Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 28 June 2008

FT2 Statement

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  15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Further clarification (crossposted from AN thread):

This was an exceptional case, and the matter was clear and unambiguous. If Orangemarlin wishes to appeal, he may. But for various reasons, this was the right way to go about it. We have that discretion, and we very rarely use it. But on this case, we have done so. By the very nature of what we saw, the user defends via smoke, and invented pretexts, and smears. We have no interest in enduring a week or two of that, or asking others to. We considered emailing the user for comments before posting, but that too would lead to email and "smoke" as well, and wikidrama and hearsay until the case was belatedly made public anyway and finally decided (and pile-ons that in fact would add little, the evidence being in fact very unambiguous), having had to endured that smoke and hearsay in the background in the meantime.

So by his own conduct, the option we chose was exceptionally, a summary case, involving notification and decision at the same time. In light of the nature of the case and sheer volume of egregious examples, it is appropriate. FT2  15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys apparently have no idea what an egregious breach of any notion of due process or habeas corpus this decision was, or how your proceedings must have the appearance of these civil customs for your pronouncements to carry any sense of justice or just law. This ruling against OM violates possibly every civil standard or idea of what justice is about and what WP is about as an open source framework. Amerique 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That might make sense if either of those legal concepts applied to Misplaced Pages. Kelly 17:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

These concepts are the foundation of any kind of civil procedure aimed at dispute resolution. What passes for process on WP is not exempt from maintaining standards that are taken for granted anywhere any notion of Civility is enforced. Amerique 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to apply those legal precepts in an environment where the "defendants" are pseudonymous Internet posters is just plain silly. Stop taking Misplaced Pages so seriously. "Orangemarlin" (whoever he is), in his persona as a Misplaced Pages contributor, has been been weighed, has been measured, and has been found wanting by the powers-that-be. This has no impact on him in "real life". Looking at the evidence presented, I have to agree with the ArbCom decision. If "Orangemarlin"'s contributions to Misplaced Pages are important to him, he can come back under another pseudonym and should have no trouble so long as (s)he doesn't cause the same type of problems. Get real, Amerique. Kelly 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am real. That's why I see a prosecution and a decision with no defense a complete travesty of any notion of civil process. it is only a website, and i am "only" ceasing editorial contributions and will only be operating in community space until this "decision" is rescinded. Amerique 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're taking this way too seriously. So "Orangemarlin"'s behavior has been judged to be bad. There's nothing to stop the same flesh-and-blood person from coming back here as "Purpletuna" or "Yellowcod" or "Magentamahimahi", and they would have no problem so long as they behaved themselves by community norms. For that matter, it looks like they could continue as "Orangemarlin" with no issues so long as they reformed their bad conduct. Kelly 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe not. That last one is really hard to type. Try it three times fast! ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The RFC I'm contemplating proceeding on isn't going to be focused on OM's behavior, (or even Moulton's, whoever he is) but Arbcom's. That institution seriously needs a review, on wikipedia. Amerique 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs a review or many of our best and brightest will end up leaving. It's really that simple: the ne plus ultra has been reached -- nay, it has been breached.

Kelly, not being uncivil, but your comments are, from my perspective, utter rubbish. Of course, I'm presupposing that we're still allowed to have critical (original Greek meaning) opinions around here. •Jim62sch• 00:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's the due process?

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages made no guarantees for due process or even fairness when dealing with problems. But I also felt that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

What sanctions?--Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This, for one. Guettarda (talk) 18:03, 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)

You still have a right, per natural justice, to answer accusations against you. Issues like fairness apply as well. Secret trials are far more corrosive to the community than is "drama". I can't imagine why anyone would decide that it's acceptable to betray the trust of the community in the interest of minimising drama. Natural justice is one of those assumption that underlie a community. We contribute with that assumption. The only proof we have of authorship, for example, is in the hands of the Foundation. But we assume that we can trust them to act fairly. Similarly, we trust the arbcomm. Or we used to. Discarding basic principles of civil society is an abuse of that trust. Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it but the only RIGHT you have is the right to stop contributing, or to fork. See User:Mindspillage/userpages which applies everywhere. I agree that things need to be run well, that they need to be as fair as possible and that this needs to be a pleasant, collegial editing environment. But there are no rights. ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. You have the right of ownership of your contributions. But this isn't about rights, it's about understanding and trust. There's the understanding, for example, that you won't be blocked arbitrarily. There's the understanding that your name won't be assigned to content you didn't write. There's the understanding that RFA votes won't be secretly changed. There's a general understanding of natural justice. This is a violation of the trust that underlies the community that exists to write the encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Right on. If WP judicial processes towards resolving problematic behavior don't emulate "real world" notions of "due process," WP's openness is the only thing that protects contributors from fear of off-site tribunals affecting their action on the site. Rulings made without allowing the accused to make a defense are clearly preposterous and a travesty of any basic notion of justice or fair play. WP:NOT does not elevate Arbcom to a star chamber, nor does it absolve the institution from responsibility for any actions that affect anyone's participation on site. Amerique 19:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So Lar, you're comfortable with possibly being the subject of a secret hearing and all that that entails, not being able to defend yourself, etc. I am not. And I am certain many more in the community agree with me that secret hearings are a completely wrong way to go about addressing behavior issues. And I also am just as certain that your comfort would evaporate were you in my position. I'm going to make it my job to be sure that the community knows that secret trials are being used by the Arbcom without mandate. Your reasoning excusing secret trials is the same used by the Star Chamber. The Arbcom must not become a Star Chamber. Odd nature (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "comfortable" with it. But I accept it, because it's what I signed up for. I don't think that in camera proceedings are a good approach without a great deal of justification and forethought. But sometimes they are necessary. I trust ArbCom to not have done this lightly. I'm not sure I'd ever be "in your position", though. At least not exactly. But to be fair, lots of secret stuff goes on here all the time. Some of it we call "canvassing"... The Wiki Model calls for the maximum possible transparency. That is not 100%. I do not like that this case was done in camera. I'm not totally convinced it had to be. But I play out what this case would have been like in public and I shudder. To explain why requires casting some not very polite aspersions at you and at others. But I am sure I am not the only person who blanched at the thought of the drama that a public case would have engendered. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You signed up for secret proceedings? I see. But the rest of us didn't. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did. Whether you admit it or not. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The jury is still out over whether this approach will create less drama, or more, than the other open approach. We will have to see.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait for the drama level once I block User:FT2. After careful secret deliberation with a group of experienced and respected Misplaced Pages editors, I've come to the conclusion that either his account has been compromised, or he is unsuitable as an arbiter (or even an admin), and has to be stopped from further damaging the encyclopedia. And I don't know if I'm even half joking... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be an interesting experiment, I suppose. Perhaps we should start a pool on how long your adminship would last if you did that. It would be measured in minutes or seconds I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that this event makes me seriously consider following Raymond, MONGO, and now OM, I don't know how much of a loss that would be. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys could never trust me with the tools. Thankfully, I don't need them to make an argument. Amerique 19:46, 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 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, objectivity is a good thing. And in a community, so is due process. Complex though those two concepts may be. •Jim62sch• 05:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, due process is a good thing. However, I believe a number of editors on Misplaced Pages have been perfectly happy to exist without any right to due process so long as it worked in their favor. From my perspective, only a fool would undermine due process, then complain when the privilege is not extended their way. Sχeptomaniac 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please do explain in depth. I'm all ears. •Jim62sch• 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable, egregious, stupid

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 Misplaced Pages traditions, but also behaved in a way that defies any sense of justice.

• It initiated a case without informing the affected users or soliciting community input.
• It did not perform arbitration, but prosecution, followed by conviction. All that behind closed doors and even the veil of anonymity (FT2 excepted).
• There is no record of who voted to accept the case. Indeed, there is no indication that ArbCom did vote on the initiating the case at all.
• Likewise, ArbCom tried the case in a completely non-transparent manner (always assuming it did - again, there is no sign that it actually did). There is no accessible record of any discussion.
• No involved party had any chance of defending or justifying their actions - indeed, no involved party even knew about the case before it was closed - and not closed as obviously an incredibly dumb idea, but closed with admonishments and sanctions!
• There is no indication of how many ArbCom members were involved at all, nor who supported this decision. All we are told is that "none opposed" any of the passed decisions. The only Arbiter whose involvement is obvious is FT2. I don't know if (s)he is just taking the flak for a collective lapse judgment, or if (s)he has completely lost it and acted alone.

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)

You know, actually, I don't think that's a bad idea. In the absence of a proposed decision page that collates who supported what, could we get an acknowledgement that the arbitration committee concurs with the statement, as authored by FT2? I stress that I am in no way questioning that - I do not believe FT2 would throw the committee under the bus in such a manner - but having the committee's "signatures on the document", so to speak, would be of some value. I add that, even if discussions involving proposed remedies and sanctions are not revealed, surely the vote to close the case could be released? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be nice, but in the past that hasn't always happened (for example in the Mantanmoreland case, a request to know who felt the socking evidence/analysis wasn't conclusive wasn't answered). I think we should assume that if FT2 says it was unanimous, then it was. The only question would be who recused. Do we really want to know that? Maybe. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be significant concern that the process on this case was held in secret. If there is information that can be safely released on how the committee came to these decisions, without undermining the issues that required a secret case in the first place, then there may be value in releasing that information, if only to alleviate some of the concerns about this case. I concur that past precedent would indicate otherwise, but it's worth asking. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(removed dup) I agree, and would like to request the release of whatever information that ArbCom is, on reflection about this matter and in view of the concerns raised, willing to release. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We have no indication of who was involved. Normal Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy rules imply a minimum of 4 votes to open a case, but since normal rules also include the sentence "The Committee will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to rule", they apparently do not apply. Or maybe they do, since there has been no "hearing" to speak of. Even assuming four arbiters voted for opening this case, any decision requires a "simple-majority vote amongst active non-recused Arbitrators" where "arbitrators who abstain from a particular part will be treated as having recused" - which means that a total of one vote is theoretically enough for a decision nem.con. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important that community have the information of which Arbs recused, if only to know how to vote in the next Arbcom election. Odd nature (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll join you in making that request. I would like to know too. But if it's a demand, count me out. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I have left a message for FT2 here, requesting some of the above items. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:14, 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)

Nod. I'm assuming it would have been loudly repudiated by now... ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See which seems fairly "loud". But certainly confusing. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, nor am I suggesting that it wasn't a majority decision. I do think, though, that there is concern over the transparency (or lack thereof) of this decision, and if there are bits of it that can be released without compromising anything, then I see no reason not to release those items. The worst answer I could get is "No", after all. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My take away from the Mantanmoreland case is that there is a good chance that all the answer you will get is "No". The issues aren't the same here, but the committee declined there to say where they individually stood. More generally, the committee rarely says much about their thoughts in a case unless they are opposing an item of the proposed decision, and even then they often just say "oppose" and leave all discussion on their private venues. Being a regular RFAR observer is much like being a kremlinologist. GRBerry 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Sincerely, Gnixon (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Counting chickens? OrangeMarlin 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with User:Moulton situation

User:Moulton has been one who has been screaming about the lack of "Due Process" for months. Let's compare:

• When Moulton's editing was clearly against assorted policies, he was warned repeatedly and several tried to intervene to get him on the straight and narrow.
• Moulton was notified of his RfC
• Moulton had an opportunity to present a defense at his RfC over an 8 day period.
• Moulton appealed the Community Ban/ block at an Arbcomm hearing where he was allowed to present evidence.
• Durova looked into helping Moulton with his situation if he just complied with some simple requests, which he refused to do.
• Several others complained bitterly about the treatment Moulton received, and eventually almost every single person who came to Moulton's defense reached the conclusion that he was not quite ready for unrestricted editing.
• As of this writing, at least 50 different editors have reviewed the Moulton situation and reached more or less the same conclusion: Moulton was afforded every opportunity to defend his actions or reform. Even still, many claim that Moulton was not afforded due process and that it was unfair.

Now in the case of User:Odd nature and User:Orangemarlin:

• Both have been successfully editing and producing featured content for well over a year
• Neither were warned that their editing was problematic.
• Neither was told of this secret trial going on.
• Neither was given the opportunity to defend themselves
• An appeal is possible, but Arbcomm has already announced several times that no defense is possible.
• A long list of editors is slowly building up that support Orangemarlin (and by extension, Odd nature) and deplore what has been done to them.

Interesting comparison, huh? Who had more "Due Process"? Who was treated more fairly?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you mean to write "Now in the case of Odd nature and Orangemarlin" Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry. Too much drama leads to typos.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I slightly disagree. I think that OM and ON were both notified by folks they wouldn't listen to that there were problems with their approach to disputes, and to other users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:43, 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)

Are you really sure you want that analysis carried out in detail? (full disclosure, I'd be on both lists) ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 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)

Filll, take this for what it's worth, but you're probably not the best person to jump to the defense here given the allegations in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design. You're only reinforcing the perception that members of that ID group will aggressively defend other members of their clique. Just saying. Kelly 19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have for weeks now held back and not defended myself or those accused with me. I am not sure this was the right course of action, in retrospect. And Kelly can you tell me with confidence that you never defended any other editor ever here on Misplaced Pages? --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the above, since you've posted extensively there in defense of yourself and others from the problematic ID Wikiproject. I think that "not defended" does not mean what you think it means. Kelly 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, continuing to repeat that nonsense indicates to me that you have the brains of a brick-brat; or else you're congenitally dense; or else you've been brainwashed; or else you're happy maligning a group of people based on the actions of a few: which is it? Or is there some other possibility of which I am not familiar? For which you have EVIDENCE? There are no problems with the ID Wikiproject; a few of the editors have been cited for problems as individuals. There is no "clique". Stop repeating this slander, please, or prepare to present evidence that every member, or at the very least a significant majority of the members, are working in tandem and against policy. I am tired of the bullshit. This is well beyond "defending members of the ID Wikiproject" - this is protesting injustice. KillerChihuahua 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments regarding my brains - I appreciate you not making this a personal issue. Let me say this - smoke=fire, 99% of the time. Nobody is complaining about Wikiproject Military History, Wikiproject Politics, or even Wikiproject Abortion - just a few examples among multitudes of Wikiprojects involved with controversial or disputed subjects.. Yet people are complaining about Wikiproject Intelligent Design everywhere, both on and off the wiki. Yet the members of the Wikiproject see no need to examine their approaches or tactics, and seem ready to resort to personal attacks at a moments' notice, as you have just demonstrated. Hmmm. Kelly 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I take it that either your reading or your comprehension is sub-par today, or else you are deliberately mis-reading my statement in order to make a point of your own. Please clarify; are you dense or are you happy with making personal attacks on an entire group of people based on mob rationale? Please note that I have given you the options both times to either confirm or deny that you are dense, and requested your position: you merely accuse me of personal attacks, which technically have not been made at all. You err; your reasoning is faulty; and your rationale to support your repetition of the slander is a case of Argumentum ad populum, as I am certain you are aware. In short, it is Poor Thinking. KillerChihuahua 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I suggest you refactor your personal attacks, please. One of the major things that the Arbitration Committee brought up in their decision was OM's tendency to escalate things with statements like the ones you just posted. SirFozzie (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made none. I have offered multiple choice to Kelly, in search of an explanation of HER personal attacks. I even asked, is it something of which I have not thought? Please feel free to read also the discussion on my talk page. KillerChihuahua 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, OK. I guess that any questioning of any action of any member of the ID Cabal is now a "personal attack". Kelly 21:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse??? No. Using the term "ID Cabal" is an attack. Referring to "the problematic ID Wikiproject" is an attack. Referring to the "ID wikiclique" is an attack. But you may certainly question the action of any editor on Misplaced Pages whatsoever. Do you see the distinction? Do you get it? KillerChihuahua 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, clearly I've encountered some kind of tinfoil here. Disengaging and unwatchlisting. Kelly 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I think we have some basic disagreement about what "defense" means.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Then by all mean, let's see some real defense. Because right now I'm pretty appalled, based on evidence presented at that RfC, and from what I've seen here and elsewhere. Kelly 19:56, 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)

Oddly enough, neither is actually accurate. Moulton was indef blocked (I know, I'm the one who did it) not banned - which became ipso facto a ban after discussion on AN, IIRC - although that is in some minor dispute. The "rules" about banning have since changed. And it seems that OrangeMarlin has not actually been told anything by ArbCom at all. check AN. KillerChihuahua 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

2400 years ago we had Socrates ... today we have folks arguing with a puppy (and the puppy is the only one making sense). Well, no one ever said evolution was "progressive". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 05:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch case

At Misplaced Pages: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)

Not to dig in, but yeah. That issue is totally what put me on the "side" I'm apparently on. I may not agree with the tactics members of the so-called "ID Cabal" have chosen to pursue, but they consistently seem to be on the right side of the issues, so more power to 'em. Amerique 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Did OM step over the line a couple of times when he was upset about racial issues? Yes he did, but he backed off from those extreme statements and struck them or reverted them. However, was he basically correct to highlight the problems with statements that could be viewed as racially insensitive, insulting and offensive? I do not think he was wrong. And for Arbcomm to make a HUGE elaborate show of how "white pride" is supposedly not racist and to structure most of their case around OM on this basis is just mind-boggling. Incredible. Well, so be it. You make your bed Arbcomm, and now you will lie in it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a straw man argument, Filll. The case spends very little time discussing whether or not White Pride is a racist term or not (actually, I don't recall that it's discussed at all), because it's mostly irrelevant. OM has made accusations of racism based on no evidence and when it was not relevant to current discussion, particularly in the case of Giggy. The clear intent to make WP a battleground over any perceived hint of racism, including importing the battle using out-of-context material found off-site, is the problem. Sχeptomaniac 20:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're putting up the straw man. The case spent a whole lot of time discussing OM's actions in relation to the racism issue: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence#.22The_racism_issue.22_.28Undertow.2C_LaraLove.2C_Dihydrogen_Monoxide_RFA.29. The problem, if you cannot see it, is that OM was not allowed to mount any kind of defense to charges against him. And there was, unfortunately, plenty of first-hand, self-produced evidence for OM's accusations from his detractors, otherwise I wouldn't have been drawn into the case. Amerique 21:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that the case didn't spend time addressing OM actions in relation to the racism issue. What I was saying was that Filll's claim that ArbCom made a "HUGE elaborate show of how 'white pride' is supposedly not racist" did not reflect the actual issues in the case. Personally, I don't see a lot of evidence for OM's accusations of racism, and I think the evidence, and any experience with OM, clearly shows that he has frequently made such accusations when they were irrelevant to the actual discussion, instead using them to "poison the well", possibly permanently damaging an editor's reputation. Sχeptomaniac 22:13, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Woonpton, there's one major aspect to this case that I believe you are mistaken on. In every instance I've seen, it was OM bringing up the "white pride" terminology. No-one was "poking" him with it that I've seen. The_Undertow and LaraLove are the two editors the "white pride" issue surrounded, but are mentioned only a few times in the evidence here. Instead, OM took a summary of the debate over The_Undertow from Giggy's blog off-site and misrepresented it in an attempt to portray Giggy as racist later on. That kind of behavior is the problem. Sχeptomaniac 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm not completely sure what the whole disclaimer regarding ID was about. I don't care what articles a person edits, or what they believe. I guess I should point out I don't edit articles on ID, either. I have some minor overlap with some articles peripheral to ID, as I am interested in Christian mythology, though. Sχeptomaniac 22:37, 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)

"we"? Who's we in this dragging through the mud context? I'd like to hear names. I wonder if they will be the "usual suspects"... But I'm confused, I thought you had "disengaged"? In any case I'm not sure that mud dragging is the most productive approach, is it? ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeals Review Panel

"Rbj's 2007 community ban is to be reviewed either by the Arbitration Committee, or the newly formed Appeals Review Panel, and any relevant findings posted publicly for the community."

Er.. did I miss something? There's no Misplaced Pages: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)

See also: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Appeals Review List, which was announced here, on AN, and elsewhere. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems I really did miss something. Thanks! --Conti|✉ 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification submitted per instructions

FT2 wrote on top of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

Please raise any questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification

Done so, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Secretive hearings: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. --Irpen 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding permalink since stuff sometimes gets removed from the ArbCom page as "stale" which I suspect might be the case here. This way, the record of the request made will be attached to this case, at least. --Irpen 21:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this, but...

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?"

Misplaced Pages is a community, just like your physical community. We've already established that Misplaced Pages is *not* a democracy.

That said, let's not let Misplaced Pages 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 ... Misplaced Pages 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)

Excellently phrased! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FT2 apparently acted unilaterally

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: But Kirill contradicts FT2's claim of arbcom support: 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)

Kirill later stated that there had been discussion on Arb-L and at least some level of consensus. Let's wait and see how it turns out. SirFozzie (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you mean, let's besmirch my name, offend me, and leave all this shit out there, until something may or may not happen. If the table was turned on one of your favorites, you'd be complaining left and right. So, the fair thing would be to remove all of this stuff, and do it the right way, so that I might respond. One day, you need to be consistent in your standards. My plea would be for you to be fair, if you can. OrangeMarlin 04:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was fair to you before, and you decided your crusade trumped civility or other policies, OM. It's all right there in the evidence page... SirFozzie (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The irony is thick. LaraLove|Talk 04:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean attack page? Not a single Arbcomm member has shown up to support FT2. It is, pure and simple, an attack page. Your idea of fairness is bit strange. OrangeMarlin 05:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And not one has come in to back up Kirill's side of things either. It is being discussed. If it was a pure "attack page" as you put it, one of the several ArbCom folks who have already posted in the mean time would have taken it down, already. SirFozzie (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. So your default position is, of course, to allow the attack to stay. Interesting. OrangeMarlin 05:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lara, the irony is thick -- you seem to be missing the salient points (secret trial, unilateral (unauthorised?) action) choosing to dwell on the less important points (OM stated his opinion, OM was snarky). Try to think of WP as a whole (i.e., the precedent being set, the public image) and not of your loathing of OM (or me, or Guettarda or ... well ...whomever).

SirFozzie: more or less ditto. When one focuses on personalities over the community one becomes a detriment to the community. Trust me, Lara and Fozz, were this about either of you, I'd have the same opinion of the situation. HUA? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 05:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This disgrace should be removed

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)

At least 3 admins agree (link). But overturning (even the appearance of) an "arbcom" action requires the demonstration of an overwhelming consensus, I guess. R. Baley (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Passed nem.con.

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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone to read the evidence carefully, in particular the Wikiquette episode

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 Misplaced Pages 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. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)