page until asked to by others. This is arbcom :-O WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS - What do you disagree with me about? I was not aware we had areas of disagreement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Two places: 1) your attempt to rehabilitate Mr. Moulton. 2) AIDS denialism. In the first case, I've basically left him alone. But he shouldn't be resurrected. In the second case, you made a massive change from a POV-SPA editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. Moulton has demonstated he should not edit here. On AIDS-denialism, I thought the article was better giving both what the idiot's claim and what the scientist's response was and if there was no scientific response then the idiot's claim should not be allowed. I don't get why you disagree with that, but that's ok - it is the type of disagreement honest editors have with each other all the time. Find a concensus and move on, is best I think. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't sure what you were doing with Moulton. I kind of thought you were engaging him in a manner where he'd either show himself to be what we thought he is or not. Of course, he showed his true colors. So, I'm not sure that was your goal, but it certainly did what I thought it would do. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's getting annoying around here, the "we" is the community, not some mysterious conspiracy.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh so "we" is not the mythical and all powerful ID cabal??--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I may as well sign up. The ID cabal is only one kicking any ass on this site! Amerique^dialectics 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with everything they do. No let me say: I don't agree with a lot of what they do. But at least they do their thing on Wikipedia instead of bitching and whining and accusing on an outside forum like Wikipedia Review. That is gutless and dishonest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.212.94 (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I think that WAS 4.250 did valuable service by engaging Moulton over those weeks and trying to get him oriented towards editing along WP principles.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I thought the conversation was interesting, and it actually gave me a much better perspective on where Moulton was coming from. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Which was? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WAS 4.250's conversation with Moulton could have continued for several months longer, probably, if Moulton had avoided the temptation to attack regular Wikipedia editors from his "bully pulpit" on his talk page. I am not sure that WAS 4.250 or Lar or Kim Bruning or Durova or anyone could convince Moulton to accept the foundational principles under which Wikipedia operates and to abide by them. The reason I am not optimistic is Moulton's previous long long history of online disruption in various internet communities, resulting in Moulton's banning from many many of them (see Moulton's second RfAr, for example). And if you read the dialogue between Moulton and others in those situations, you will find it is eerily parallel to the statements Moulton makes about Wikipedia. Moulton rants about "theory of mind" and the DSM IV and "ethical journalism" and makes demands for "due process" and so on and so forth at each of these communities, just as Moulton has done at Wikipedia. Moulton just repeats the same material over and over, at different online communities, complaining he has been mistreated. Moulton has apparently been doing this for well over 10 years. Moulton has it down to a science, with standard responses to just about any comment by anyone else. One could almost program a bot with Moulton's responses. So, could one bring Moulton around? Well maybe, but I would not be too hopeful given that history.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's what I saw too. And not only us. Someone actually went to the effort to create a Moulton response bot and Moulton liked it so much he put it in his online space. If you ask him, I'm sure he will be glad to give you a link to it. I don't recall where it was but I tried it. The answers had nothing to do with entered questions so I got bored with it pretty fast. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite our disagreements and your offensive behavior, you were a good editor

If you feel you cannot abide by the ArbCom result and must leave, that's your business. I personally think you're giving up too easily. But whatever. It's your choice. Vaya con dios. Or sin dios. Your pick. Feel free to delete this message because I'm a sock. (Thassajoke.) 67.135.49.116 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

Thanks for the quick revert on my userpage! SQL^{Query me!} 10:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin RFAR

Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to participate as long as User:FT2 is part of the ArbCom. His arbitrary, caprious, and vengeful posting of this RfAR without consensus, his comments that this method will reduce drama (it hasn't), and his posting of what is essentially an attack page is troublesome. Participating will give legitimacy to his methods. This is patently unfair to me.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - this is ridiculous. There's no way that they can even begin to pursue this until FT2 is removed from the committee. They really need to clean their own house first. Guettarda (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I do not think Arbcomm got the message from the community and from Jimbo. Wow. I think there are some systemic problems at Arbcomm. This is worse than it appeared at first, I suspect.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, tell me what I'm missing: The official statement from the ARBCOM body is that no information about the secret trial will be forthcoming, because the decision is revoked, and so now it's over, done, ancient history. The arbiters involved will not be named. It was a secret because this was seriouser than serious, seriously. The do-over starts right now, and you have seven days to challenge. Hurry up, no time to argue! Clock is ticking! Is that the deal? Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If the ArbComm continues to stand behind this, maybe we should demand that they step down and a new ArbComm be elected. If I read this correctly, FT2 (or ArbComm) took its own sweet time to amass all their evidence, but now that they've been caught red-handed trying editors in absentia, they reiterate the charge, and demand that a defense be mounted in an unrealistically short amount of time, and that the proceeding be expedited. Now, I ask: What is the risk envisioned by the ArbComm to the community to justify that proceedings be accelerated above and beyond other cases currently being dealt with by ArbComm? If there is no risk to the community (I don't see that there is ongoing harm - I personnally see the actions as mostly punitive rather than preventive), then there is no justification for accelerated proceedings.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

FT2 is claiming on his user talk that everyone supported him. But of course, all those emails are secret.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no risk to the community that Arbcomm is worried about. Arbcomm is worried about getting their own coverup underway so they can sweep all this under the carpet and have us "dogs" forget what just happened.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Not gonna happen is my best guess.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest that there is nothing to be lost by ratcheting down the rhetoric a bit and letting things shake out. There are actually reasonable explanations for many of these actions: ArbCom was taken to task for operating in secrecy, so now they're in a hurry to open a public case and address the issue. That's what people were asking for, right? I wouldn't characterize it as "demanding a defense be mounted in an unrealistically short amount of time."

The handful of people who were gloating openly when Orangemarlin was sanctioned in absentia look pretty foolish right now. Why set yourself up to look equally vindictive and blinded by partisanship? The community actually does have the power to keep ArbCom honest - you're seeing it at work right now. There's even been an unambiguous statement from Jimbo that sanctioning someone without the opportunity for defense (and without even notification that sanctions are being considered) is completely unacceptable. Let's take a deep breath. Things will work out. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was letting my Latin (and Iroquois) blood get the better of me. You make perfect sense, of course.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect MC, you are forgetting one thing. Those of us (like me) that will be called on to analyze this long document of FT2's find its holes and flaws and misstatements, and then dig up all the missing evidence. This takes time. Lots of time. Even FT2 who clearly did a very shoddy job took at least a month on this, by all appearances. To deal with this is going to take effort. Lots of effort. Over a holiday week. By volunteers. And there is not even going to be some RfC to help us compile this information that the defense will be based on? I just think it is all a bit much. And then, to have the same discredited Arbcomm, which has already violated its own rules by starting to vote on acceptance early, sit in judgement of the RfAr and potential resulting Arbcomm case is just is a bit much. At least that is how I see it. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm saying that as with anything in life, there are things you can change and things you can't change. Wasting energy complaining about the unfairness of faits accomplis leaves you with less time to work in areas where you can actually have an impact.

As to FT2's evidence, it's axiomatic that strong evidence is characterized by letting diffs speak for themselves, while weak evidence consists of a scattering of diffs surrounded by lengthy editorial intepretation, commentary, and argumentation. Evidence doesn't convince through its length or vituperativeness, but through its diffs. I'm surprised someone who's been around ArbCom as long as FT2 seemed to have forgotten that when compiling his "evidence" page, but then it was apparently not intended to be open for discussion. MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We're still seeing credence being given to the badly flawed "evidence" and I'm very disappointed in Charles Matthews. His "dogs" remarks about ID editors in the Matthew Hoffman case appeared to be a momentary uncivil remark, but now I wonder. . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should insist from the word go that the requirement for expediency be vacated, as it is not in the best interests of a proper defense?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dogs remark, Dave? Really? Wasn't aware of that (always wondered what Filll was talking about). Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,

With Ate by his side come hot from hell,

Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice

Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war." Shakespeare, Julius Caesar. Amerique^dialectics 21:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Or the Killer Chihuahuas of war. Amerique^dialectics 21:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

MastCell - as I read it, FT2 deceived the community by posting a fake "decision". Kirill states in no uncertain terms that the decision is at least misleading. Jimmy pointed out that the arbcomm can't do secret trials. Other people who bothered to read the policy under which the arbcomm operates pointed out that the committee can't even take a case like this. So we have deception and disruption on the part of an arb. There's no way that someone who has betrayed the trust of the community like that could ever remain as an arb. Essjay was run out of the committee for lying about his identity. This is far worse. I don't advocate running FT2 out of Wikipedia like Essjay was, but there's no way that someone can remain in the committee who posts fake decisions.

This isn't a matter of being vindicative. This is a matter of requiring minimum standards of honesty from arbs. We need that if the committee is to function. Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that FT2 thought that he did not have agreement among a majority of arbs, which is what is necessary for a ruling to pass Arbcom. Indeed, he seems surprised he wasn't backed up. Perhaps FT2 is not the one being less than forthright? WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, you have to agree that at the very minimum there was pretty questionable judgement to post (a) just before going off-keyboard for a period and (b) without explicit confirmation from other arbs. This was always going to be controversial and result in angry editors whichever way it went. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not approve of secret trials and I can think of no good reason why OrangeMarlin shouldn't have his say like everybody else facing an accusation - and all his witnesses who may have a lot to add. However, I find it very difficult to imagine that FT2 would be going out on a limb here without the rest of ArbCom. I would say FT2 is nothing if not forthright, straightforward and painstaking. I find ArbComs delayed and cryptic utterances inadequate in the circumstances. Fainites ^barley 22:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WAS - I suppose this is just weird enough a case that you might be right. Of course, the case itself it illegitimate - the arbcomm isn't allowed to take cases on its own, and it can't have secret trials simply for convenience. Regardless, it was unacceptable for FT2 to post a case like this, and unacceptable to defend the action when Kirill cried foul. But it's possible that he didn't set out to deceive. Of course, he still can't continue on the arbcomm. But he may have meant well.

This highlights my initial point - the arbcomm's response was inadequate. We don't know what happened. We don't know what went wrong. Until that accounting is done, the legitimacy of the arbcomm is in question. So to come back from that and re-instate the case isn't OK. Worse yet, to reinstate the case, say that the parties have 48 hours to present their case before the arbs vote - and then to go ahead and vote anyway - shows that there are serious problems. It's almost as if they haven't read the RFC on the arbcomm...not that I would ever assume that any of the arbs would display that level of contempt for the community... Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the implication that FT2 thought this would fly or was acceptable in any way is troubling. But I prefer to view it as an error of judgement (albeit a quite serious one) on his part rather than anything more sinister. Yes, arbitrators are chosen based on their capacity for good judgement, so something like this raises serious questions about FT2's role there. I hope there will be some sort of post-mortem on why this went down, and why any Arb (not just FT2) thought it might be appropriate to post a completed "case" as a fait accompli without even contacting the "defendant". I have not been impressed in the past with ArbCom's ability to police its own members (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman).

But at the same time, I recognize that I don't know what took place on the ArbCom mailing list, and I will almost certainly never know. Also, ArbCom is obviously determined to move forward with the Orangemarlin case as an immediate priority. While I might prefer they look at the procedural issues first, which are signficantly more pressing, that appears unlikely to happen. I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I think that the best approach to take at this point is to reserve judgement and calls for anyone's head until more information is available. I'm sorry, I know that sounds wishy-washy. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing - we need to know. If we are to trust the arbcomm, we need to know exactly what happened, and how anyone can thought something like that will fly. And we need to know that they realise what was wrong with, you know, ignoring arb policy and things like that... Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

FTC2, it's time to go. Shot info (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I always appreciate MastCell's voice of reason, but I find it less than persuasive (even a bit wishy-washy?) in this case because I don't see how, without addressing what went wrong and who was involved, ArbCom could possibly be trusted to hear this case fairly, and the clock is ticking down on those precious 48 hours. Flo Night's questions are particularly telling just now, as s/he is trying to get clarification on how the case came to ArbCom in the first place. I agree that inflammatory rhetoric calling for heads is premature and unproductive, but I'm not sure I understand what course of action you're suggesting at this point. Just lie down and let the arbitration case roll forward with an ArbCom that appears seriously compromised, because that's what's going to happen anyway? If it really was just FT2 acting alone and he can be made to recuse himself, then maybe we could have some confidence in the proceedings... but in spite of people calling for his head, I don't think we have enough information to be sure that it's just one committee member who went off the reservation on his own. Assuming good faith, we have to take him at his word that he thought he had the full support of the committee, and if so, that's a real problem. Until we know what happened and who was involved in it, how can we trust this process?Woonpton (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Eye of the hurricane Award

• I didn't think I'd be giving out another one of these so recently. Looks cool don't it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Eye-of-the-hurricane Award
		For being calm (relatively) at the centre of one almighty shitstorm...whhoooaaa. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it for ya :) SQL^{Query me!} 02:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah! I had fixed it and wrote a slightly crazy looking celebratory note! Boo. I mean, good job SQL. >_> OM, I've replied to you on my talk page. LaraLove|Talk 02:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Congrats on a well-deserved Barnstar.  : ) Doc Tropics 02:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement

Over the past few days, there has been a large amount of drama centered around the so-called "secret" RfAR posted publicly by User:FT2. I will make no further comment on FT2's motivation for creating this drama-filled episode. Whatever the reasons, I was deeply offended by not only the comments written but lack of communication with me.

I appreciate the support written on this page and in other locations from individuals who both worked with me and, in a sense, against me. The common theme across many of the comments was not only the apparent in camera nature of the proceedings, but also my behavior in many situations. It is clear that I received support from individuals who were as offended as I with respect to the nature of the actions, but were almost as equally offended by how I treated other editors.

I will not make any excuses--that RfAR has opened my eyes to what I've done right and what I've done wrong; it is clear that I've tested the patience of this community, and the goodwill I have created through adding to the project is being eroded by my behavior. It is time to end this drama, and to move on.

Without reservation or exception, I apologize from the bottom of my heart to everyone in this community. I will remain civil at all times. It is my feeling that for the good of this project, I must be a valued editor, and if I remain civil, then the whole community wins.

I really hope that we can move beyond this drama, and build an encyclopedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)