Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters

WP:AN/OM

Kirill statement

The announcements made today by FT2 (including both the Orangemarlin issue and the various other matters) were posted without the approval or prior knowledge of the Committee as a whole. Further, no formal proceeding, secret or otherwise, has taken place regarding Orangemarlin or any other editor named in that particular statement.

As far as I'm concerned, these announcements have no authority or binding weight whatsoever.

Not on behalf of anyone but myself, Kirill ^(prof) 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow also. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat well and truly among pigeons. Wow indeed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x3) Oh. Second the wow. And categorically withdraw any comments which indicate concern about precedents and/or ArbCom as a whole. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least they now know how the community will act. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wow" doesn't begin to describe it. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of editors, including myself have notified User:FT2 of this thread. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse "wow". Friday (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hereby see your Wows, and raise you one WTF-T2. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow to infinity. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be almost superfluous, but I see this as immediate grounds for desysopping and expulsion from the committee, if this is true. This would be an unprecedented abuse and manipulation of authority. I'm truly stunned, and I hope that there is some sort of explanation for this that doesn't involve malfeasance and deceit. FCYTravis (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be hasty. Naerii 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I hope there's a good explanation for this. But... holy Gods, we've now got an intra-ArbCom war on our hands. Shocking and depressing, to say the least. Kirill's statement above does not leave much room for other options, unless he's lying too. My head just asplode. A sad day for the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Naerii 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. This could be a case of Really Bad Misunderstanding. Shall we not judge FT2 without hearing his version, please? (the irony is palpable, is it not?) KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Killer, that's too much! What a belly laugh. I'm going home now with that one. Stellar. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would note FT2 said he would be back tomorrow here. Davewild (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

Please don't cry for blood until FT2 has had a chance to explain.

That said -- OMFG teh dramazzzz!!!!! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I come to AN/I to look for drama, because I find it interesting. I guess I hit the mother lode today. Dr. e X treme 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean as opposed to the chance I didn't get. I guess that's fair. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have always studiously avoided any anti-OrangeMarlin pile-ons. I don't always feel great about 100% of your edits, but as you've heard me say before, I value the work you do immensely, and I think you get way too much flack for every single misstep.

So, just because others have called for you to be prematurely crucified does not, in my mind, reduce my credibility in asking that some of those not also be prematurely crucified. Yikes, that was a mouthful... well, you get my meaning :) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

The proverbial excreta is indeed heading fanward, time to duck and cover. RMHED (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I got a nice ride on my bike OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell just happened?! bibliomaniac 1 5 22:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on? If this true Ft2 should probably been dearbcomed. If it is not the whole truth that can at least the basic facts being added: like who of arbitrators accepted the case, who recused, who was not present, etc. It surely do not violate any possible privacy issues involved. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So can we assume that John Vandenberg was directed by FT2 to post the announcement regarding the Orangemarlin "case," then? It seems odd that an ArbCom clerk would post something without previous knowledge, but not being knowledgeable about the inner workings over there, could be feasible, I suppose. I note that Kirill makes this statement specifically on his own hook - I think we need a blunt statement from ArbCom as a whole as to what the hell this has been all about, considering the zOMG DRAMAZ it's generated. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly don't pretend to know exactly what is going on here, I had the impression something was seriously wrong yesterday on seeing this edit. Note the edit summary: "misunderstanding (not all discussion is held on the main arb-l)". If it isn't then where the heck is it happening? Risker (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Well, I can offer an educated guess. --Irpen 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "without the approval or prior knowledge of the Committee as a whole." makes me think Kirill didn't even know about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving? Sigh

As if we have not been there, some are trying to "archive" the active discussion. This is plain silly and had never helped calming anything. Ridiculous. --Irpen 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of sight, out of mind? Jim62sch^dissera! 16:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal request for clarification submitted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Secretive hearings: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin submitted. I think it is best to continue this discussion at the related talk page. This looks to me as a disgrace but then again, I may be wrong. Let's see what comes out of this request. --Irpen 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has FT2's account been compromised?

Given the extraordinary circumstances, I think it is important to ascertain if FT2 is in possession of his account at this moment, or if it has been compromised. Antelan ^talk 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would suggest a CheckUser take a look at his recent contribs to see if the IPs have suddenly changed... FCYTravis (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not compromised. The suggestion isn't even credible. Avruch 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... And here I go following up on it by filing an RFCU. Silly rabbit. Antelan ^talk 22:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised? And no one on the entire arbcom noticed for almost a whole day? Hmmm. . . R. Baley (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grassy Knoll Theory: Kirill's account has been compromised. :p

Seriously, though, people, until we hear more from FT2 and/or the rest of ArbCom, all of this is pointless speculation -- no matter how juicy we may all find it. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm withholding any final opinion, it would surprise me if another person could imitate FT2's prose style so long or so well. Durova^Charge! 22:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances and the concerns here, I ran a checkuser. The answer is that, no, FT2's account is not compromised. Let's not cause unnecessary drama here, folks - Alison ^❤ 22:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think that should assuage some of the drama. Antelan ^talk 22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming my account is not compromised. As Durova says - wording style if nothing else. Comment below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... Style AND length! ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (runs)[reply]

Yes, only Filll is more verbose than FT2... --Dragon695 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. I am speechless now.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone considered suspending ArbCom until this is all worked out?

As it says, ArbCom seems to have lost community confidence and are now involved in warring among themselves. It might be the best course of action to ask ArbCom to suspend themselves or ask Jimbo to suspend ArbCom until this is all straightened out. Bstone (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake, no, that would be a bit much. Just wait, and I am sure all will be made clear in due course. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why don't we all have a nice cup of tea while we wait for some more clarification by various (and potentially future former) arbcom members? There's nothing we can do, after all, apart from staring in surprise at our screens. --Conti|✉ 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, I actually did just make a cup of tea. And yes I agree, there's no need to go rushing into anything. Let's not respond to one bad decision with another bad decision. Naerii 22:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Activation of view-deleted-pages

The more I think about it, the less I like this idea. As proposed, it is far too easy to game. Sensitive information is at stake here; it would throw the door wide open to exploitation and has been proffered with no community input whatsoever. Per Kirill's post I wonder whether this was offered with any actual authority. Please clarify; if this is indeed serious I oppose this in the strongest terms--both its practical implications and the method of proposal are entirely inappropriate. Durova^Charge! 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this proposition will need to go through extensive ~~polling~~ discussion somewhere before we act, anyway. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has been proposed in the past, and even the ability for non-admins to see their own deleted contributions or just a list without having access to the content was shot down. Mr.Z-man 23:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it merits revisiting. This is a great idea and it will lighten the DRV load I suspect. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if oversight powers are broadened and used far more commonly. Much of what is deleted is completely inappropriate for anyone to see - private information, libel, personal attacks, etc. FCYTravis (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "much" means 5%, then perhaps you're right. Most of what is deleted at speedy is silliness or self-advertising; everything deleted at AfD has been widely exposed to the world in general. Traces of many deleted things are left behind on talk pages. When a ban is proposed for a persistent vandal, it's not unusual to copy the key parts of the abuse to AN/I so the community as a whole can judge it. And in any case there are over 1500 administrators, who are not themselves 100% reliable all of the time. 99%, yes. But I'd say it's about the same percentage for established editors. DGG (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements

Was this a unilateral action as well, much like the OM case? If so this just adds to the problems, as it is an FT2 post from today. Wizardman 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blanked the page due to questions concerning the validity of all the announcements. R. Baley (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about all those subpages and the Orangemarlin case? I propose that we don't touch anything until we actually know what the heck is going on. --Conti|✉ 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have one arbitrator saying the announcement was "on behalf of the ArbCom" and the other (speaking only on his own behalf) saying it was not. Aside from the necessity of getting FT2's explanation, other arbitrators should also clarify whether they feel this was agreed upon. Perhaps no process took place at all, perhaps an inadequate process took place, or perhaps it was a perfectly adequate process—we don't know due to the ArbCom's habitual secrecy. Everyking (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way it's a lot more entertaing than anything on the TV at the moment. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure that no one tries to enforce anything or take any other action based on the "announcements". What to do with the rest will become clearer as the dust settles. R. Baley (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is about me, wouldn't it be "fair", and nothing has been fair today, why wouldn't we remove all of the pages about this? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest userfying them all to FT2's space. --Irpen 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW AND WTF! Something's ROTTEN in Denmark. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving everything alone until the rest of the arbcom and FT2 respond. Naerii 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have courtesy blanked Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin pending arbcom deciding what it wants to do with it. Call it a BLP blanking or something. --B (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have undone it, this kind of action isn't what's needed to fix this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think blanking wasn't necessarily a good idea. I second the idea to let this chill till more clarity is in the offing... more arbcom members, FT2, anything would be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Panic. The ArbCom is capable of deleting, editing or blanking pages they do not wish to be out in the open. I suggest that everyone just leave the status quo the way it is, and let them sort themselves out. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And reformatting my hard drive isn't going to cook a pizza. I never said that blanking it would resolve the question of whether or not it was authorized by arbcom. What blanking it does do is remove libel from sites that mirror Wikipedia content. If we would have the good sense to only open up article space to search engines, then it wouldn't matter, but as it is, there are a lot of claims there about OrangeMarlin that one arbiter has just disavowed. We normally blank or delete libel. --B (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only libel on that page is in quotes from OM. LaraLove|Talk 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Respond to accusations of libel by libelling someone. Peccable logic. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, do nowt. RMHED (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. If anyone has a problem with any of these pages, make a polite request and wait for the appropriate action to be taken. This will help prevent edit warring, wheel warring, and the formation of naked singularities. Jehochman ^Talk 23:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI, we already have a don't panic here. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMarlin/Odd Nature Case Spot On

I dunno what is going on with those other proposals, but the OrangeMarlin and Odd Nature case has been a long time coming. It basically solves half the ID RFC problems in one fell swoop, I suspect FT2 was being WP:BOLD. Of course it requires review, but I think it seems best for the community if these two users were given those remedies. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it seemly that what seems best is seemingly carried out secretly? RMHED (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In spirit I understand your concerns, as I have been a vocal critic of secret hearings for the undesirables on WP (pedos, 9/11 truthers, etc). However, there does seem like some poetic justice in them getting a taste of what they did to poor old Moulton, which is to deny him due process. These folk have been very stubborn at the RFC in admitting any problems with their bad attitudes and I think this kind of thing was coming sooner rather than later. Just my opinion, though. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Really? I think it would be best for the community if this dispute were handled like every other dispute in the history of Wikipedia. Instead, one ArbCom member compiles "evidence" which is mostly personal commentary on an editor - if I presented "evidence" like that at an ArbCom case, I'd rightly be told to stuff it and confine myself to diffs instead of argumentation.

I won't touch the issue of whether he actually spoke for the Committee, some portion of it, or only himself without more information, but even if it were a unanimous ArbCom action, it sucks. There's absolutely nothing dramatically different or worse about this dispute than dozens of others handled by the usual means. I've seen cases much worse than this, with much more drama and real-world impact, handled in the open, and I'm happy to list examples if anyone doubts it.

Is it April Fools' Day already? This sort of thing would never have happened if Newyorkbrad was still around. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, I do share some of your concerns. Process is very important to me, but with Filll always filibustering the discussions with his long-winded dialog, it is very difficult to talk without talking past each other. Like I said, I think it bears some review and further discussion. If anything, this happening might be the inertia needed to inspire behavior change or depature if that is not possible. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your question about secret cases, the biggest problem with secret cases is that there probably isn't an admin or long term user on the site that doesn't have one or two actions that, without context, look not all that spectacular. Now some of it may be very bad stuff that needs to be dealt with, but there needs to be an opportunity to explain your actions before sentence is handed down. Private consideration of controversial cases isn't necessarily bad, and may be a good thing in that it can keep us from having a big wikidrama, but in this case, OM was not notified of the case or allowed to present evidence in his defense. That's the problem. It's also a VERY big problem that arbcom is defending "white pride". If you are a racist, you have no business pushing racism here. White pride is inherently racist. Our own article on the subject is in Category:Racism. If you are into "white pride" and don't see that viewing your race as better than somebody else's race is a problem, then that's a you problem. --B (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite the leap to draw the conclusion that Arbcom is defending "white pride" from any of this, I must say. I was nodding, thinking, ya I may not totally agree but it's well reasoned thinking, till I got to that part. Really, how is that conclusion supported? And if questioning that leap of logic makes ME a racist in your eyes, boy are you confused. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the evidence page? It isn't mentioned on the arbitration page itself, but on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence, about half of the real estate concerns the DHMO/undertow/etc "white pride" thing. "Part 1" of the evidence is about nothing but questioning OM for opposing DHMO's RFA over DHMO's defense of "white pride". There is no evidence of any incivil behaviour there - only that he opposed someone who was a supporter of white pride. I'm all for presenting actual evidence of wrongdoing if someone wants to do it, but calling a supporter of "white pride" a racist is no more incivil than calling a doctor who works on people's teeth a "dentist". --B (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the evidence. The conclusion I reached from that evidence squared with my recollection of events as they unfolded, and squared with the findings of ArbCom (putative findings of a putative ArbCom?)... to wit, OM was flinging around scurrilous accusations and making unsupportable leaps of logic about who supported what and who defended what, and using that tactic to poison discussions. Incivilly. Perhaps we read different evidence pages? ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry B, but Lar is correct on this one. OM was out of control during that RFA, as were most members of the ID cabal. I don't think the_undertow is a racist and for so many to be clamoring that he is seems rediculous. Do you even know him? Can you make such accusations without knowing him? That was the point of Giggy's blog post, to point out the rush to judgement by people who think they can read hearts and minds. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a microscopic view, but I am bothered by the fact that my name is mentioned (albeit only once, in passing) in [[this section of the ArbCom's Evidence, but I didn't find out about it until today -- and in fact, while it is true I didn't approve of OM's actions in that case, the ArbCom's findings in regard to the Wikiquette Alert were severely lacking in context. Argh, was going to write more but my wife is yelling at me to get off the computer. --Jaysweet (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of any incivil behaviour there. That's pathetic. What a horribly blind comment. LaraLove|Talk 01:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are none so blind as those who block out the big picture and focus on the minutiae and their own petty hatreds. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down all

This seems like one huge misunderstanding. Knowing FT2 - he wouldn't post something unless there was support for it on the mailing list, neither would he go to so much effort. I suspect that there's some miscommunication here. I suggest we all step back and wait for either ArbCom to communicate as a collective or further comments from Kirill and FT2. It appears FT2 is away at the minute, so let's all take a step back and wait for further comments - Everyone is innocent until proven guilty right? We're not in possesion of the full facts, so let's wait till we get them. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone is innocent until proven guilty right?" No, not on Wikipedia. We are a notable exception. Al Tally ^talk 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not, but Ryan gives good advice anyway. Clarity is needed. We don't have that. That should be sought as a much higher priority than the rest of what is going on here. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this needs to get sorted out. I doubt FT2 would do this without consensus from the committee but Kirill obviously had a reason to react the way he did. We'll know soon enough. Now that the initial shock and drama is settling down, let's let the processes work. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An I correct in thinking that this whole kerfluffle has come from an "attempt to minimise drama"? That's deeply ironic. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So too :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...for the ArbCom to work quietly with people to resolve conflict in a way which preserves dignity and minimizes drama" --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Kirill

Kirill, if I may ask (I don't suppose you would drop a bombshell like this and then switch off and go to bed), what communication did you receive from ArbCom regarding these matters, if any? Did they circulate any requests for comment? Are you saying that you were out of the loop entirely? Or, maybe, were you travelling, perhaps, as it says on your user page, and not contactable by any means? Could you clarify? Many thanks in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Phrased alternatively, though you say there were no formal proceedings, were there informal ones? Antelan ^talk 23:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment in the section below for the semantics of the Orangemarlin matter, specifically. As for the other announcements, they're a mix:

Matters for which the proposals submitted to the Committee are substantially different from the final announcement.
Matters which enjoy support in principle but for which concrete proposals have not been made.
Matters which have been discussed but do not enjoy significant support.
Matters which were never mentioned to the Committee in any form.

(Some of these groups overlap, obviously.) Kirill ^(prof) 00:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

(This will be brief, I'm away from home at friends, who are behind me watching a film. If I don't follow up immediately, and have not read everything posted, I will tomorrow on returning home.)

The matters concerned were dealt with by the arbitration committee, and will ultimately need sorting out there. Broadly speaking, I have rechecked my memory and notes, and believe the matters discussed had clear consensus by the committee. It will be noticed that Kirill writes, "As far as I'm concerned, these announcements have no authority or binding weight whatsoever. Not on behalf of anyone but myself." Kirill is correct in what he says, so far as it goes. It goes so far as to say Kirill himself feels the decisions were lacking, and that may well be the case -- how he feels. It may not be how it is. I am not going to engage in a circus here. Rather, I imagine there will be some extensive discussion on between people, and a view will be affirmed one way or the other.

I do not feel the matters were lacking consensus. But if events prove me wrong then I will accept it, and if events prove me wrong and there is also belief that any action was grossly misplaced, I will do what is best, whether that be to accept it, to state an apology of any kind, or more serious steps, and I will do so without backward look or hesitation, trusting that come what may, the community will use such material and insights as it can whether formal or otherwise.

But I will say that within the current system of the Committee's internal decision making, the resulting decisions posted, if not every detail of the process, were carefully checked for consensus, and that Arbitration decisions have always been far more about the final decisions being substantially appropriate, than the details of their arrival there. I therefore hope to see the posting of this as a decision, in the main substantiated, and will have to catch up on the rest of this on returning home, making good any shortcomings of this brief note.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage in a circus here. Too late. As you sew, so you shall reap.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pedant in my requires that I point out that I think you meant "sow" rather than "sew", but yes, I absolutely agree with you, Filll... a circus is not surprising, and should have been predicted, given the inputs. I think a bit more forethought, cross checking, sticking around afterwards, etc. would have helped a lot. (although I can see "sew" as a fun pun... things certainly have come unraveled, haven't they!) ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Arbitration decisions have always been far more about the final decisions being substantially appropriate, than the details of their arrival there." <-- Apparently, you may be surprised by what the community actually thinks about that statement. In other words, process matters. What was it about this case that necessitated, or even merited, a closed-door secret proceeding? Presuming that this proceeding was even valid, precisely how was this so urgent that you felt compelled to announce it with such haste that there was no time for other arbitrators such as Kirill to vette it beforehand? Antelan ^talk 23:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Your picking apart semantics of Kirill's statement seems to contradict labeling every finding as "nemine contradicente", meaning, unanimous consent. If Kirill objected to anything before this moment or did not have the opportunity to object to anything before this moment, then there is not unanimous consent. At most one of you is correct. --B (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(briefly) You need to read Arbcom's founding documents. That was a principle from the beginning. And I stand by my comment that the case voting was correctly drafted, as best I am aware. (My apologies but I am being dragged away, and will have to read your further comments later tomorrow.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing something. What was the principle from the beginning??? You said that there was unanimous consent for each finding in the case. Kirill said he didn't consent. I'm missing what the principle was. If the principle is consensus (as opposed to voting) ok, fine, but don't that "nobody objected" if that isn't true. --B (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, FT2 is technically correct on this point; there were not any objections to what he submitted in the Orangemarlin matter, as such. Of course, arbitration decisions are supposed to pass by majority vote (and, no, there was neither a majority nor a vote); but the wording does indeed reflect the result of the discussion (or lack thereof). Kirill ^(prof) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially this decision was FT2's, he discussed it with the other arbcom members and there were no outright objections. He then took this to constitute agreement and ran with it, is that what you are saying? RMHED (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any substantive discussion having taken place regarding it; as far as I know, there was only a single comment made in response to FT2's proposal from the time he first mentioned it to the time he posted it publicly. Kirill ^(prof) 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that effectively amounts to one member of arbcom issuing a sanction, whilst the other members sit silently by, neither outright supporting or opposing. That's just crazy. RMHED (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nemine_contradicente means "nobody contradicting" . . .it most certainly does not mean "consensus", and not "in the main, substantiated." Those decisions were represented as no one on the Arbitration Committee disagreeing. This announcement doesn't cut it for me either. R. Baley (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is the way FT2 put it across. I suspect there was a majority of arbcom supporting it, but not unanimous support. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret "arbitrations" shouldn't be mis-represented . . .to say the least. R. Baley (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the key thing is that arbitration cases get voted on as a majority verdict, they don't have to be unanimous. Even if they weren't unanimous, provided they actually have a majority support, the decisions would still have been made and the statements posted. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kirill's claims, these were not formal discussions. Are informal, private discussions between arbitrators now binding? Antelan ^talk 23:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suspect that FT2 would not have posted without a majority verdict. This looks well planned and not something that would be done without thought and a majority support. Maybe Kirill was simply strongly opposed to the idea and decided to post here because he's against it? Until we have the full facts, we shouldn't postulate about these things. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um Ryan, maybe reread the following with your irony detector fully enabled: Maybe Kirill was simply strongly opposed to the idea and decided to post here because he's against it? Until we have the full facts, we shouldn't postulate about these things. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you know what I'm saying - we shouldn't shoot FT2 without hearing the full facts of the case. There's two accounts so far, both very different - let's here some more before we start making judgements. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you're saying, and I agree with it entirely. And I think comments like "Maybe Kirill was simply strongly opposed to the idea and decided to post here because he's against it?" run exactly counter to what you're saying. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just offering an alternative explanation to show that we cannot state that one side of the debate is speaking the absolute truth because so far FT2 is the devil and we have 100% evidence that Kirill is telling the trust - Certainly wasn't postulating. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was rhetorical: either Kirill or FT2, but not both, were "right" about the facts. One is right; I don't profess to know which. Antelan ^talk 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A majority verdict in an informal conversation? My point, again, is that Kirill explicitly stated that there was no formal proceeding. This leaves open only the possibility that something informal occurred. Hence my question about the "binding-ness" of informal arbitrator discussions. Antelan ^talk 23:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the greatest respect to Kirill - I don't believe him. FT2 would not post this without a formal vote on the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, there is possible middleground. (I'm not saying this is what happened, just proposing an alternative interpretation of events.) FT2 proposes the case and the other announcements. There's a little bit of discussion here and there but he is mostly ignored. FT2 takes the lack of objection as tacit consent and posts the case here thinking he had approval. I'm betting the truth is something closer to that. --B (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to FT2, we're not supposed to have to decide who we believe or don't believe. We're supposed to be able to see from ArbCom a level of public consideration, discussion and decisionmaking. This doesn't mean "everything is out in the open," it means we don't have a "secret case" magically appear with a whole laundry list of facts found made with the notation "no dissent" when there is, quite apparently, some dissent. FCYTravis (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked, just shocked at your outrage. Where was your outrage when the Footnotes BLP crap came down? --Dragon695 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I seem to recall public deliberation, discussion, dissent and voting in that case. FCYTravis (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, in a case that concerned overly long footnotes in a biography of a dead person. Had about as much obscurity and lack of process as this one, since nobody, I mean nobody, could reasonably predict such a ridiculous remedy that had nothing to do with the case. There was no significant community input. You just didn't say anything because it suited your agenda, admit it. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, arbitrators publicly discussed and disagreed with findings and remedies. It was not secret, nor was it claimed that the findings were made entirely without dissent.

I also have grave concerns about taking up a case against someone entirely in private, without giving the person an opportunity to defend themselves or even know that specific action against them was being planned. It smacks of Camp X-Ray.

I don't know why you think I'd have any other particular dog in this hunt - I'm hardly a member of the "ID Cabal" or whatever. In fact, I was one of their most stubborn opponents in the BLP-related issue on Rosalind Picard. FCYTravis (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of giving both FT2 and Kirill the full benefit of every doubt, I would like to point out that Kirill's statement could be read as an objection to the process by which these issues were handled. In other words, he may be expressing a view that the findings have no authority because no formal RFAr was ever conducted. It is even possible that everyone on Arbcom, Kirill included, has generally agreed with FT2 on the merits of the case, but Kirill nonetheless feels that formal findings should not have been offered without a formal hearing on-wiki. Dragons flight (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the views of other arbitrators at this point would be very helpful. Do they feel this action by FT2 was correct or incorrect? Everyking (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of obvious that there are strong disagreements within the committee. And recently we witnessed an increase of power of ARBCOM over the community, more than a simple coincidence... Cenarium ^Talk 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the situation with User:!! - someone posted evidence to a mailing list of !! being up to no good and interpreted the lack of response as consent to block. The problem there was that nobody actually took the time to look at the evidence. I think one of the main things we need to know here is whether a (super?)majority of ArbCom has looked at or is looking at the evidence and is willing to support it. The other issue, of course, is whether "secret" cases are a good thing, but the former is initially more important. --NE2 03:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is incomprehensible

I find the post of FT2 above incomprehensible. He has this strange writing style and needs a lot of "tweaks" after he makes his posts to make them final but in the end of the day, I can usually figure what he meant to say. Here I can't. FT2, can you make some tweaks to make your post a little more intelligible? --Irpen 23:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked FT2 at his talk to clarify himself because upon two more rereads I still can't understand anything and I am having the impression that this post is deliberately written to say as little as possible with as many words as possible. Looking forward for a clarification. --Irpen 23:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For god sake Irpen, he's not even at home - wait till tomorrow and let him enjoy his evening. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a leap of faith here that the wiki won't blow up if this isn't clarified this very second. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of you. I found FT2's answer to be evasive at best. The use of law terminology instead of the usual counter was also suspect to me. I think it would be best if we asked the other administrators instead. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any Arbcom members are reading this can you at the very least put the names of the Arbcom members who have endorsed the decision. I feel like it is really urgent and important. And indeed yes the very functioning of the project is in the large degree based on the trust to the Arbcom body and its members Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was at a friend's house watching a movie. I have trouble typing coherently with distractions like that too. If I were him, I would have simply replied with, "Out of town, sorry for the mess, will respond <insert day/time>". --Jaysweet (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being too busy for Wikipedia because socializing with a friend? Perfectly understandable? Any real life thing, kids, work, fishing, hike, sex, having good time with friends, is more important with Wikipedia. No problem with that. But don't make contentious actions onwiki when you know you are going to be off-wiki and unable to answer to legitimate concerns. It has become a common sense rule that admins should not go off-line right after a contentious block because they may be an urgent need for them to explain their reasoning and their immediate going off-line makes it more difficult for anyone. This here is by far more controversial action than a contentious block. An arbitrator posts an unprecedented "arbcom case" where he serves a detective, a prosecutor and a judge all in one, and then gets too busy to explain himself. Is every other arbitrator busy now too? An absolutely incredible Arbcom we seem to have. --Irpen 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not defending the actions that led to this clusterfuck. I'm just saying, I understand why his statement was incomprehensible. :) It's his own damn fault he was in a position where he had to make an incomprehensible statement in response to massive community outrage. But I don't think it was intentionally obfuscated; I think he was just busy. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An underlying problem?

Was FT2 right? Was Kirill right? While it's important to find the bottom of this, this brings up another issue that likely caused this whole drama to occur, and that is the "secret case". Now have been issues in the past regarding secret evidence, but a secret case, quite frankly, was pretty shocking to me. I mean, was there a real need to keep this 100% under wraps? Was it necessary for no one outside of who was needed to know about it? It's a question that will have to be answered sooner rather than later. Would the arbitration committee have come to the same conclusion (albeit probably slower) if they had put this out in the open? I dunno, and if there's a possibility of the answer being no then that makes me wonder about what arbcom entails behind the scenes. What's necessary to keep hidden and what's not. Simply put, letting the community know that this was going on, even while keeping the main points itself a secret, may have saved some drama now. Granted, it's a catch-22, since the arbcom likely got the most objective answer by doing it this way, so it's tough to say whether this is good or not on this particular case. I just worry about the long-term effects of doing this. Wizardman 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this decision has majority arbcom backing then it should be made crystal clear. Those members of Arbcom who support this decision should make themselves known. They should come out of the shadows and into the light. A decision carried out in this clandestine manner, should at the very least require absolute transparency from those supporting it. RMHED (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In [1], FT2 says that "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 it was belatedly made public anyway." - this is bizarre. How is that different from a dozen cases this year alone? How does such alleged behaviour amount to the need for a secret case? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe having C68-FM-SV currently open was enough drama for them? --Dragon695 (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should do away with secret cases altogether? IIRC, it was Fred Redirect To Clown Bauder who devised this scheme to railroad PPAs and other undesirables off the wiki. Perhaps we should revisit KarmaFist's excellent proposal on Wiki constitutional democracy. It is high time, in my humble opinion, that the administrators and others represent the will of the editors and not their own agendas. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has gone live

I just saw that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee has been opened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lawrence Cohen's request I have moved the draft from his userspace to Wikipedia namespace, and opened an initial statement. He delayed this decision for a considerable time partly at my request, and I delayed fulfillment of his request for a couple of hours while recording a related Not the Wikipedia Weekly episode. Due to an upcoming deadline my Wikipedia time will be limited until noon Pacific time tomorrow (it is currently 6:05 pm in my time zone). I ask all community members to step away from individual grievances and consider the best interests of the site. Serious as this is, this is not life or death. With respect toward all, Durova^Charge! 01:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note I was the one Lawrence contacted and he indicated that he felt the page did not belong to him and was of better use to the community in the Wikipedia: space as an active page, so I talked to Durova and she moved it out, cheers. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MBisanz is correct. Durova^Charge! 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

Given the dubious status of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, I have nominated the page for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. John254 01:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I predict a speedy close and a troutslap for this bit of ridiculousness. SirFozzie (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking strictly in a private capacity, I would think it's up to the Arbitration Committee to determine who speaks for it, and this MfD is somewhat beside the point. But as you like. Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear god in heaven that was a silly idea. Viridae ^Talk 01:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I find myself in complete agreement with Fozzie and Viridae on this idea, what were you thinking? You must have had something in mind which is unclear to more than just myself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion would be a very bad idea. But there should not be ArbCom decisions in this space which are not actually arbcom decisions. I think this needs to be preserved but moved to FT2's userspace. --Irpen 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't think we need a WP:RM request for more drama (Hear John?). I am just expressing my view on where this stuff belongs. --Irpen 01:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Now Kirill says there WAS discussion and consensus (to some point) on this, just no formal vote. ArbCom will tell us (eventually) what to do with it. Let's show some patience here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has by no means been established that this was not actually an ArbCom decision, and it should stay put unless the arbitrators decide to take it down. Everyking (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is by no means clear it is actually a valid ArbCom decision and until it is not clear it should be out of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration space. Support userfying Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, if ArbCom wants it down, they'll take it down. This is useless saber-rattling. SirFozzie (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming arbcom exists as a functional entity anymore that is. RMHED (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the MFD as premature; MFD isn't binding on arbcom, anyway, as they can overrule the process. Best to let the dust settle on this one before sweeping up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good god. We will live if theres one well-known impostor ArbCom decision. It'll be fixed faster than any MfD could close anyhow. Chill. Cool Hand Luke 02:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While "MFD isn't binding on arbcom", it is within the purview of the community to order the removal of a page which purports to be, but is in fact not, reflective of a decision by the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration cases ordinarily contain proposed decision vote pages to provide evidence that a majority of active arbitrators have in fact endorsed the outcomes described. As this particular case has been impugned by an active arbitrator, the requirement for a vote page is no mere technicality. I would suggest that the case should remain deleted (or userfied) unless its legitimacy is established in the ordinary manner. John254 01:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is the ArbCom that decides the case, surely it is appropriate that only the ArbCom decides whether the page is a valid representation of its views. Personally, I find the fact that no arbitrator has done anything to the page so far, despite Kirill's objection, to be very telling. Everyking (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, as the community is charged with the enforcement of arbcom decisions, we must necessarily perform the prerequisite task of determining what is a decision by the Arbitration Committee. We have generally adopted an informal rule that, where there is no objection, support by a single arbitrator is sufficient to indicate a decision; however, in disputed (or potentially disputed) cases such as this one, a vote page is necessary. The fact that the arbitrators haven't engaged in an unseemly edit war or wheel war over this case should not be construed as an endorsement of the purported decision. John254 02:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All things being equal, I'd agree. But we now have three arbitrators and Jimbo saying that discussion is ongoing, and that we should wait. If we delete now and it's a valid decision, whoops - back it goes. If we do not delete, and it's invalid - whoops, there it goes. I expect we'll have some word on what is what before tomorrow ends, and that's well before an MFD could establish consensus - so the MFD serves no purpose that this page cannot. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John254: You are seriously suggesting that the community should, through an MfD, make a determination about whether a purported decision is a decision or not, when arbitrators have turned up on this very page and said that the matter is under discussion, will be clarified, and asked for a bit of patience? In what way exactly is this a useful thing to do, John254? The mind boggles. I believe you have been counseled about matters relating to arbcom before, have you not? Maybe the scope of that counseling wasn't quite wide enough. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links please

This issue seems to have exploded, there are so many threads on this issue that it is almost impossible for the average reader to follow. Since there has been no transparency to date on this drama could all links on this be brought together here or somewhere so that the average reader can read it all and seek the truth and all aspects of this in true open view. There is so much going on, there needs to be a central point to access threads. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 01:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation

I've seen other Arbs online, going about their business. If these pages were a real problem, they would have been gone by now, I think. Let's just settle down and let them handle it. Kirill, it would be good for you to reduce the drama levels, if you can think of any possible way. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience

I beg for the community's patience here. We are discussing the situation (rather intensely) on the mailing list, but, it's Friday evening now (or later) for most of us, and not all of the committee are available at the moment. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Editors are kinda freaking out here. Cool Hand Luke 02:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: [3] :) Viridae ^Talk 02:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is obviously not a valid Arbcom decision to the date, would it be helpful to move the draft elsewhere and discuss it later. Indeed I see no urgency in the originial OM decision. He can be blocked for incivility with or without a formal Arbcom decision anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, what part of Jpgordon's statement did you not get???? It's an ArbCom page, let ArbCom deal with it. It's being discussed. SirFozzie (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shame this discussion didn't happen before the OM decision was announced. They seem to be going about things in the wrong order. RMHED (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word is clearly coming and as Sir Fozzie says, it's their page. Please wait, Alex. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously" they're aware of the problem, and there's no urgency to move it either. So...let's wait for them to do it, eh? Cool Hand Luke 02:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "OM decision" mean? Sorry but I'm hopeless at these acronyms. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, sometimes it's helpful to peek around a bit to see if you can answer your own question. In this case, the name of the very page you asked the question on would give you a big clue what OM stood for... "OrangeMarlin and other matters"... ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help, sorry. Until it was pointed out to me by a few of you I'd no idea that OM was intended as an abbreviation for OrangeMarlin. Does OrangeMarlin actually need an abbreviation? This really does hamper readability of discussions and surely it isn't worth the bother just to save one person the minuscule amount of time it takes to type the name "orangemarlin". --Jenny (recently changed username) 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"OrangeMarlin", presumably. -- Vary | Talk 02:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, they are referring to the illegitimate page over here. It's a page that fancies itself to be the conclusion of an ArbCom case. R. Baley (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Re Josh's request): Sorry, but what? Without trying to unnecessarily hassle the Committee, and while appreciating jpgordon's request for patience, if this debacle has taught us anything, then that "discussion on the mailing list" is a bad idea and that all ArbCom deliberation should, by default, be open and clearly recorded, i.e. on Wikipedia. Other channels should only be used in extremely exceptional cases, and should still be permanently recorded and open for inspection by trusted independent members of the community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That approach would make a mockery of the Foundation's privacy policy, among other things. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well p'raps you'd agree with at least the spirit - that all possible discussion that could take place 'on wiki' should take place 'on wiki' - my feeling is that this important principle hasn't been upheld as much as it could be.. whaddya think? Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All decisions, including the vote of each participating arbitrator, should be on-wiki. Insofar as is feasible, evidence should also take place on-wiki, as should discussion and analysis of evidence. Actual deliberations are quite acceptable off-wiki, whether for privacy or other reasons, provided the preceding conditions are followed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to scrap the privacy policy? It would be better if people didn't keep secrets, they don't have to work on this project if they don't want to. I see no reason why we need secret mailing lists. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally feel the urge to be quite so radical (but then I'm a tea drinker, along with an occasional bun) - I just think we need to look at the level of communication on arb pages in the last year or so, and say a firm 'not good enough' to the committee. Private communication is important, and likely to be necessary for the greater good in a lot of cases, but this doesn't preclude good wiki communications in general, and certainly I find the committee wanting in that regard. We just need to re-wikify the arbcom a bit, and all will be well, I'd say! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since FT2 is traveling, I want to give him ample time to respond privately to my concerns. I anticipate making a public statement with the Committee, or making a public statement on my own, or both. Thank you for your patience as I sort out the issue. (speaking as an individual arbitrator, not for the Committee). FloNight ♥♥♥ 02:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Morven and Flo. On another note, I think the proposals made a lot of sense. The one thing I do disagree with is the not posting of the votes and using Latin phrases in lieu thereof. This is the English wiki, not Latin. We shouldn't have to go looking up what a vote outcome means. Oh, and getting rid of the privacy policy is a terrible idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM: Monster, dread our damages! We're the jury! Dread our fury! PLAINTIFF: Hear me, hear me, if you please, These are very strange proceedings: For permit me to remark Of the merits of my pleadings You're at present in the dark! ARBCOM: That's a very true remark- On the merits of your pleadings We're at present in the dark! Ha! ha! - Ho! ho!
Good opera, bad site policy.

I agree that getting rid of privacy entirely is a bad idea, but there is no prima facie reason for privacy in this case, particularly if the evidence page FT2 provided is all the evidence, FT2's announcement specifically says he was not consulted because the arbcom thought listening to his evidence would waste his time. YOU CANNOT DO THAT. That does not show proper procedure, makes a mockery of any trust the community had in the arbcom, and puts the arbcom into disrepute - how are we to trust the arbcom to make a fair decision if they decide, at the very opening of the case, that they don't want to hear the other side? Not because of any privacy concern, but because the arbcom had already decided he was a liar and would throw "smoke" around - even if true, how is that different from a dozen other people up for arbitration this year alone? Indeed, there was no notice that any trial was being run, meaning that noone was allowed to speak up in his defense. That puts the arbcom into the position of arbitrary dictator, not court of law. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What better way to let the accused prove his guilt than by giving him the opportunity to display the behavior he is accused of. Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication from Arbcom of how long it is going to take them to respond substantively to the concerns of the community they serve? DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out in the open?

Just catching up on this stuff... I'd like to plea that the arbs have some discussions 'on-wiki' - for the sake of openness and transparency. I think the community deserve at least that much respect, and there's just no need for there to be closed doors on this one - please consider allowing us to actually see how you guys are sorting this out - it would help the reputation and trust levels of the arbcom no end in my view. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh - so Stephan and I were saying pretty much the same thing at the same time! Hear Hear. Privatemusings (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd say "great minds...", but, given that I've now been up for 21 hours straight (part work and part WikiDrama), my opinion is probably worth squat... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...well fools never differ, remember :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree—the ArbCom needs to deliberate openly as much as possible (obviously there are exceptions where things must be discussed in private, but most matters can be considered publicly, including this one). Everyking (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Stephan Schulz and Privatemusings that a big part of the problem here is with secrecy and lack of transparency, and that discussions which aren't open to public view can only exacerbate that problem, not alleviate it. Doc Tropics 02:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get rid of the overzealousness in the privacy policy, that way we can get rid of the secret lists. No more secrets. Let them debate in the open! --Dragon695 (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that as a general principle. There are times when the most respectful thing to do is to handle matters privately rather than subject someone to more drama than necessary. The goal of ArbCom actions is a smooth project, not "justice" and especially not "public retribution". If doing things privately is the way to do that, that's not a bad thing. Maybe this case went too far but let's not throw out private actions completely. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Privately" ought not preclude the participation of the accused, which is the important issue here. There is a world of difference between "discretely" and "privately". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a world of difference between discretely and discreetly

--NE2 05:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with Lar, Malleus, and NE2. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) One of the shortcomings of the Committee's present mandate is that the conditions for closed deliberation are not clearly defined. Closed deliberation is appropriate in certain situations: to protect children from potential exploitation, for compliance with the Foundation privacy policy, and for other sensible reasons. Most of those reasons could be listed in advance, although unforeseen circumstances may also arise. Established Wikipedians have a fundamental expectation that, unless some compelling need overrides it, they receive certain considerations:

Prior formal dispute resolution before arbitration.
To be made aware that their actions are under scrutiny.
As much as feasible, to be informed of the evidence against them.
A reasonable interval of time to respond to the concerns.

These expectations apply regardless of what purported "camp" somebody may belong to, and in spite of flaws that may exist elsewhere in Wikipedia processes. Our goal must be to raise the general level of fairness for everybody, not to exploit one mistake as an excuse to perpetrate another. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my small statement - I'll disengage now, and continue to think a bit, and do some homework.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from any possible merit in secret proceedings in this matter, the attempt to do things quietly and privately has had its predictable result: there could be no more effective way of getting full publicity on both the case and the manner of deliberating. DGG (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<grin> Now that's a way to put it. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publish those mails

I'm not in principle opposed to the committee having their private space for deliberation. But in this case, with this dramatic mess-up, I believe there's only one way for trust to be re-gained: Open up the archives of these discussions. It is not enough for us to be told: okay, FT2 made some proposals and there was some discussion and then he thought he had consensus and Kirill didn't. I want to know how it happened. What exactly was discussed, by whom, and what was it that could make FT2 believe there was consensus, and what was it that could make Kirill believe there wasn't?

Of course, we can't force the arbitrators to agree to this. We need the consent of each of them for this to happen. But we, as the community, will withhold our trust in them if they don't. So, unless there is very serious privacy concerns regarding third parties, this formal demand goes to everybody on that mailing list: Agree to have those mails published, or step down, all of you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to agree with you on this, Fut.Perf, but I just have one question. If they don't agree, how are you going to MAKE them step down? I do agree it would be helpful if they did, but I think the odds of that actually happening are.. less then zero, to be honest. SirFozzie (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be optimal, but a more practical goal in this situation would be to just have the arbitrators communicate with us in reasonably specific detail what is going on and what reasoning is involved. Sadly, I fear even that is too optimistic; ArbCom secrecy is virtually impenetrable and I'm sure the thought of opening the window even slightly makes some of them go pale. Everyking (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the arbcom have their own secret little wiki ? --Duk 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a misjudgement of consensus which Kirill, in apparently infinite wisdom, decided to cause massive drama over. Would not the sensible thing to do have been to try to keep the committee together rather than exuding the impression of being a disorganised rabble, with no cohesion at all? Alas no, you wished to make a POINT. Even if you are infighting, at least keep it in. FT2 is not without blame. He appears to have misjudged consensus, as I say. That doesn't excuse Kirill's drama-mongering at all though.

Where to go from here? I'd suggest we all kindly shut up and get on with editing the encyclopedia. I would hope that the ArbCom would have the sensitivity to provide some sort of debrief to the community. This would, ideally, in my opinion, include the relevant emails - to allow the community (Admins, Editors, everyone) to judge the consensus for themselves. I get the feeling that it could be wise to open up the main ArbCom list for read-only access to all. Now, let's move on and wait for this drama to resolve. Martinp23 10:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I? Yeah, I do. Currently I have three featured content nominations underway. A historic featured picture I restored is running on Wikipedia's main page. Another featured picture I restored ran yesterday too. Please tell me how many featured content nominations you have currently, and how much of your work ran on the main page this week. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begin irrelevant pissing match. SashaNein (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mine's bigger. And I'm a woman. ;) Durova^Charge! 03:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think drastic steps are necessary yet, but ArbCom is not god-given (and if they ever claim that, I will gladly play Danton to their Louis XVI). Considering that ArbCom is as close to a government as we have, there is some precedent: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". As for the method, I think simple non-cooperation would work quite nicely if it has a modicum of community support. However, "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes", so let's wait for a while to see what comes out of this. I have quite some confidence in the common sense of most of our arbiters. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fut. Perf. that nothing short of fully disclosing all the email communication that took place is going to be enough for the community's trust. We really need to understand what went on here, if anything just to prevent it in the future. We also need to come up with very clear criteria about when secret proceedings are allowed to take place, and they should be much narrower than 'we didn't want to deal with the unpleasantness we thought the accused was likely to cause by having open proceedings'. delldot talk 13:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom is not a wikipedia government. Come on! Sheesh, talk about scope creep :-P.

To do this in classic User:Eloquence style: I'm the wikipedia "government". :-P

... And to come to the punchline, I share that responsibility with you. Welcome to Wikipedia:Consensus :-)

The arbcom is only there for when we screw up and can't agree with each other. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it would be a very good thing to establish better parameters for ArbCom's scope of discretion for conducting private cases, that can be done by vacating the decision in the Orangemarlin case (if indeed one occurred) and following up with discussion. It doesn't help the situation to add a call that would compromise the expectation of privacy in ArbCom's correspondence. Publication of a handful of e-mails from a long dialog, isolated from context, are unlikely to shed useful light on this situation and could have a chilling effect upon future discussions. Durova^Charge! 15:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilling effect? I think your understating it a bit. There are at times, information that is forwarded to a project's foundation approved arbitration committee that may be private. Violating that privacy may have implications beyond a chilling effect. Just putting that out there. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the political analogy quoted above, it was preceded by very extensive discussions and repeated attempts to compromise or ameliorate the situation, and to find other, more peaceable, solutions. It was not promulgated as the initial measure to be taken. DGG (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it would be unacceptable for private emails to be published, or for anyone to demand that such emails be published. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it isn't unreasonable to ask for an outside audit. Guettarda (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. The appeal route is through Jimmy Wales so, unless he was involved, as a person with access to the mailing list he might be able to audit satisfactorily. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An audit sounds like an interesting proposal. Durova^Charge! 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that I'm not sure what the audit could ascertain. "There was a discussion. FT2 interpreted it one way. Kirill interpreted it another way." Well we already know that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it won't be necessary - the arbcomm, when they finally speak on this, may provide an answer that makes everyone happy. (Hint: one that begins by saying "FT2 is no longer a member of this committee".) But if there are still unanswered questions, if people are still suspicious, it might be helpful. IMO, this has hurt the credibility of the arbcomm hugely. I suppose relevant questions include "who condoned secret trials?" Anyone who did, in my opinion, needs to be off the committee, pronto. As it stands right now, there are three people who still have credibility - Kirill, Josh Gordon, and FloNight. For the rest, it depends on what they say and how they say it. If a lot of people come away from this saying "that doesn't add up", then an audit of the conversation(s) might help re-establish the credibility of (some part of) the committee. Guettarda (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf is correct. This situation essentially reminds me of the Durova/!! situation. Minimal discussion took place on a mailing list, and silence was interpreted as consensus. Again, as it was in that other situation, we really need to see the mails to decide what happened. Again, full transparency is necessary here if events are not to be misinterpreted. We need to learn the lessons from the past. I also wish to say that I have a huge amount of respect for Kirill, and to accuse him to drama-mongering is completely unfair, when all he has done is act transparently and honestly, in the face of very dubious conduct from FT2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Lover's Arrival: I stand by my demand, I see nothing unacceptable about it. Of course, it would be unacceptable to publish the mails without the consent of their authors. That's why I'm asking that they be published with that consent. I believe that every arbitrator, in this exceptional situation, is under a moral (if not legal) obligation towards us to give that consent, of face the alternative of losing every remaining bit of trust this community places in them, to a degree that would make the committee a lame duck and unable to function. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, we don't know whether FT2 made that error or not. And full transparency does not consist of violating people's expectations of privacy by publishing extracts from long conversations devoid of context. While the Mantanmoreland case unfolded I watched selective excerpts from the cyberstalking mailing list get posted so that--had I not recalled the original dialog in full--I would have supposed things were much worse than they were. In this case it's much too soon to be exonerating anyone or assigning blame. Durova^Charge! 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking anyone's privacy to be a violated. I'm simply asking that the mails be voluntarily made public, so we can fully see who fucked up when and where. And make no mistake: this is a fuck-up. As it happens, I actually agree with the remedies of the OM case - they sound fairly commonsensical - but the way in which they were arrived at - a secret trial without defense - is just appalling. That sets a terrible precedent. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I dunno. I think you're pushing it a bit, especially with the "legal" bit. What legal obligation could possibly be implied? Moreover I've no reason to expect that the community would join you in demanding that arbitrators disclose their email discussions unless there was some suggestion that something really nasty and underhanded had been done. And that's so far from the case here it doesn't even sound like a joke. --Jenny 00:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Jenny: Oh, but something really nasty and underhanded obviously has been done, that's why we're all here. Somebody made the proposal of having a secret trial without defense. I want to see everybody's reaction to that. To Durova: Who said they should publish extracts devoid of context? They should of course publish the whole thing (i.e. the full relevant threads). And nobody's expectations is going to be "violated", because I'm asking the authors themselves to publish them voluntarily. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's at all clear what has been done. Arbitrators should be expected to, and in fact do, discuss specific user conduct matters on their closed mailing lists, even when a case has not been brought. Different arbitrators have confirmed that the conduct of Orangemarlin was discussed in private and that FT2 was involved. FT2 believed that there was consensus "nem con" to go further. Historically this has only happened (as in the Everyking case) where an emergency action such as desysopping is required, and it seems unlikely that this was such an emergency but we don't know. Kirill and FT2 agree on the result of the discussion ("or lack thereof" [4]). Beyond that we don't know and it would be unwise to speculate. --Jenny 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, precisely my point. We don't know because Arbcom are starving us of information. Don't you think we have a right to know? Particularly since people such as Future Perfect and myself spend such a lot of time doing ArbCom's dirty work? At the moment, due to lack of information, I can only draw the worst conclusion: FT2 attempted to conduct a secret trial where the defendant had no right of reply. If so, he needs to be kicked out. If my interpretation of events is wrong...well then, prove me wrong by publishing the mails. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's this insistence, made by a number of editors on this page, that "FT2 attempted to conduct a secret trial where the defendant had no right of reply" that makes me wonder if we're looking at the same wiki. I've no reason to believe that FT2 had any wish to do anything of the sort. He evidently misread the situation and the mood of the Committee badly and believed that exceptional circumstances pertained, meriting the kind of summary judgement that has resulted in many desysoppings.

Whilst I agree with others on the Committee that, on the face of it, this isn't exactly an emergency (moreover I find the concept of an emergency admonishment somewhat dubious), I see nothing to suggest that it was anything more than a miscommunication compounded by our old friend Unrealistic Expectations (on this occasion it seems that it was an arbitrator and not the supporters of a party to an arbitration case, who harbored unrealistic expectations). It is plausible that FT2 believed that other special circumstances pertained (other than an emergency, that is--perhaps privacy, but I speculate), but that assumption isn't necessary to arrive at the tentative conclusion that FT2 badly dropped the ball for the reasons I have suggested in outline above. --Jenny (recently changed username) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being Bold

Based on the comments of Jimbo[5] and other Arbitrators on this page, I've been bold and filled out the rest of the arbitration forms for Workshop and Proposed decision. It seems clear that FT2 did not have the consensus to proceed which he thought, but that does not invalidate the work which has been done so far. I think it's clearly the consensus of Jimbo and the community that cases which do not represent an immediate threat to the project and which could result in sanctions against an editor must occur openly with community input. I think it's best we all drop back, take a deep breath, and begin from the beginning. Discussion over ArbCom and FT2's action should probably occur here or at the RFAr Talk Page. Discussion of the merits of this case should occur on the Evidence/Workshop pages as normal. I hope someone will unprotect the Evidence page so this can proceed. --InkSplotch (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit premature? No case has been presented, no case has been accepted. And, obviously, we need arbs that the community can trust. Right now, I feel like I can trust Kirill. I like a lot of the others, but the longer they remain silent, waiting, apparently, to let FT2 have his say, the more untenable their position becomes. Let them finish the cases they are working on, but beyond that I think Jimbo needs to appoint a fresh batch of arbs. There's something seriously wrong with the culture of the arbcomm. We need a clean slate. Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't see how the current Arbcom could possibly accept the case. Not if they want to maintain any semblence of propriety anyways. RMHED (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's seems the opposite of premature as far as I can see. ArbCom has presented and accepted their own case, I'm simply trying to take us back to the discussion phase. As for trust, that's the sort of meta discussion I suggested belong here or on the RFAr talk page. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't know what happened. Was a case presented, or was the matter just raised by one or more arbs? We don't know. And do we even have a functioning arbcomm right now? If they can't clarify things to the community in 27+ hours, I'm inclined to think that the answer is "no". When we once again have a functioning arbcomm, then I think this case can be presented again through the normal channels. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In days of old, when knights were WP:BOLD"... -- Anansey the Spider (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Workshop.

On behalf of the community, InkSplotch (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note

Arbcom is a tool of the community; it is authorized to act independently under a strictly limited set of circumstances. These circumstances do not allow it to create and run cases on it's own initiative; it's authority extends only to accepting or rejecting cases that the community brings before it, and then deciding the outcome of said cases. Essentially, it's the judicidal, not executive branch. It doesn't get to go off and do it's own thing, specificially becuase of the power it has available to it.

I suppose all this is kinda obvious, but it should help explain to some confused people why this is such a big deal. Jtrainor (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and one that needs to be made. Guettarda (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To a limited and important extent, I disagree. Some cases clearly can be held without cases brought by those external to the committee, but they are limited in number. An example is emergency desysoppings, which often will not require a large case to follow up. Seeing the Committee as a branch of government is, I feel, unhelpful, because Wikipedia doesn't have a system of government in the way that talking about separation of powers implies. There are various pieces of authority that do not fall under "judicial", but are rightly the Committee's. Nevertheless, I agree that the action here is ultra vires. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Sam. I see no issue with ArbCom creating a case at it's own discretion. I feel holding that case and its voting in secret is where they exceeded their remit. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There can be exceptional circumstances, but they should be so obviously needed that when they are explained as well as possible in the open, essentially everyone will agree that the privacy was appropriate. That does not seem to be the case here--based on available evidence it seems to have been done merely for their own convenience. DGG (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why is there a problem with the committee creating a case on their own? Just because it's not typical doesn't mean it's horrible, or not allowed. Don't confuse "what has typically been done til now" with "what can be done"- this leads to stagnation. The committee is here to solve problems. This is easier without people trying to arbitrarily tie their hands. Friday (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with Arbcom creating their own cases, but they couldn't then judge their own cases. That would be a kangaroo court. RMHED (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. An arb can bring a case, as an individual, but he or she should then recuse themselves from further discussion. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - they only have to recuse if they're involved. None are. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arbcom editors, giving so freely and often thanklessly of their time, do what they do in very good faith and wontedly, helpfully so. OM himself also comes from a very helpful outlook, which I agree with, but now and then expresses his outlook in unhelpful ways, without meaning to be unhelpful. Either way, perhaps the time has come for the community to steadfastly and heedfully talk about arbcom and give it some guidance. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely well put Gwen. The only comment I would add is that it might first be appropriate to encourage some wide-ranging and vigorous community debate. On this page alone there are significant levels of dissension regarding Arbcom's role, scope, and limits, a subject I suspect jimbo himself is giving a certain amount of cosideration too. Doc Tropics 21:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not going to comment just yet - still looking through some things of relevance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, ArbCom is a process, and on a collectively-edited Wiki, processes need to be reasonably transparent. Holding a case in secret for no better reason than some false expediency (given the arbcom now have to do damage control, the expediency is quite false) puts community faith in the process into doubt. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget it was also done in secret to reduce the drama !--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to prevent drama has apparently had quite the opposite effect. —Travis ^talk 00:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Mission Accomplished. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 00:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally been subject to penalties imposed by the ArbCom on two separate occasions regarding matters that were brought forward solely by the ArbCom itself, with no public complaint or request from anyone else. I don't approve of this practice, but I also acknowledge that it fits within the scope of established ArbCom practice and should not be perceived as some kind of illegitimate innovation. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But weren't you at least given a chance to defend yourself? That's the main concern raised here. Blueboy 96 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In one case yes (nominally), in the other case no. Everyking (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The emergency desysop after an offer made on an external site? --Jenny 05:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tony, that's the latter instance. Everyking (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent): To quote from the second version of the Arbitration Policy (February 2004)[6]: "The arbitrators will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to arbitrate". This part has survived nearly unchanged throughout the history of Wikipedia. The current version reads "The Committee will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to rule". This has been in force during all ArbCom elections, and, to my knowledge, has never even been questioned. ArbCom does not have the mandate to create cases on their own. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? To my knowledge, requests were made by non-arbitrators for this particular case to be heard, and although it was broader, the Committee are entitled to limit or broaden the scope as much as necessary. That isn't the issue here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my primary point is to counter the above claim that ArbCom can indeed start cases on its own. But I also would strongly argue that "requested to rule" was intended to mean and should mean a proper WP:Request for Arbitration, and not some Tom, Dick, or Harriette bumping into an Arb on the street and saying "oh, btw, you should really look into the behavior of Ncmvocalist". This is Wikipedia. It is supposed to ultimately run on community consensus. Forming an informed opinion requires reasonable transparency. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. When I say a request was made, it wasn't a passing mention or something - it would still qualify as a formal request, but it was broader - the case as it appears, was limited in its scope. I'm just saying this isn't the issue (- but there are others). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any formal RfArb related to this case. At the minimum, this should have included the names of the involved editors. I agree that that is not the main issue here, but still an issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<for info> A RfAR on Intelligent design editors was opened at 01:37, 30 May 2008, with the edit summary (a shit-storm is approaching...), including Orangemarlin as one of the named parties. It ran for 14 days and was archived 01:09, 15 June 2008. By then, the Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/0/2) generally indicated that a RfC should be opened first, and included "Following a more detailed review, I do find myself concerned. As a result, at the appropriate time, if the community does not make further progress beforehand, I am more likely to be inclined to accept that there may be a need for a case. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)". Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design is currently in progress. . . dave souza, talk 14:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle pieces are coming together

Ok, I've done some asking around, (unfortunately quietly, so I can't share :-( ), and the puzzle pieces are coming together now. I think the Arbcom probably was acting wisely. One member perhaps not. Let's stay calm and see how it plays out. (Though regular reports on progress would seem to be imperative) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't want to share who this "one member" is, I presume? --Conti|✉ 00:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh darn, see, anything I say leads to speculation. It's very much intended to be delphic in the sense of "a great empire shall fall". And I'm not even sure of that. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take a guess Kim? After 2 years of total inactivity, Filiocht engineered this whole thing just for laughs! Am I right? MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are really only two options for "who", and given other statements that have been made, it's pretty obvious which one it is. --Carnildo (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "silly sausage" springs to mind. Oh well, these things happen. --Jenny 05:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be inclined to do some asking around myself--thus far, the only explanation offered is "We've heard this before." Sorry, that's not even remotely convincing. Blueboy 96 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moar information is never a bad thing! Just stay cool eh? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC) use real information, don't speculate :-)[reply]

Kim: I'm not sure your somewhat oracular pronouncements fit my definition of "moar information". :) I posted something like this on 2 arbitrator's talk pages so far:

I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks should be left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. '

and I think I'll be placing it on a few more. I don't care why this happened right now so much as getting to a resolution. The why is important too but for right now, a lot of clarity is what is needed. What IS the state of this decision, these new policies, etc. The longer this drags on the worse it is for everyone. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the best stopgap I could come up with on such short notice. Keep posting. :-) Also mail. And poke. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this from Jimbo and this from FT2 give some light on what is happening. Davewild (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This from Jimbo [7] suggests that the Arbcom did nothing at all. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo has a point here that these sorts of things don't get straightened out in a weekend, and that public arguing among ArbCom members would be even more destructive to the community than what has already happened.

However, numerous comments from Jimbo seem to confirm that what Kirill said about how the Orangemarlin Arbcom is not binding. If this is true, then FT2 -- and noone else -- should issue a brief statement confirming that to be the case, posthaste.

An ArbCom member fucking up and posting some proposed policy changes as if the Committee proposed them rather than an individual? Meh, big deal. We can wait for an explanation of how that happened. But this "secret trial" nonsense needs to be sorted now. If the committee can't offer a full explanation, they should at least indicate unanimity in the belief that the Orangemarlin "secret" ArbCom is neither official nor binding. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay cool. We'll get our answers. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'you know, Kim, I don't think we will :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real harm in speculation. Antelan ^talk 15:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my urgency in clarifying the "Was the secret trial valid?" nonsense is not because I am personally freaking out, but because the community is freaking out and I fear it is doing serious (perhaps irreparable?) damage to the community's faith in ArbCom. An individual editor can be convinced to "stay cool", but the only thing that will make the community calm down right now is a definitive statement from the Committee or FT2 -- not a definitive statement from Kirill, not an implication from Jimbo, but a definitive statement from the Committee or FT2 -- that confirms the OM ArbCom ruling posted by FT2 is not real.

Jimbo can assert all he wants that "there was no secret trial", but unless the sentence is "there was no secret trial, comma, and FT2's announcement of the ArbCom ruling against OM should be disregarded," then the community is not going to buy it. And every day that goes by with the community believing there was a secret trial means more lost faith in the Committee. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not interpret Jimbo's statement as saying there was no secret trial, he just said that he thought Arb Com would never hold one. He as we would expect and hope has enough sense to withhold judgement. Of course, the problem that this discussion took place over a weekend when the posting arbitrator was away is entirely due to that arbitrator's own choice of the timing. (for the record, I think it was a reasonable and temperate verdict nonetheless, and would have had general community support if done in the usual manner). DGG (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a portion of Jimbo's statement:

I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense...(Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)

He didn't say, "I don't think ArbCom would ever do this," he said there "is ZERO chance" that Arbcom would have "secret trials." (all emphasis mine) My interpretation of that statement was that either a) Jimbo is saying the Orangemarlin ArbCom ruling is invalid, or b) Jimbo is saying that it wasn't a secret trial. (b) stretches the limits of credulity, so I assumed (a).

But you're right, there are other ways to interpret it... which I think just further proves my point that we need some kind of definitive statement about the validity of FT2's Friday announcements, sooner rather than later. The immediate statement doesn't need to explain the whys and wherefores, it just needs to clarify whether those announcements are binding Committee announcements or not. And it needs to be definitive, collective (unless it comes from FT2), and unambiguous. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I forgot Jimbo also said this: In the current case, there is this rumor floating around that the ArbCom conducted a secret trial. That is not what happened.. Which is great, but it is still ambiguous because it doesn't say whether the OM ArbCom is bogus or if the OM ArbCom wasn't a secret trial. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, I am sure you're friendly and responsible enough to be able to calm down people from the community who think that way, and make sure there is no wikidrama. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC) which is not to say I don't want some clarification too, but arbcom is designed to be relatively slow, so there's no instant gratification to be had, I'm afraid.[reply]

Oh, you dirty stinker :) Why do you have to go and ruin all the fun by suggesting a sensible and reasoned course of action! ;p

FWIW, on Friday I was one of the early voices telling people to calm down and wait for a clarification. I have since become more concerned because I thought that FT2's Friday announcements would at least by out of limbo by now, and also because a comment from Jimbo seemed to indicate that even Monday would be too soon to expect a preliminary statement. But you've got a good point. I should probably try harder to be part of the solution, even if I think the problem is intractable without a statement from the Committee. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Matthews' announcement satisfies my concerns here. I am now willing to wait for any further clarification. The status of the OM ArbCom needed to be clarified immediately, but as I said, we can wait for the whys and wherefores. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a shortcut

Hahahaha, that is too funny. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official statement (Charles Matthews speaks)

Please read here for his post. It seems a sensible decision, and is fine as far as it goes, but...that's all?

Essentially, Kirill has been vindicated. His "drama-mongering" is revealed as nothing of the sort. FT2 is shown to have committed the biggest abuse of power on enwiki since...well, ever. Why, oh why, does he still retain his ArbCom seat? Surely even blindest of bats can see his position is untenable. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. In short: you do not have your facts right. No fault applies to FT2 for this, none the less there was miscommunication and for that reason we have decided to vacate and restart, to ensure fairness. There was confusion about proper procedure, but absolutely no "abuse of power". Everyone, including FT2, wishes he hadn't posted what he posted when he posted it, but the issue is not "abuse of power" but miscommunication, and a lot of people are happy to step up and shoulder some of the blame for that. FT2 is exactly what we want in an ArbCom member: thoughtful, kind, hard working, etc. The idea that this should lead to him leaving the committee is just a deep misunderstanding of what happened here. I am not criticizing you for being critical of what happened, but "abuse of power" goes a bit too far. Take a look at the underlying case.--75.195.124.194 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of votes+comments FT2 has made that I've found questionable in the more recent decisions I've followed closely (excepting Homeopathy, sort of, for obvious SAB reasons). At the same time, there are some instances where his long-winded explanations are quite worthwhile. "He's admonished for poor judgement" - but beyond this serious instance, is there any other problems with him (not personally, but his judgement or editing or...etc.)? If not, I would ask you to explain why you think his position is untenable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this. You cannot usurp and abuse the authority of the arbitration committee for your own ends. Nor can you conduct secret trials, in the name of the arbitration committee, in which the defendant has no right of reply. Which is precisely what he has done. Yes, there's not much else wrong with FT2, but for this one colossal fuckup, he has to go. Cruel, yes, but also necessary. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it was too egregious? I've seen many sysops been given 'second chance(s)' for equally "colossal f-ups", if not greater. I don't see why the same mentality isn't applied here - he's made a stuff-up as a member of ArbCom, with/without the help of other ArbCom members. It's being sorted out like with any other stuff-up on wiki, isn't it? Unless there's a pattern, why should he be removed for the first, and possibly last mistake? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Being an ArbCom member is far more important than being an admin: we cannot have AC members with judgment this poor, and to be honest I cannot recall any sysop ever doing anything so bad. Not even the most corrupt. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been sysop after sysop breaking fundamental principles, whether they further their own position in a dispute or block for incivility directed at themselves. (and that was just the Tango case) I agree, ArbCom are expected to lead by example, to a much much greater extent than regular sysops. But it doesn't change the fact we must assume good faith. We've never expected ANY user to be perfect - we're prone to human error, and a fundamental principle also. Do you disagree with this also? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not. I expect AC members to make mistakes. But reasonably-sized mistakes. Nothing this appalling. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But it's happened, somehow - and the rest of the Committee are acknowledging the fact they've could've and should've been more clear on their views. If FT2's record is clean (I don't see any evidence that it's not), how is it we treat FT2 differently in saying that 1 single massive mistake in his time at Wikipedia as an arbitrator (and possibly his last) are grounds enough to have him removed, and that it is incompatible with his status as an arb for any future cases? It's a bit like entertaining the idea that an admin says a user is banned, but the community has in fact, not banned the user, yet we don't desysop the admin immediately, for this mistake alone anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please, let's not have any calls for people's heads here. As far as the Orangemarlin thing goes, I don't think FT2 is really to blame; he was acting under a reasonable interpretation of what the proper procedure was, and a number of us—myself included—failed to communicate our assumptions about what we thought the procedure would be to him. And a number of important matters were unfortunately overlooked in the confusion. Personally, I think that I'm as much to blame for that as anyone else. Kirill ^(prof) 16:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll shoulder some of that too. I looked at some of the early drafts, but didn't go into depth as I would have on a full-fledged case, and just let it slide by. Any of us could have said "wait a minute", and we failed to. Part of the underlying cause is a basic lack of organization at ArbCom; the concept might not be scaling to the larger community well. Some of the proposed organizational changes deal with this. (And they're just proposed, like any other policy and procedure proposals; ArbCom doesn't make policy, and only make procedure for ourselves and our dependent bodies, whatever those might be.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, your comments do you credit, but you sound like a resigned teacher lamenting his failure to control a naughty child. And it's worrying. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, that might be the case if there was any hierarchy in ArbCom. We're all equals; we're all voted for by the same community and appointed by the same person. And we're all too willing to let someone else pick up an unpleasant burden. The group's process failed here, and FT2 externalized the failure. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆

(ec)Given the failures of process and lack of organization in the Arbcom, what can you do or say to give the community confidence in your (the Arbcom's, not individually) ability to deal appropriately both with the new RfArb on OM, and other cases? DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new one, assuming it's accepted by the committee, will be essentially the same as the old one, other than being public and properly allowing the subject to respond. The only way we can give the community confidence is by fucking up less often; words saying that we're going to do so are just that, words. (And, of course, one person fuckup is another person righteous and proper decision.) How about, "we'll try our best to be more careful and more attentive"? Meanwhile, the RFC regarding ArbCom is coming up with some pretty darned good stuff. (And with some garbage, of course, but that's going to happen in any public forum.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you come up with the idea of having the OM case heard in private? Did you come up with the idea of giving OM no opportunity to defend himself? Did you then post your own opinions, without proper consensus from your fellows, on Wikipedia as official, usurping and abusing the authority of the AC? No, you didn't. FT2 did all these things: for that, he has to go. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was fully aware it was being heard in private; we do that routinely for matters involving privacy, and sometimes for really egregious things like when we discover admins with abusive sockpuppets. I let this one slip by; that was my responsibility as part of the group. No authority was usurped; a misunderstanding about consensus and process within the committee occurred. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the decision not to allow OM to make a defence? DuncanHill (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the part I really feel like a schmuck about; I should have realized that was occurring and objected at the time, rather than in retrospect. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you feel that you (either as an individual, or the Arbcom as a whole) owe OM and the community an apology for these events? DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as an individual, I apologize to the community, to FT2, and to a lesser degree to OM (note that I've expressed no opposition to the content of the now-non-decision) for not being more diligent in protecting the basic rights of our users and ensuring that formal ArbCom actions are done correctly. The first is part of my principles, the second is part of my job, and I dropped the ball, and being busy with a lot of other stuff isn't an excuse. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that apology. It was excellent. Very well said. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the person who made that misunderstanding? FT2. And you're not going to tell me you actively went along with the idea of OM and Odd nature being given no opportunity to submit evidence in their defense. That "misunderstanding about consensus" was FT2 thinking that the silence of his fellows gave him license to do whatever the hell he liked in the name of the ArbCom. How can we possibly trust anyone that thick? Get rid of him before all your heads roll. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, how the hell do you make out that you are to blame for anything? If handling cases, where no serious socking is involved, in a matter reserved for serious socking - and with a special twist that the defendants can present no evidence in their own defense - is a "reasonable interpretation" of usual procedure, we have a problem. Of course, it is not a reasonable interpretation. It is an interpretation which shows horribly flawed judgment, and we cannot have arbitrators with those. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Moreschi, we need to know which arbitrators supported the "secret trial with no opportunity for defence" option. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles' announcement is of course far, far, very far from enough. At the same time, FT2 is now reporting [8] that he has seen substantial amounts of support for his own position on the Arbcom mailing list, including at least one other arbitrator who felt that he was correct in announcing the alleged decisions the way he did. This makes it all the more crucial that these goings-on be made public. People, I want to know who that other arbitrator was (among many other things); there's absolutely no way on earth I'm ever again going to acknowledge this committee as a legitimate agent of dispute resolution unless these things are put on the table. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: And, by the way, I'm saying this as someone who has actually always liked and respected FT2 a lot, since he began his Arbcom job. I was under the impression he was one of our better arbitrators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect, is, of course, quite correct. Unless these things are done, I too will simply ignore ArbCom's dictates and act independently as I see fit. In addition, IMO, how the AC can retain any credibility with FT2 still there is beyond me. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think further explanation is needed of how many arbiters objected to the private consideration and what the reason was for it to begin with. If 12 arbiters objected, ok, fine, but if it was only 1 or 2, then that's a serious lack of good judgment on arbcom's part. --B (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree Future Perfect. The arbcom currently has no credibility. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some clarification on the other things FT2 announced, this statement only seems to cover the Orangemarlin situation. Davewild (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're still working on that. Kirill ^(prof) 16:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Davewild (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I think further explanation is needed, but I think it can wait. The status of the "ruling" regarding OrangeMarlin is now confirmed -- the ruling is invalid and non-binding. ~~The other announcements by FT2 on Friday should be considered individual proposals and not community actions.~~ I guess that is not true yet, but still, the time-critical detail has been resolved

Let's all have a little patience in getting at the whys and wherefores. In my opinion, this was a highly satisfactory and sorely needed preliminary statement from the committee. I trust the Committee understands that the community's trust in them has been damaged, and that they will work (on their normal time scale) to provide a satisfactory explanation of how this happened. In the meantime, we have the info we need right now. We can be patient for the rest. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're complaining, why was the official statement moved only 15 minutes after it was made? Given the importance of this to the community I think it could have been left a bit longer. I think this matter is hard to follow enough as it is. At least a pointer should have been left behind, perhaps... oh well. Maybe someone could make a page with links to all the other pages that are relevant or something. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked to from here, and from the request currently present on WP:RFAR that was filed as a result of the decision. --bainer (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "It seems a sensible decision, and is fine as far as it goes, but...that's all?": this sets out the way forward for the Orangemarlin/Odd nature matter, which is clearly the most (and/or the only) pressing and immediate concern here. There is now time to discuss the other matters and they will be dealt with in course. I concur with Kirill and Josh above; the communications breakdowns here are as much my fault as anyone elses. We've taken some steps this year in attempting to improve our communications and general organisation, but it is something that still needs plenty of improvement and I intend to focus on it much more diligently throughout the rest of the year. --bainer (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope that all the other stuff presented as fait accompli isn't chucked out forthwith. There is not the rush there, as it's policy change, but I really thought a fair bit of that stuff was very thought provoking and hope that when the dust settles that it is given serious consideration, either for implementation by the community, or by fiat (by arbcom), whichever seems to make the most sense, if discussion shows that it's well founded and sound. ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I trust that means that by Tuesday you will have sacked FT2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough

The arbitration committee hasn't come anywhere close to explaining itself. Charles Mathews writes from what I can tell is the only official arbcom response so far. It is sorely lacking;

Orangemarlin was handled in a way normally reserved for serious socking. The matter is weighty with wide ramifications. Even so, a number of Arbitrators were in the end, and after review of the case, not convinced of the need for such summary implementation. This course of events could have been avoided by better use of internal ArbCom communications, and it is not going to set any precedent for the future.

Orangemarlin was handled in a way normally reserved for serious socking. Can you explain when it is alright run secret cases without the knowledge of the accused? Is it only for serious socking? (for example; to avoid betraying privacy, confidential sources or slip-ups that sockers make...)
Are there any other cases where the arbcom engages in secret star chamber projects, like this one here?
The matter is weighty with wide ramifications What do you mean by this? What ramifications are you talking about?
Even so, a number of Arbitrators were in the end, and after review of the case, not convinced of the need for such summary implementation. How many arbitrators actually supported this case being cooked up in secret, with the accused not allowed to defend himself or even know of the case against him. Who are they and what was their rationale?
This course of events could have been avoided by better use of internal ArbCom communications, and it is not going to set any precedent for the future. Exactly how could better communications help arbitrators who think that needlessly secret trials, where the accused isn't notified or allowed to defend himself or hear the charges, are a good idea? Do you think an arbitrator who needs to be told this is fit for duty?
What are the consequences going to be for this unfortunate case. What is being done to restore the communities trust in the arbcom?
Do the perpetrators of this Kafkaesque circus understand that what they did was wrong. Do they understand why?
weighty with wide ramifications. We now have longtime administrators discussing ignoring arbcom dictates. --Duk 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the suggestion that FT2 is incompetent (in the chronic sense) implausible. He has repeatedly proven himself an excellent, if longwinded, draftsman. Deliberative bodies screw up, and I actually find it surprising that in over four years this is the first major screw-up I can recall happening. A case was miscategorised, apparently, as involving special circumstances. And for this there are some people who claim that the arbitration committee lacks the confidence of the community? --Jenny (recently changed username) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't actually think FT2 is incompetent, I have a lot of esteem for him. But that makes it all the more important to understand the context of those communication processes that went so wrong that he could be led to that gaffe. And yes, the arbitration committee will lack the confidence of the community unless and until they give us this information. I find the lack of openness after the event more damaging than the event itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be consequences for screw-ups like this. Without consequences standards fall, the community looses confidence and admins will start to ignore the arbcom. The problem in my view is how the arbcom as a whole allowed this to happen, and their poor response to the communities concerns. --Duk 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Moreschi unconditionally. This must not be allowed to stand. I will never trust FT2 in anything related to the wiki again, certainly-- he has completely and utterly compromised his integrity, percieved or otherwise, as an Arbcom member. I will certainly demand he recuse from any case I participate in in the future, and I should hope everyone else does the same. He should step down immediately, and perhaps even be banned; if he does not have the grace to do so, then he should be booted. Jtrainor (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're just looking for a fall guy, so that you can continue to believe that the rest of the system works? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If FT2 really is such a dreadful moustache-twirling blackguard and the rest of arbcom is supporting him, then it follows that they should also be booted. Note that I said IF. :) --Jenny 23:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come now. FT2 either did this stuff, or he did not. If he did, then it logically follows that he must be punished for it. It's impossible to find out anything else about this unless the Arbcom releases all emails on the subject.

I should note that I have no opinion one way or the other on Orangemarlin himself; my concern is with Arbcom's botching of the case. Jtrainor (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that he opened a case that he should not have. If this means he "must be punished", then an awful lot of us "must be punished" for doing things we shouldn't have. I'd say that this is becoming quite surreal, but the calls for heads to roll passed that point some time ago. --Jenny 01:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It "logically follows that he must be punished for it"?! Not in any logic of this world, it doesn't! — the Sidhekin (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm saying that I think we've seen here that FT2 does not carry sole responsibility. Ergo, if we punish FT2, we're setting up a classic fall guy (to meatball:NameTheConflict). I think that that would be unfair, since FT2 is actually one of the arbcom members that works hardest, and does his best to stay in touch. Sure, he's the most visible person carrying out arbcom tasks, and the most obvious person to point fingers at, but that doesn't automatically mean that he must take a fall.

As you probably know, setting up a fall-people and letting them fall might be quite relaxing for all involved, but it typically doesn't actually solve underlying problems. We have some time now, how about we proceed by investigating the root causes? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I know, I know, I'm deviating from the classic Machiavellian textbook here. :-P [reply]

All these calls for FT2's resignation are completely misplaced. FT2 made a mistake, but he is getting such heavy blame because his mistake was the visible mistake. Other arbitrators are guilty of mistakes as well—apathy, failure to communicate properly—but their mistakes are not on display, except to the extent that they choose to acknowledge them. It appears that FT2 was taking a leading role in getting important things done, and we should not deny him all credit and indict him merely for stumbling on the implementation. Everyking (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that FT2 was taking a leading role in getting important things done, and we should not deny him all credit and indict him merely for stumbling on the implementation. That was my take on the situation too. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 went into arbcom with the goal of being scrupulously fair to everyone Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements, and his early work on Arbcom shows judgement and a willingness to stick his neck out for what he thought was right. At the least, FT2 seems a bizarre scapegoat for this - it does not seem at all in character for what we know from him. FT2 is an experienced draughtsman, perhaps he was chosen to draft up a statement from a group of arbitrators. The simple fact is, I trust him more than the rest of the committee. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions

Doesn't FT2's statement here rather contradict what Josh and Kirill have said above, in addition to Charles's post to RFAR? Either he is lying, or he is a fool. Quite possibly both. Either or neither way, we simply have' to see the arbcom-l list archives for this discussion. Please make them public, guys. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just as an arbitrator said above, the arbcom lacks organization and working internal procedures. I seriously doubt that any of them actually know for sure what happened. DuncanHill (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do; it's pretty obvious. We do some things by consensus, and some things by vote, and FT2 mistook where the line between them was. And, no, we're not opening up the list archives for this discussion or any other; that's just a matter of principle. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then step back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resign. All of you. As I said earlier, and I mean it: either show us what happened, or resign. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do some root cause failure analysis? Sure. But I think that asking for the arbcom archives to be opened is way over the top. There is a need for some matters to be conducted privately. That is true in any organization. Wikis are no exception... ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crux is that not everyone understands why matters had to be conducted privately in this case, nor is it clear why what was said by whom and when needs to remain private now. I understand protection of privacy, I don't understand the privacy matters here though. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whose interests are being protected by keeping these discussions private? Unless there's privacy concerns of a serious nature regarding third parties, I don't see who of the participants would have a legitimate reason to insist on their own privacy. Did anybody say anything on that mailing list they'd have to be ashamed of if it was out in the open? Jpgordon, did you? Who did? Who of you guys would not be comfortable with us knowing what they said when to whom? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many interests are protected. I draw from common practice at my employer, in HR organizations in general, in volunteer organizations in general. There is always a need for some privacy. Maximum transparency is goodness. 100% transparency of EVERYTHING is not. We must trust in our choices of ArbCom members, ask for investigation if warranted, count on some member not to stonewall if there are issues. But not demand 100% transparency. That is what we must accept. Or fork. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This kind of vague hand-waving just doesn't cut it. I never called for "100% transparency of EVERYTHING". I called for transparency for this particular thread or set of threads on the list. Of course Arbcom has very good reasons for keeping some things private. I just don't see how this is one of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon said the mailing list archives would not be opened "on principle". To me, this may be related to protecting the impartiality of ArbCom, i.e. if all of their decision-making process and communication is open to the public, then they basically become Politicians instead of Judges. And not for nothing, do you really think opening up the archives would result in less drama??

I'll say it again: The Committee knows damn well that the community's faith in them is in serious jeopardy. They know it, you know it, I know it. I have confidence they will seek to address this (operating on their normal time scale, of course). It's in their best interests, after all, and I think they know this. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think transparency (and reform, qv RFC) would be the better way to go. We already have editors asking for resignation and stating that they will ignore ArbCom as they see fit until this is resolved. I don't think these are helpful stances at all, but it is true that arbcom could shed more light on what transpired. I still don't understand how this could happen. (Also the arbcom's interest is the encyclopedia, and so is the interest of those protesting here). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one would ignore arbcom at their peril. Not implement decisions is one thing, but actively work against them? Not a good idea. I will repeat what I said earlier, if a duly constituted representative of ArbCom appears in the stewards channel and asks for an emergency desysop on behalf of arbcom there will be plenty of stewards to do it. Including me. (former arbcom members, no... but current, yes) ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so we're just going to pass it off as a mild "misunderstanding", are we? No. That doesn't wash. This is the biggest "misunderstanding" in the history of Wikipedia that I can think of, and it has certainly led to the biggest abuse of power. Cut out the misunderstander and/or give us the chance to properly evaluate what really happened. - or step down, all of you, as Future Perfect says. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bring on the peril, I say. If the Arbcom cannot be trusted, then how can their decisions henceforth be trusted? Jtrainor (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions, part 2

I get the impression everyone acted honorably here. There's one point on which Kiril Lokshin needs to be admonished actually, he has made a mistake similar to one I'd made recently (but in my defense, I did not have the benefit of being able to think things over for half an hour before speaking at the time), but I'm sure he'll already have been told off enough internally? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're pretty good at that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) jpgordon, I'd actually be careful about saying more at this point. "We do some things by consensus, and some things by vote, and FT2 mistook where the line between them was." seems to imply there was a majority vote to uphold a secret ArbCom hearing regarding OrangeMarlin in which he had no opportunity to offer a defense. This may not be something the Committee wants to say right now.

I reiterate what I said before: The immediate issue has been dealt with: The purported ArbCom ruling against OrangeMarlin is invalid. For everything else, we can wait. Like I said, the Committee knows damn well that the community's faith in them is shaken, and I trust they more than anyone else will want to address this in due course. Let's wait. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really imply that? Certainly, that was not the case; no vote on this, or any other aspect of the case, was held. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure you meant to imply it, that's why I said you might want to be (even more) careful :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jaysweet - give it more thought, all members of ArbCom. The responses can wait. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril should be admonished for pointing out that what FT2 announced was not valid to announce? Any user can point out when something is not right and should be able to with no fear or reprisal no matter their role or position. rootology (T) 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, no. Actually, whistle blowers should not suffer reprisal. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NVS I am not sure if that was supposed to be a reply to me or to Rootology or what. Feel free to refactor (and strike this preface if you move my reply to you)... I think whistle blowers should NOT suffer reprisal. I am just saying that sometimes discretion as to WHEN to blow whistles is needed. I think Kirill blew early. If he had tried to get ducks back in line and all the other arbs blew him off, then it was time to blow the whistle, and we need to applaud that. It's a minor point but he was a bit early. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, That was more to Bruning. However, I note that cautioning Kirill for blowing early is not the same thing as reprisal. Reprisal would be admonishing him or any form of censure. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of blowing early on more than one occasion. daveh4h 03:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sometimes it's better to get your ducks in a row. And that's true, sometimes, even if the unrowness of the ducks already came out. Kirill made matters somewhat worse with that pronouncement. It would have been better to work harder behind the scenes to get this sorted. He acknowledged it. I think lots of people cocked up in this, and it's more likely to be a big miscommunication than a big nefarious plot (that's usually the way to bet in these matters... never ascribe to malice... ) ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Kirill did us a favour - the arbcom (or elements within it) have now admitted that they lack organization and that their internal processes failed. I think the community needs to know if something as powerful as arbcom is not functioning. When are the next elections? DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do elections solve systemic problems? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DH: December. KB: vote the bums out, is the conventional wisdom. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DH: re the " lack organization" bit, I think if Kirill had lobbied behind the scenes and there had been a repudiation of the summary judgement, the same result (of admission that there are issues to fix within ArbCom) would have been achieved but with less drama. Kirill has said words to that effect already. But then, hindsight is 20/20, who knows how it would have come out. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)h[reply]

Ok, so FT2 is probably not malicious. He's just incompetent. His fellow arbs are guilty of not keeping his incompetence in check. Unfortunately, his extreme incompetence is far advanced it's almost impossible to separate from malice: he has to go. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one of us on this earth is perfect, we are all of us human. It was a cock up. It should not happen again. But "extreme incompetence" ??? I think calling for heads is a bit much. ArbCom does have trust it needs to rebuild with us, and rightly so, they blew this, but it's not time for armed insurrection. It might be time for those calling for heads to be working on their campaign statements for next election though... don't criticise if you're not willing to try your hand at it, and all that. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another plea for patience

Yes, I'm just going to keep saying this over and over :)

The announcement by the ArbCom that invalidates the "ruling" against Orangemarlin should have alleviated any sense of urgency. I agree that, for about 40 hours there, we were in a very bad situation where the Committee needed to take immediate action. There was a purported ArbCom ruling, with restrictions against an active user, that was in limbo, uncertain whether it was binding or not. That was uncool, and I'm unhappy ArbCom took so long to clarify this.

However, we now have received clarification on that ruling. What we still don't fully understand is exactly what happened, how, and why. There are very serious questions about what allowed ArbCom to make such an incredible snafu.

But there is no rush on this. We don't need to know today, or tomorrow, or the week after, and o'erhasty decision now are not likely to be of optimum benefit to the community.

I am sure the Committee is aware that the community's faith in them is shaken, and I am sure they know it will be in their best interests to address it in due time. We can afford to be patient now. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just don't forget. And just don't let those other proposals, all worthy of consideration at the very least, be forgotten either. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am starting to lose patience with all these calls for patience, particularly since Arbcomm wants to move ahead with an expedited RfAr against Orangemarlin and an expedited Arbcomm case against Orangemarlin and ON. If they want to rush into things like this, why are we supposed to be patient with their excuses for what was clearly the biggest abuse of process ever on Wikipedia?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are starting to lose patience with me, you raise an excellent point, and one I was already thinking but had forgotten to mention: I strongly oppose expediting the new RfArb against OrangeMarlin. While I think there is definitely something there, the entire case is now FUBARed in the most literally sense of the word -- and really, I mean Beyond All Recognition. Rushing to action in that case will only further undermine the committee.

I stand by my plea for patience on the part of the community. But Filll is right --- I was remiss to not also ask for patience on the part of the Committee. A reckless pursuit of the OrangeMarlin case, after everything that has happened... no, I just can't even see it. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reckless"? I'm a little puzzled by something here. It's not uncommon for proposed new cases to be accepted quickly - I've seen some accepted in a matter of hours, and on occasion, cases have been proposed and accepted before I've seen them at all. All that might be "rushed" is an actual case being opened for the usual commentary and discussion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current members of Arbcom cannot accept this case, they have no legitimacy in regard to this matter. They are tainted, they are besmirched, they are the clowns of this circus. RMHED (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure jpgordon you are acting in good faith here. But somehow I get the impression you are missing part of the picture. No offense.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Arbcom yet fully realise what an utter laughing stock they have become. RMHED (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what RHMED said, only I myself would probably put it in less severe terms. I don't think ArbCom is quite a "laughing stock," but the community I feel has some very legitimate unanswered questions, and for a sizeable portion of the community, their trust in ArbCom is shaken. While I don't feel there needs to be a rush to answer those questions, if the Committee were to try to pursue the renewed OM case without addressing those questions, yes, I think that would be reckless. --Jaysweet (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not vindicate OM's behavioral problems

The ID RFC is a total failure due, in no small part, to the problems that led FT2 to feel a summary judgment would be appropriate. What promises do we have from OM and ON that they and their friends won't try to derail the DR process again with their verbose and sometimes inane arguing? What promises do we have that they won't try to wikilawyer and game the system to try to avert criticism? When they say present a defense, do they intend to bring clarity or will they try to further confuse the situation by bringing in irrelevant external factors (Moulton, for example). The signal to noise factor when dealing with these folks is sometimes the worst I've seen on the wiki except in cases of ethnic conflicts. There are serious civility and behavioral problems here that are completely antithetical to our community standards. The remedies that FT2 proposed were quite appropriate for editors who have been warned and asked hundreds of times to stop acting like assholes towards other editors and to quit trying to wikilawyer/filibuster their way out of criticism of their own behavior. The shit they caused at DHMO RFA was the last straw for some. I suggest that the arbitrators look long and hard at the previous DR attempts with these folks if they want to understand where FT2 is coming from. I have since come to disagree with the idea of a summary trial in secret, but I do not see how it is possible to use normal DR with these editors. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. What an attitude.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I am not the only one who was amazed that your own actions were not covered by the proposed action. Orderinchaos 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what? I have been attacked for defending other editors (for example at the ID RfC). Ok, if that is a crime, I guess I am guilty as charged. Please show me the place in Wikipedia policy where defending other editors is not allowed. I would be very interested to see that. With diffs please.

For the last month I have pledged not to participate in RfAs or RfBs or editing of controversial articles on intelligent design, evolution, creationism, alternative medicine, or any other controversial subject. I will continue to avoid these areas until I feel my participation would be welcome and beneficial and I would not be subject to summary attack, like the one you just made. That is, I have unilaterally topic-banned myself for the forseeable future since editing these types of articles is so fraught with tension and drama. I will not vote for anyone at any poll like RfA since I do not want to be accused of choosing sides and then be subject to threats or revenge later for voting the "wrong way". For as long as I have been on Wikipedia, I have had a standing offer that if I post anything that you or anyone else finds offensive and want me to remove, I will strike the putatively offensive post, or remove the purportedly offensive post, or alter the post so it is no longer offensive. This is true whether or not I agree that the post was offensive; no questions asked. I will also apologize for any offense I caused. Again, whether I agree or not; no questions asked. I have never used any unedited profanity on Wikipedia. Can you make similar statements ? If so, I want to see the diffs of where you have made similar statements in the past. I want to see the evidence. If you cannot show it to me, then I suggest respectfully that you back off; way way off with your accusations which I find highly unCIVIL and a violation of WP:NPA. Thanks so much.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I was not busy offline (those who know me directly know the circumstances) I would be able to ferret through your contributions and build a case. I intend to do so as soon as said circumstances lapse as part of the evidence submission for the RfAr. With regard to profanity, I can most definitely make the same attestation myself, and I have never been afraid of correcting or striking or apologising for my own statements when more information becomes available to me or when my initial expressed view appears wrong or unfair in the cold light of day. Orderinchaos 08:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely does not vindicate anyone. There is now a RfAr under way on OM where people are commenting. I hope arbitrators will vote to accept in due course. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any arbitrator who accepts this case is only showing that they are totally unfit to be an arbitrator. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One already has, violating his own statement that arbitrators will vote after the 48 hour community input window. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon695, that's an outrageous slur based on slanted analysis of defective information. Normal DR is exactly what should be used with ALL editors, with no exceptions for those subjected to off-wiki smear campaigns. . . dave souza, talk 18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the rush?

After FT2 spending almost a month on preparing the case, we now have a new RfAR "The parties and other interested editors are invited submit their views within 48 hours regarding whether the case should be accepted... If four or more net arbitrators vote to accept the case, it will be opened and considered on an expedited basis with the parties advised to present all evidence and workshop proposals within one week." That's a really short time to do the proper amount of analysis and preparation of evidence on a number of incidents. Orangemarlin isn't a big hazard to the community, and even less likely to be uncivil now. Why the rush? . . dave souza, talk 18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm wants to sweep its mistake under the carpet.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd, Filll. Please stop trolling.--75.195.124.194 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How am I trolling? Please.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Charles Matthews wrote that Arbiters won't decide to accept the case for at least 48 hours after people state their views, why did he immediately vote to accept? rootology (T) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he miscommunicated with himself? DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, we have a problem. I am wondering if we do not need to send a strong message to Arbcomm that they better start acting in a responsible manner.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't, you have the support of many people in spite of your "strong" messages, not because of them. On the other hand, what do I know... I'm now going to shut up on this, and I ask any admin to block me for disruption, if I comment on any ID-related issue in the coming three months. This is getting to be such a waste of my limited wiki-time, and believe it or not, I occasionally do useful edits when I don't put my nose into these issues. Best wishes to everyone, and I really hope for a non-combative solution. Merzul (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I am not personally sending any "strong message". I am not even sure I would sign onto one if someone else proposed one. I personally have backed off from all ID-related articles for the last month and intend to continue, if you have not noticed. --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this Jimbo statement?

I have encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully. Gather all the facts. Don't have a public argument with each other that confuses people or gives trolls the opportunity to turn more people against each other. Figure out what went wrong, correct it, apologize where beneficial to do so, and build a better framework going forward. You don't get all that done in a weekend, and you don't further that kind of thoughtful and mature process with a hasty statement. I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a frantic rush to RfAr and then to judgement on an Arbcomm case seem a bit contrary to this? Why should we be patient with Arbcomm and its putative explanations when they are in a desperate rush? --Filll (talk | wpc) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find an RfAr at this time to be any sort of rush to judgment. The normal process works well, and now is a good time to move forward with it. The fact of the errors made here should in no way prejudice the case... in either direction.--75.195.124.194 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that at least one arbitrator has chosen to ignore the official statement by the Arbcom about how the new case will be handled suggests a hurry to get things over with. DuncanHill (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rush to run the case after all is somewhat unseemly, and compounds the problems. Instead, I'd suggest running an RfC, or other community-based dispute resolution, then returning to the case after some time has passed, if necessary. To accept this case again while A. FT2 is claiming other arbitrators supported the secret case, and B. When Charles Matthews' statement that "a number of Arbitrators were in the end, and after review of the case, not convinced of the need for such summary implementation" implies that they DID run a secret case, then thought better of it - which substantially hampers the ability of the Arbcom to judge the case fairly. Until the situation is clear, the case cannot move forward without giving the impression of a kangaroo court. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They ran a case. FT2 thought it was done and dusted, turns out it wasn't so now Jimbo says there was no case, arbcom say there was a case but they had made such a balls up of it that FT2 shouldn't have taken them at their word, and now they are rushing a new case, with at least one arbitrator already breaking his word about how it will be managed. Maybe they think we are all amazingly thick and won't notice? DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The longer this circus goes on the clearer it becomes that Arbcom is no longer fit for purpose. Time to administer the humane killer. Some of them probably won't even notice, having been practically comatose for months already. RMHED (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're just a group of people. They're human, and they're not monolithic. One of them made a rather large error of judgement, and now they're trying to figure out the best way to fix it and improve the situation. It's human nature to overcorrect when you screw up. Give it a bit of time, and recognize that there will be false starts along the way. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not try to heap all the blame on one poor schmo, all of Arbcom are culpable. Human nature in these type of situations is usually to attempt a cover up. Hopefully that won't happen, but I wouldn't bet against it. RMHED (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just one of them that made an error of judgement - they all went along with the secrecy and the denial of a defence. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[9]. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The abortive case against Orangemarlin was the result of a real problem that needed to be dealt with. The manner in which the case was handled was clearly wrong, but the problem remains and it will do no good to drag it out. Everyking (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "real problem" perception is based on skewed and framed "evidence", and a greater problem remains of civility guidelines being elevated above policy, encouraging gaming the system. I've no problem with suitable and proportionate action to improve civility where dispassionate analysis shows that there are real problems, but harassing productive editors is damaging to the core aims of the encyclopedia. . . dave souza, talk 08:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Dave souza here. Is there occasional incivility on Wikipedia? Yes there is, by all parties. However, I will point out that the civility standards are in a state of flux, and are inconsistently applied, and do not always even make much sense [10].

In the case of the "real problem" that this Orangemarlin case is supposedly meant to address, there is a lot more smoke than fire. For example, the "white pride" material, which constitutes a large volume of the accusations against OM is based on some misunderstandings I believe. The phrase "white pride" might have no negative connotations in Australia or Scotland or many other places, but in parts of the US it can have terrible associations. If I wore a t-shirt saying "white pride" outside in public, I would probably be killed within a few hours. If I had a bumper sticker on my car saying "white pride" I would probably end up with my car vandalized in short order. I might be pulled over by the police and fined or worse. If I put a sign on the lawn of my residence stating "white pride" I would probably have my house firebombed. The first thing that has to be understood by anyone looking at this evidence is that the phrase "white pride" has become inextricably linked with incredibly negative sentiments in certain places in the United States. It might not be fair, and you might not like it, and I might not like it, but that is reality. And in the "white pride" evidence against Orangemarlin, only one side has been presented, consistently and over and over for weeks now. Orangemarlin and Swatjester did not just make up this stuff about "white pride" and decide to brand certain users unfairly and inappropriately with being supporters of "white pride" or promoters of "white pride" and then attack them for it. There is more to the story than that; it is far more complicated and nuanced and there was considerable provocation that has not been adequately detailed or documented. Did OM have an outburst or two which he later withdrew? Yes he did, but he withdrew them later when he calmed down. Did he have unprovoked outbursts? No not really. So before we start building a gallows to hang Orangemarlin (and Odd nature for that matter), let's calm down a little and understand the ameliorating facts and circumstances a little.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "white pride" is, in my experience, inextricably linked with blatant and sometimes violent racist groups in the United Kingdom. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues and it looks to me as if they're becoming confused in some people's minds.

The first issue is the Orangemarlin case itself. There is a prima facie case to answer and we have no reason to expect that arbcom will take longer than usual to open the case. The second issue is the miscommunication that led to FT2's unorthodox and unauthorized announcements. That should be addressed more cautiously, for a variety of reasons. --Jenny 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink the whole process

I think Arbcom has been a good experiment, but now it's time to close it and rethink the whole process. Perhaps a care-taker arbcom can be appointed, with a very limited scope of authority, until it's all figured out. I imagine several smaller groups, one the final say for content dispute resolution, another for editor issues and MedCom handling most of the important stuff. Bstone (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has worked in the past, and I am inclined to believe it will work in the future. I believe that during the RFAR is perhaps the incorrect time to dissolve the arbcom, and I'm not even sure if the community can do this thing. I know Jimbo can, as a safety valve, but I'm not sure who else can. Perhaps we wait a bit. Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NonvocalScream above: it's dependent on who is expected to do the rethinking. If Jimbo Wales, the Foundation or even Arbcom itself want to come along and impose new systems and structures then that's at least feasible. But if the idea is that the community could determine a solution, even an interim one, then I think it's pretty much a pipe-dream. The community is no longer capable of policy creation. CIreland (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bold claim to make. On what grounds do you make it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a bold claim? I think it's an opinion held by many; it's certainly an opinion expressed by others at the current RfC. Moreover, I think it may be a contributary the cause of the recent shenanigans: ArbCom, arguably, have increasingly skirted the boundaries of their remit to determine policy precisely because the community has been incapable of addressing the mounting problems for which current policy is inadequate. CIreland (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not so much "bold" as it is "self-evident": the last serious policy creation was BLP, which was largely imposed from on high. The rollbacker decision was only made with the involvement of Arb Comm. We still haven't come to a consensus on flagged revisions. CIreland is exactly right that the community is incapable of policy development. For that reason, any step towards the abolition of Arb Comm without something similarly muscular in place to replace it is a step in very much the wrong direction. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with CIreland's contention here - I've seen it at work many times. Orderinchaos 08:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty good at designing systems. I'd invite JamesF (original arbcom designer) to help out, if he likes. :-) There's an arbcom RFC open right now though, shouldn't we at least wait for that to conclude so that we have some specs to work with? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is to say, we should wait until the FT2 - OrangeMarlin case becomes resolved. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before considering whether a rethink was necessary, I think I'd need some evidence that the Committee was failing to keep up with the workload, or failing to clear up problems. From all evidence, the reverse is the case.

In terms of new applications and new cases, the workload has actually decreased substantially in the two years since 2006.

As for the Orangemarlin case, it's a single major error in four years. Hardly evidence of a need to rethink the process--the scarcety of such problems is more like a ringing endorsement. --Jenny 01:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To a related end, I've opined on general arbcom matters and behavior at User:MBisanz/Arbcom MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some good evidence of some embarrassing fuck-ups there. Otherwise, I stand. --Jenny 02:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/Jenny here. Some *ups, but otherwise proof exists this organization is otherwise operating within my expectations. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, if we're going to start dismantling areas of Wikipedia that don't function perfectly, I can think of a few others that would be a lot further up the list than ArbCom. CIreland (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the MatthewHoffman / vanished user case was a fairly major error, although not one that was strictly speaking Arbcom's fault - they were split and the resolutions which got passed, some of which were in error, crept over the line with the right majority while other more sound ideas failed to get the same majority by one or two votes. Orderinchaos 08:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like this case, arbcom started in the MatthewHoffman case with the aim of making an example of an editor. . . dave souza, talk 09:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the point of bringing the Matthew Hofmann case was to fix up a transparent denial of natural justice, that is quite a leap into the dark. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A laudable aim which was carried out in a way that created another transparent denial of natural justice. Not a "fix up" that should be repeated. . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Matthew Hoffman case looks pretty straightforward to me. An admin involved in editing on an issue blocks another user involved in an editing dispute on the same subject, dubious block summaries, dubious reasons for extension, unjustified indefinite blocking. Significant doubts about a sysop's fitness, suspension of his sysop bit for six months, block log annotated to indicate that the Committee reviewed the two block extensions and found them to be excessive. Tough, but fair to all parties. So what's the problem? --Jenny 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the problem? Where do I start? How about beginning to vote before there is any evidence? How about ignoring a good chunk of the evidence presented? How about calling editors "dogs" and worse by a sitting arbitrator, and then no apology issued, or even any acknowledgement that something improper took place? How about not having an RfC first? How about being reluctant to allow time for exams or Christmas or New Years? How about someone who is clearly a sockpuppet mounting attacks on users and then being unhappy when no one acquiesced to the sock's demands? And then the admin dealing with the situation being punished for it? How about claiming an admin who had edited the page a year before was an "involved admin"? How about the admin following the procedure at the time, and then being punished for following it? How about the other admins who signed off on the decision going on unpunished? How about a sitting arbitrator sending an email not identifying himself as a sitting arbitrator and then flying into a rage that the recipient did not recognize the person sending the email as a sitting arbitrator? Want a longer list? How much time do you have?--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest that voting started before there was any evidence. Presumably that's a reference to Uninvited Company's setting out of (and voting on) some pro-forma principles that are often used in such cases. In fact, when Uninvited Company made those first votes, the evidence page looked like this. Substantial prima facie evidence had been presented by multiple parties pertaining to those very principles: administrators, blocking policy, newcomers, and block reviews. I don't know of the "dogs" incident you write about, but for the most part, you seem to be digging deep and not coming up with much to complain about. Especially the matter of exams: the case opened in early December and didn't close until mid-February, so there can have been no difficulty with exams. The sock puppetry allegation seems to be based solely on your personal opinion as expressed here, not backed up by any persuasive evidence of socking. --Jenny 14:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not going to reargue the case here. However, you seem to ignore Durova's evidence which was extensive, for example. How did an editor who was brand new know so much about policy and formatting? I sure didn't when I was new. Maybe you did, but I didn't. The fact that you don't know about the "dogs" indicates to me that you really don't know much about the case. It was part and parcel of a pretty substantial portion of the case, and led to the main arbitrator involved in the case taking a long long wikibreak without a clear termination point, if I recall. As for the "exam" part, every concession that was obtained had to be fought for tooth and nail as though they were matters of life and death; time for exams (early December, which was not granted), time for Christmas (late December) and so on. Just look at the number of people on these pages complaining about MatthewHoffman. If you want a project run where such things can happen regularly and are viewed as appropriate; you are welcome to it. I suspect you will find that plenty of other Wikipedians disagree with you and would rather quit than continue in such an environment where there are no standards whatsoever for what is allowed in the encyclopedia. THAT is not the way to build a respected reference work. If you think it is, then more power to you. I disagree and I suspect many others do as well.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's evidence only suggests that Matthew Hoffman was an experienced Wikipedian, on the basis that he know site policies. Moreover, Durova does not claim that this evidence supports the contention that he is sock puppet, merely that he should not be treated as a complete newcomer (it's a good point). The committee considered it and passed a motion: "Evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet", because the allegation of socking was one of the justifications used for the escalating block. --Jenny 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. If you are in an area that deals with 2 or 3 or more confirmed sock puppets per week on a regular basis at some times (such as when Matthew Hoffman showed up), and there are organized efforts in these areas to recruit sock and meat puppets to attack Wikipedia (as Durova shows) and someone else shows up behaving almost identically to these sock puppets, then chances are reasonably good that a reasonable editor might assume someone acting like a sock puppet and editing in an area with a lot of sock puppets might be a sock puppet. Well duh. That is rocket science? Come on; connect the dots here. As to whether he really was a sock puppet or not, or a meat puppet or whatever, well who knows. It is interesting that months and months later, Matthew Hoffman who was so so so frantic to get unblocked so he could come back has never reappeared, at least under that name.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Matthew Hoffman was not a meat puppet or a sock puppet, he was abusive and disruptive. If WP:CIVIL is supposed to be ultra important and even more important than anything else, then maybe Matthew Hoffman deserved to have been blocked on that basis alone, at least for a short period.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what Durova claimed and I know what you are claiming. It's difficult to get this kind of thing right in the heat of the moment. We do, however, have systems for sock checking and these were apparently bypassed or ignored. The arbitration committee looked for evidence of ongoing contentious activity requiring precipitate action and saw none. You can actually look at the article history and see that in the week or two before the block there was really very little going on. There were sporadic edits, and no heavy edit warring. Matthew Hoffman comes along and edits disruptively. Fine, deal with that (3RR). What happened afterwards seems to have been a result of rather too much zeal, and there is a suggestion here of partisanship on this subject, too. --Jenny 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you know what Durova claimed, you seem to have done a good job of covering that up. Felicitations might be in order? And this article of course is part of a collection of 2 or 3 hundred similar articles. And you would claim that none of these saw much activity in that period? Interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, what is clear to me from your generous rants (the one with lots of questions in particular) and other insightful remarks is your understanding of Wikipedia overall is very weak, and that some of your own beliefs act to be incompatible with several fundamental principles here. Talking about people going by unpunished is a big give-away. Have you ever considered how much you have learnt about the principles, policies, norms and guidelines of Wikipedia, and whether the understanding is really that different to when you were a newbie? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would've been nice to have gotten a heads up about a discussion where my name and research are discussed so many times. If anyone actually reads this far, the evidence under debate is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_uninvolved_Durova. I'd prefer to let it speak for itself in its entirety, because it was prepared in a holistic way as background to the case. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not pretend that I know all of Wikipedia's policies, conventions, principles and traditions. Do you? Are you sure? How sure?

I will also note that these are not applied or interpreted uniformly across Wikipedia. For example, I have seen many varying interpretations of "NPOV" bandied about. Some of these different interpretations come from very senior editors and even admins.So it is quite possible that there are inconsistent views on some of these fundamental principles in different parts of Wikipedia.

I have also run across parts of policy which are internally inconsistent. For example, some places it is suggested that quarantining all criticism of a controversial subject to an isolated subsection is appropriate. Other places in policy, the opposite position is advanced. There are many other examples, of course.

I have come to my understanding and interpretation of Wikipedia policy from being instructed in it by senior editors and admins. Of course, those who I have chosen as mentors might strongly bias my interpretation of policy, and others might fairly disagree with it. For example, I have been shaped by interactions with Silence, Killer Chihuahua, Raul654, Doc Tropics, Dave souza, Tim Vickers and a host of others. If you disagree with them, then you probably disagree with me too since those were the people that I used as guides and interpreters of Wikipedia policies, and how they should best be implemented.

As for the "punishment" comment, of course in principle there is not supposed to be any punishment here. No punitive actions, only preventive actions. But I am using my own powers of observation to see that often there are actions taken as "punishment". There are calls for punishment, even if it is not called punishment. There are lots of calls for revenge even, and people who openly announce they are taking some negative action as "revenge" for something. So even if the theory of "no punishment" is commendable, what actually goes on here in practice? Can you honestly tell me that there is no punishment and people do not behave as though they want to punish others and people who have been sanctioned do not feel that they have been punished? Come on now. Seriously. Can you?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, you said :"quarantining all criticism of a controversial subject to an isolate subsection is appropriate" is recommended somewhere in wikipedia policy. Where? It should be changed. Also you said " I have been shaped by interactions with Silence, Killer Chihuahua, Raul654, Doc Tropics, Dave souza, Tim Vickers and a host of others." which explains a lot. Please use the best of the best as role models. Tim Vickers's interactions with others and his sourcing standards and Silence's quality of writing come to mind. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See note six of WP:NPOV which reads

Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure, Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, Wikipedia talk:Pro and con lists, Template:Criticism-section).

About role models: There are different opinions about what is right and what is wrong, and who is right and who is wrong. Please see my blog post at [11] where I discuss disagreement in the context of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Filll

Are you a newbie? Are you not an established user - if you are, how do you honestly expect anyone to look at what you're saying seriously if you expect punishment sentences to be handed out?

I certainly don't expect you (or anyone else) to be perfect - but for someone who's crying out loud that this place has no standards whatsoever, perhaps you need to set higher standards for yourself first.

If you keep that in mind and go through each part of your reply, it might help fix (or help you understand) some of the glaring problems in the statements that you've made which are considered directly incompatible with the fundamentals here. WAS 4.25 (above) has suggested one way my above para could be applied effectively.

I'll (very briefly) answer the last part of your reply however - but keep in mind, I'd elaborate, but I neither have the time momentarily to treat the topic with justice, nor do I think this is this the appropriate forum for a discussion for that length. It is unfortunately true that people do try (or have tried) to have others punished here (even out of revenge), whether it is an unusual instance out of frustration or just a purely disturbing habit. However, users are not to be punished - and for the most part, they actually aren't. Exceptions always exist - but they're dealt with in some form, unless it has gone by undetected forever (not likely). In other words, it's not just some codified theory. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you keep right on patting yourself on the back. I guess it feels good to be right, huh? Yep we all make mistakes, except for you I guess? --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I must've made a massive mistake by responding instead of rolling my eyes after reading the statements - probably wise if I was like some others and just ignored everything you said instead, huh? I mean, who cares if others think your statements distort reality.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do whatever you think is best. What I see is a barbed attack on me, wrapped around a basic acknowledgement that I am correct. However you are free to spin it however you like and continue accordingly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's clear is that you're going to continue this game of making statements that are distorted from the reality, whether they're imagined attacks or imagined acknowledgements that you're right, when I (among others) have explicitly said to the contrary. One has to wonder who is the person that spins it however he likes, and has continued to, not just in this discussion either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Questions and a proposal

It appears that Arbcom members are in a habit of making announcement "on behalf of the Arbitration Committee" after a small talk on IRC or on mailing list while it is even unclear who supported the announcement. OrangeMarlin case is a terrible example. A few other examples are in User:MBisanz/Arbcom, yet another is Another unrelated example I have bumped today, there are seems many more. We are bumping our heads against the wall trying to make administrators not to interpret the "IRC consensuns" as the real one. How can we success if the arbitrators are apparently doing the same thing? Can you imagine Scalia pronouncing decision of the High Court after a small talk over a lunch with a few other High Court members? I think we should request it from the Arbcom that any decision on behalf of the Committee can be made only after a Wiki (either the main one or their own) signing of the text by at least half of the active members. Anything else is just a statement by a respectful individual editor with the checkuser bit.
There are cases that require secrecy. Usually it is then serious violations of privacy are possible. Was a need for secrecy demonstrated here?
There are cases that require urgency there we can ignore the proper procedures. This case was certainly not one - there is no urgency in giving civility paroles. So why the violation of proper processes?
FT2 is a participant in the ID conflict, I have voted for him because he stated that he has participated in ID and Homeopathy conflicts and still is trasting by many users. The OM decision is obviously completely written by him - no person with a more convenient writing style is obviously edited the decision. Thus, a participant who should recuse from the case all together is not only allowed to participate in the case but also to assemble evidence, write the decision, evaluate the consensus and announce it the other party???? Sorry it is absolutely outrageous.
After the announcement of this strange "decision" is was sitting there for more than 24h. Only three arbitrators commented on it in any way. Why the invalid decision was allowed to sit there? Who are the other arbitrators who thought it is valid? What was the position of the other arbitrators besides FT2, Kyrill, Josh and Flonight?

Sorry but the thing should be cleared. I propose to investigate the case by m:Cross-wiki arbitration committee or by a special committee from ArbCom members of other wikis, ex-arbitrators, and maybe trusted members of the community appointed by WMF Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I didn't even know such a committee existed. Guettarda (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A worthy idea. I would recommend excluding ex-arbitrators who were voted down by the community (basically, Raul654, who was voted off the island yet still has full access to the mailing list). Neıl 龱 08:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the link you point to shows that Raul654 got well over the 50% that is normally set as a bar for community acceptance of fitness for arbcom. He failed to make the final cut because others polled higher. Not that it matters, in any case. He's long proven his fitness for arbitratorship. --Jenny 12:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much a full-on assault. If I can answer just one point: why can't decisions be taken in under 24 hours? Why not ask for 12 hours, or 8 hours? Because it takes time to make proper collective decisions. It is not exactly consistent to start with a complaint of casual decision-making, and end up with a rhetorical question, to which the only answer can be that decisions are not to be made casually. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To amplify, the current arbcom is too large to guarantee speedy consensus, even if all of us were available; many weren't. Frankly, there's no reason for the arbcom to be that quick and I don't see that it being so would actually help more than it would hurt. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am affraid there is a case of misunderstanding. A decision is either some text voted for by the majority of active arbitrators or not. If it is it requires only a few minutes to fill in the voters names, if it does not it only needs a few seconds to move it into the workshop area or to blank it. You do not need a consensus to blank an invalid decision (especially if it said nobody objected to it) the same way you do not need a consensus to remove a Prod notice. At any rate you do not have to have a consensus to certify the facts as yourself. There was a checkuser to identify if FT2 account was compromised. For half a day the community was absolutely in the dark what was going on. It takes only a minute to put a notice like "Yes, FT2 is nod mad or something, I certify that there was a discussion on Arbcom IRC, FT2 may see it as a consensus but Kiril seems to be not. Lets blank the text until the thing is discussed further between us". And yes, acive wikipedians usually login more often than once a day Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious about the checkuser on FT2? That sounds really weird. Also I'm not sure what you expect arbcom to do that they're not already doing. Obviously the original case isn't valid, that much is obvious from the refiling. --Jenny 11:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about being unclear. The checkuser was done by Alison by the request of the community to identify that FT2's account was not compromised. If any of the Arbitrators had cared to provide any explanation to the community it would not be necessary. What I want: guarantees that this mess would not repeated - not only on the Homeric scale of the OM case but on much smaller scale as "mixups" mentioned by MBisanz. Nobody talks "on behalf or arbcom" unless the statement is signed by the majority of active Arbitrators, vigorous checks for appearance of conflict of interests, better communication with community, no secret hearings unless clearly necessary, no violations of process unless there is a clear urgency, general feelings that the loyalty of arbitrators should be with the community that elected them rather with each other. Full review of the case by an independent commission (assuming that making their deliberation public is impossible). I do not think it is too much Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt you'll get a satisfactory response (up to you whether you accept it, of course, or press for more), but it does take time to consider these things. They have, in fact, been explicitly requested to take this one slowly. --Jenny 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) To recap the reason for checkuser: it was performed at the juncture where FT2 had posted the OM decision and several other measures, shortly after Kirill's initial post claiming that FT2 had acted entirely alone. Other members of the Committee were not available for comment and the discrepancy was so great that reasonable Wikipedians wondered whether FT2's account may have been compromised. Also, bear in mind that the explicit request for moving forward slowly came from Jimbo and hardly anyone else. Although he may have excellent reasons for having recommended that, I found it necessary to place that statement of Jimbo's in a box at the top of the RFC, in order to quell an increasing number of angry comments that better clarification hadn't been forthcoming yet. FT2 has a draft follow-up awaiting thumbs-up from other members of the Committee. I have given jpgordon a barnstar in gratitude for his candor and hope other arbitrators follow his admirable lead. Durova^Charge! 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Alex: Can you please clarify why the Committee should be unable to consider this case like a normal case? I see precisely no reason why the Committee should be as compromised as you intimate with regard to this matter. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which case? OrangeMarlin's or FT2? I could care less about OrangeMarlin but the trail false-start creates a problem of conflict of interests. If all people who agreed with the strange decision recuse themselves would be enough arbitrators left? If yes, then fine. Regarding FT2 or rather reforming arbcom. I am very sceptical about this arbcom ability to produce anything if any controversy is involved. How many months went still Arbcom appointed itself to reform #admin channel? How many hours required to simply blank the invalid case from arbcom decisions? Lets be realistic about the Arbcom potency. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, for the moment the committee is severely compromised. A few individual arbs have acquitted themselves well (Kirill, Josh Gordon, FloNight), but overall the committee looks horrible. There's no way that the committee can fairly consider FT2's behaviour while he has access to the committee that is unavailable to other Wikipedians. But even more important, there's been no accounting for how something could go so awry, and the statement that Charles posted shows a total lack of introspection.

Get rid of FT2. Discuss - openly - what went wrong. Acknowledge the concerns on the RFC. That's sort of a baseline for the committee. Guettarda (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before FT2 is made the fall guy, I think some explanation needs to be given of exactly who else consented to what. If FT2 sent out an email and said "any objections to this" and nobody took the time to read it, then shame on them, but ok, it's all on FT2. But if 5 other members of arbcom offered input and said go with it, then they are just as culpable. --B (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think FT2 is being made a scapegoat here. That said, I don't see how the Committee could go forward with an ArbCom about OrangeMarlin in which FT2 did not recuse himself. Even if we assume that FT2's neutrality is not compromised in reality, a large fraction of the community simply will not accept an ArbCom ruling in regards to OM in which FT2 participated.

(And frankly, if the biggest fall FT2 ends up taking for this is that he has to recuse himself from one ArbCom case, he should be grateful. I don't think it's fair that FT2 is being made the fall guy, but it's hard not to see things continuing to go in that direction...) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where I come from, they have an expression "wrong and strong". That's reason enough to get rid of FT2.

Let's assume, for arguments sake, that FT2 actually believed that a secret trial was appropriate here (which in itself is evidence that he is unsuitable for the job). Let's assume that he actually believes that "silence is consent" (again, someone who thinks that way is an iffy arb). Let's assume that he believed that it was correct to post this case. His actions after the fact still make him unacceptable as an arb.

FT2 has not (as far as I am aware) apologised to the community for his actions. He has not apologised to OM or ON (who he drove away from the project). Even if he didn't think he did anything wrong, he should have apologised days ago. Instead, he still seems to be defending his actions. Someone that devoid of introspection does not belong in a position of authority on Wikipedia. In addition, he has embarrassed the project.

Of course, there's plenty more evidence that FT2 is unsuitable for the arbcomm. The flaws in the evidence he provided have been pointed out by various people. At first I thought it was just the kind of problem that's inherent with a secret trial - that you only hear one side of an issue. With time, it's become apparent that there's outright bias and statements that show a misunderstanding of policy. We can't have arbs who present spin as evidence, and we can't have arbs who misrepresent policy. Regardless of his motivation, there's no way he belongs on the committee. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, ON is back editing today. (He never edits over the weekend anyway.) --B (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state "the committee is severely compromised". My question was "how?" I don't see it.

You state that FT2's behaviour is worthy of an arbitration case. Why? Because he misunderstood what the committee's decision was?

You state that FT2 has access to the committee that is unavailable to other Wikipedians. So any arbitrator should resign if named in an arbitration case?

You state that the committee should "get rid of FT2". This is so remarkably devoid of logic that I struggle to reconcile it with my impression of your being an excellent Wikipedian.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 issued an incorrect statement that there was an Arbcom decision, when we're now told there wasn't, announcing a decision with no opportunity for defence, which we now know is something that Arbcom would never do, and signed off evidence which is defective and misrepresents or misunderstands policy. The first two points are clear, and the longer FT2 fails to apologise for these errors the more it damages any trust anyone can have in FT2. At best it shows incompetence. The third point is one of a number of issues that need to be explained in detail, making it clear who put forward proposals and who accepted or approved them. That's something that must be done carefully, and I'm not looking for instant answers, but an apology is overdue. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon actually issued a reasonable apology (don't make me find the diff, but you can search this page for "to a lesser extent" and that will zero in on it). However, he was explicit that he was issuing the apology as an individual. FWIW... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did, and is to be commended for it. I haven't noticed any apologies from any other arbitrators. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Josh did good. Kirill did good. FloNight's response isn't horrible. But the rest of the committee... Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam:

You state "the committee is severely compromised". My question was "how?" I don't see it.

It's compromised because people no longer trust the committee. I'm not alone in feeling that way - I have read many comments more extreme than mine. If the community doesn't trust the committee, it is compromised. If someone rejects a ruling of the committee, I couldn't fault them. Until the arbcomm can come clean on this mess and clean house, no one can take them seriously. That the committee seems to want to return to the OM case with unclean hands shows that things are still really bad. On top of that, at this point in time, no way to trust whether something coming out of the committee is "from the committee" or is something made up by an individual arb. We know that at least one arb is willing to overstep the mandate of the arbcomm and take on cases on his own. The rest of the committee wasn't shocked by this. This suggests a callous disregard for the rules under which the committee is allowed to operate. And it goes on and on...

You state that FT2's behaviour is worthy of an arbitration case. Why? Because he misunderstood what the committee's decision was?

Until there's a full accounting from the committee (and, of course, some sort of an independent review), we don't know. But "misunderstood" sounds a bit like "wardrobe malfunction"? He "misunderstood" the fact that the arb policy doesn't allow the committee to take a case on its own? He "misunderstood" the fact that secret trials based on the fact that he didn't want the inconvenience of dealing with opposing viewpoints? He "misunderstood" the fact that silence isn't consent? His refusal to take responsibility for his disruption is a misunderstanding as well? "Misunderstanding" doesn't ring true - it's possible, but seriously, it's pretty far-fetched.

I don't actually believe that the arbcomm is capable of hearing this case. I think we need an outside body to do so.

You state that FT2 has access to the committee that is unavailable to other Wikipedians. So any arbitrator should resign if named in an arbitration case?

Well, now that you mention it, of course arbs who are names in arb cases shouldn't be able to discuss the case with other arbs. I assume that's the case...I'm not suggesting that the arbcomm is devoid of integrity. But there's no reason for a disgraced ex-arb to have access to the committee.

You state that the committee should "get rid of FT2". This is so remarkably devoid of logic that I struggle to reconcile it with my impression of your being an excellent Wikipedian.

Quite frankly, I can't imagine how you would find this difficult to grasp. While most of this mess remains hidden from view, a few things are apparent. FT2 has refused to apologise or take responsibility for his disruption. Even "misunderstanding" isn't a free pass. "I made a mistake" does not preclude "I am sorry for fucking things up so horribly". Someone who can't do that lacks the character and capacity for introspection that is absolutely essential to function here.

FT2 has misrepresented the committee. He has ignored policy. He has ignored "natural justice". He seems to be working on the assumption that silence = consent. He violated the trust put in him by the community. He presented evidence that was not just one-sided - it showed a fundamental misunderstanding of sourcing policy. And it goes on and on. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He seems to be working on the assumption that silence = consent." Hmmmmm..... I wonder where he might have gotten that bizarre idea???? Although for issuing ArbCom decisions, clearly a higher standard is needed and the fact that ArbCom does not have such a policy in place is troubling. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is misunderstanding. Most part of Wikipedia works by the open community (as opposed to committee). Open communities works on consensus. Arbcom is a committee. It works by majority voting. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can say, from my time on the Committee, that some things are done by no-dissent consensus. The fact that this case should not have been makes the action taken undoubtedly a mistake. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed this. I think while this is a regular practice we are bound to have similar messes-up in regular intervals. Arbitrators are in very high esteem within the community they a capable to make actions on their own behalf. Any action on behalf of the official committee should be voted. Just imagine a National Parliment or a High Court working on the no-dissent consensus basis Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that the Committee will now be concerned to make it clear which decisions are official decisions. The one arb did not believe he was hearing the case on his own. If he did, you have a point. The fact that he believed he had consensus is the key point. Have you actually seen any other arbitrators saying that these actions were correct? I haven't. I can justify not wanting FT2 to hear this case. I really don't understand why the whole Committee is held to be incapable of a reasonable hearing.

Misunderstanding is exactly what happened. On many matters, silence really does equal consensus. That it didn't here was the key misunderstanding and was obviously wrong. I don't see it as an egregious and terrible error as you do. There are several errors, but there is no malice and I don't think there is spectacular incompetence either.

It is indeed the case that the Committee is capable of integrity. Do you really see FT2 as a "disgraced ex-arb" or does that refer to someone else?

I personally don't lay all the error at FT2's door -- but I don't find the blame game interesting or useful. I am concerned to see that it not happen again -- and my impression is very much that that will be the case. I am just unable to make the logical leap that says that these things mean he should be got rid of. Is this really the worst error any arbitrator has ever made? I just don't see it.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Sam, really now. The problem is not that FT2 misread silence for consensus. FT2 saw absolutely nothing wrong with concocting an entire ArbCom case soup to nuts, complete with "evidence" and binding remedies, without notifying the subject of the case of its existence, much less providing him an opportunity to comment. The justification provided for this unprecedented approach is absurd, and everyone from Jimbo on down recognizes that it was inappropriate on a very fundamental level.

In the best-case scenario, enough members of ArbCom either agreed explicitly or failed to object that FT2 thought he had consensus to go forward. I don't see any need to get into the more unsavory possibilities - that best-case scenario is bad enough. I'm fine with moving forward with regard to Orangemarlin, and I don't want this to be seen as an attempt to divert attention from those issues. But there is a real problem here, and the more people pretend there isn't, the worse the problem will get (cf. every other major blowup in Wikipedia history). Arbitrators are chosen for their judgement, and this was a major lapse of judgement on FT2's part, even in the best-case scenario. I'm not calling for anyone's head, especially not at this juncture, but it is a bit insulting to see people with their heads buried in the sand saying "I don't see what the big deal is" or "why would anyone possibly think FT2 is unfit to continue as an Arb?" MastCell ^Talk 07:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise everything you are saying. There is a major problem and I am not denying it. I just don't think the way to move forwards is to find a sacrificial lamb in the person of one of the arbitrators who is doing a lot of work to move things forwards with the Committee. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - well, I do agree with that. I'm not interested in joining a lynch mob, just in an acknowledgement that there is a real problem that needs to be addressed at some point. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom claiming that the aborted case was posted with their agreement

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/June_2008_announcements#Summary_RFAR_case still says that they have heard the case and that sanctions were agreed and posted with their agreement. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that whole page is problematic. There's some relevant discussion here. Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsmen Committee is absolutely essential

I would like to suggest the community take another look at my older proposal for an Ombudsmen Committee, WP:OmbCom. Such a committee would be official and able to investigate and issue findings of fact. While there would be no "teeth" to the Committee, by its very nature of being official it has significant influence. Bstone (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting proposal. Arthur Rubin makes a complementary point at RFAR. If you think about it, a "lower court" might achieve both of these objectives - a body that can review the arbcomm and admins, but that can also handle simpler cases. Guettarda (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has needed an Ombudsman for some time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the idea of an ombudsman or ombudsman committee, but I am not sure it would help. Would not any person or collection of persons chosen for the role be just as vulnerable as the Arbitration Committee to charges of bias and abuse? Some sections of the community these days seem to be on a hair trigger, and unwilling to trust even that their fellow Wikipedians have the same aims in mind that they do. This leads to factionalism and charges of cabalism and corruption. In two years such charges have moved from the lunatic fringe to become a significant and very worrying feature of Wikipedia culture, if not yet, fortunately, the whole of it. Assume good faith is supposed to reduce this kind of problem, but nowadays those who assume bad faith seem to have the loudest voices. --Jenny 06:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, Jenny, the OmbCom can suffer from the same failings that ArbCom has been (and continues) to suffer from. However, the fact that the findings of fact issued by the OmbCom don't and can't come with punishments would make a dissenting opinion from ArbCom a moral victory at best. OmbCom can certainly find differently than ArbCom, but by it's very nature and design OmbCom can go no further- it cannot overrule, modify or otherwise issue any sort of sanction. It's meant to be purely a moral conscience. I think that OmbCom has enough support to warrant at least a year-long trial. I'd really enjoy to hear your opinions about it at WP:OmbCom's talk page, especially if you have any thoughts as to the exact mechanism of OmbCom. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support the idea, but I don't believe it would satisfy the kind of complaint we've had recently. Our problems, it's plain to me, have very little, if anything, to do with the arbitration committee. The concerns about the Committee, which continues to do excellent work, are merely a symptom of change in the culture of Wikipedia. --Jenny 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of an independent committee to review ArbCom, Checkuser, and Oversight. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have that though, with the Meta Ombudsmans? They already cover checkuser and oversight. Why couldn't they extend to ArbComs as well, and simply be expanded? Or separate this out into two different things: have the equivalent of an "independent counsel" reviewing Arbcom, and leave the checkuser/oversight to the meta ombudsman, who is empowered by the foundation to investigate privacy issues that naturally go along with those two privileges (which is especially useful, because for oversight you'll need a developer to fix things, and getting them to do what you want will probably be easier for the Meta ombudsman than a local project committee) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that the Ombudsman Commission is a Foundation-level committee that oversees the Privacy policy across all projects. The Ombudman panel or whatever being proposed here would be local to this wiki and its functions don't yet seem to be so clearly defined. --Jenny 14:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Foundation Ombudsman Commission looks in a narrow way at the work of users with Checkuser and Oversight access; only as it relates to the privacy policy. The rest of the oversight of Checkusers and Oversighters is done by ArbCom. I think ArbCom doing it is fine in most cases but I can see benefit from an independent panel also. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we now?

I've looked at all (I THINK I've looked at all) the related pages and corners of this case, and though a statement of clarification from FT2 was promised at least 24 hours ago (at that time it was apparently waiting for the other arbs to vet it and decide whether it was okay to be released) I can't seem to find any such clarification. I've seen a great deal of writing, including Kirill's statement, Jimbo's request for calm, and comments from at least a couple or three other Arbs--but nothing further from FT2. Have I missed it, lost in megabytes of outrage, fog and pyrotechnics; or has it not yet been released? If it hasn't, do we have any sort of projected ETA for such a clarification? In short, where do we stand right now? (Many thanks, with apologies for any abject cluelessness on my part.) Gladys J Cortez 04:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I was in contact with FT2 a couple of hours ago and he's doing fine, statement all ready to go, still in the same holding pattern for the same reason. Please be patient. Durova^Charge! 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no--I'm not complaining, merely curious as to whether I'd missed it. This discussion HAS splintered into quite a lot of places--I wasn't sure if I had them all covered. Thanks, Durova. Gladys J Cortez 05:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not implying you weren't patient enough. I'd encouraged him to make a short post explaining the holding pattern. Naturally, you're not the only one who's curious. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you're right, it's been a hell of a week. Midway during a weekend vac with my partner and family I get a call about whats gone on. I get back Sunday, email some, then spare computer blows a power supply some time early hours monday morning. With both main and spare PC blown I figure to get the main one working that blew a month ago (see talk page)... the replacement part (motherboard) turns up Tuesday for installing only to find memory chips are now not working with it despite being a premium brand and that has to be RMA'ed too (expected Friday). Meantime Tuesday a close family member dies and I'm doing support and runaround for family,and now there's a funeral to fit in some time the end of this week, and the weekend booked away again (see user page "absences"). At the same time with neither PC working I'm trying to stay on top of work using my old laptop as being the only other machine which I shelved ages back due to overheating shutdown issues, and a faulty keyboard (it's a good spec but the <3 - 2> key doesn't work and it shuts down randomly). Much to my surprise it works and even more to my surprise it is much more stable than last time, for now anyway, so here I am, but I only have horrible web based gmail, browser, and (under duress) irc to keep in touch with everything and all notes and work and past emails are on the old PC whose 3.5 inch drives I can no longer get to on the laptop.....

That is basically what's up. This is my apologies for the lack of statement. I've tried but it's been brief and hence comments have been more short and to the point and my patience with this laptop is such that I an restricted to what I can type without the (3 - 2) key and any past emails, with a horrible web based current email view only, and a wide range of comments and dialog on-wiki most of which I haven't tracked due to wiki discussion volume + system limits, so I have no real idea on.

Anyhow, a quick statement. A number of users have gotten the wrong end of the stick, and need to read some comments a bit carefully..... there is an awful lot of confirmation bias in the discussion still. Given the silences and lack of solid information that's expected, but even so, some more "we don't know, let's wait and see" would not go amiss. The legitimate questions are there, of course, too. I still look forward to a statement being made. It may be that perhaps I'll expand on it too, or not -- obviously my crystal ball doesn't extend to promises on texts not written by me that I haven't seen and haven't even been written yet. That's an unknowable right now. But right now I'm limited in what I can do regardless, so in a way, I'm waiting too.

I'm sorry if that's not as one might like. If I had access to everything it might be I'd have to say the same, hard to tell. But right now I don't even have the choice of reading to make a decision, so for me it's a bit "wait and be calm" too, however one wishes otherwise. It's a matter of digging to be sure, and waiting for people to be around (a lot of people who are in that discussion have a life as well, so agreement may not be the same day if discussion and fact finding is needed - a bit like how voicemail tag can be). Beyond that, we'll see. Be patient just a bit more. I'm told it shouldn't be long. I look forward to it.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy's law still holds, I see. (Including the part about "at the most inopportune moment") ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is too bad that allowances for these kind of events are not given to the accused in Arbcomm cases.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite mistaken Filll. Anyone who is asked for a statement or evidence, who posts saying "I have a busy few days, hold off and I'll post my statement/evidence in a bit", and doesn't game it, will almost certainly be given that chance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only followed it very peripherally, so I could be 100% wrong, but I seem to recall Jim62's case being resolved around a personal (health?) issue that he revealed to ArbCom via e-mail. If my understanding is correct (it may not be), your comment doesn't seem spot on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a health issue involved in the Jim62sch case, as well as in the Matthew Hoffman case. However, I am talking about timing. Durova's case was over Thanksgiving and she had no time to respond to her RfC before it was closed (opened and closed within a few hours I understand). The Matthew Hoffman case did not allow time for University exams and only grudgingly allowed time for Christmas (and even to get that was like pulling teeth). The OM case was going to be over a holiday week. So in at least 3 other cases, there was no allowance for temporal constraints of the accused. There easily could have been other issues involved in many cases of the kind that FT2 relates. In my observation, these kind of "excuses" FT2 presents would not mean very much to Arbcomm who would just tromp on the accused regardless of computer problems or running around with the family. If this was an Arbcomm proceeding, his dilatory behavior here would be reason to summarily desysop him and ban him, at least for a short period. So, things are not really quite so fair here always.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps ArbCom has/had access to other information, and the situations weren't as cut and dried as you interpret them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like needless speculation. If ArbCom say that there is info that could not be brought to light then they should say that there was information that they could not make public. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Although in the Jim62sch case, and the Matthew Hoffman case and even in the OM case, I had pretty good access to "inside" information, at least as much as the accused. I will confess I have only heard about the Durova situation second hand, from those on both sides. However, what I have heard from one of the sides from several different proponents is not very compelling to be honest.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While what you are saying may or may not be true, it's still wise to stick to your own high standards, don't lower yourself to the other guy's (perceived) standards. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC) The worst case scenario here is where you would mis-perceive the other sides standards as being lower than your own, and then working to match them. Doing so has historically lead to some amazing negative spirals.[reply]

Of course. That is why I am advocating that Arbcomm take temporal constraints into consideration in the future. And I proposed that at the Arbcomm RfC.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final statement by arbcom

A final statement by arbcom has been posted on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin. I thought it would be nice to mention it here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. Hidden Glass 2 (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's nice the committee said "The Committee takes collective responsibility for what occurred," it bothers me that there is no explicit acknowledgment that "what occurred" was a problem. They sort of hint at it, but this is about the thinnest mea culpa I've ever seen that didn't come from a White House press secretary. "This should not have happened, and the committee apologizes to the community and to any affect users" seems to me to be just common sense. jpgordon issued a personal apology that went beyond that even, and I applaud him for it. Why can't the committee apologize? Is there some sort of committee by-law that says "No apologies in official statements?"

I want to make it clear here that I have never been one of the folks calling for blood, and I have generally been of the attitude, "Let's wait and see what the committee's explanation is." I don't think this has to be a huge deal. But I'm really disappointed that they didn't make any sort of official apology on any level. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the whole thing very disappointing. They seem to have wanted to cover it up, or distract the community, or just hope it all goes away and we all forget about it. Hmmm....--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda wondering, once again, if I'd missed something...and again, surprised to find that no, I hadn't. I don't want blood either, but since the original statement/rebuttal/"please hold" cycle, my Wiki-self has been sitting here on a bench with a "WTF???" hanging over its head, and this...really didn't help much. My "WTF?" is now marginally smaller, but it's still a WTF. Gladys J Cortez 17:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it appears to be is a Nothing to see here, move along... Shot info (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Perhaps the new arbitration case following on the heels of this has taken away from the time they would otherwise have spent clarifying this better. Perhaps a query to a few arbs' user talk pages would help. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Matthews has made it very clear that he thinks the statement is perfectly clear and explains everything thoroughly with no need for further comment or clarification. DuncanHill (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A standard practice for rogue admins, bots gone bad, and the occasional regular old user who has refused talk page discussion has been a block until communication has been established. Perhaps this method of "attention getting" / dispute resolution should be tried on the current ArbCom members. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what needs to be done, but I am leaning towards favoring doing something.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the immediate crisis is over and tempers have cooled somewhat.

On the longer term, we might best consider taking the arbcom apart and creating a more transparent system; because the current arbitration committee doesn't seem to be functioning optimally. It's going in much the same direction as Esperanza. I can't be certain of this of course, mainly because the arbitration committee is becoming a closed system. Of course, being a closed system is a symptom in-and-of itself :-P

But whatever we do, we can now look at things calmly and objectively, and evaluate what needs to be done with patient resolve. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. While I remain extremely disappointed with the content and tone of the final statement, there is no need for drastic and rapid action at this point. That said, I would urge other Committee members to join jpgordon in acknowledging the Committee's role in the events of the other week, and apologizing. Apologies are free, after all... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, they are not. They require a certain letting go of pride. Sometimes in workshops we get suggestions that ArbCom require an apology from one or another of the parties. But an apology under duress (or while being yelled at) is, to some, a confession under torture; it likely has no meaning. For me, it was easy; I felt apologetic, but didn't want to offer what many would interpret as a hollow gesture, but when directly (and nicely!) asked, I had no compunctions about sharing my feelings. I discovered a long time ago that apologizing when I was in error helped keep my own mind clear, and made it much less scary to risk being in error. At any rate, it's a lot easier to deal with issues and problems like this when the pitchforks and torches are put aside. (I think a big part of the problem is what happened to Brad; I don't know about the others, but I'm still quite shell-shocked by the event.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. In my line of work, there's been a lot of interest in how to respond when you make a mistake. In general, people who are confident in their overall judgement, experience, and competence much more readily admit and apologize for their own mistakes. Those who are insecure are much more likely to defensively circle the wagons and shift blame. The point being that if you keep going after someone, you only make them more insecure and defensive and less likely to accept and learn from their mistake. Anyhow, I agree about Newyorkbrad; his departure was obviously a huge loss, but it's especially acute in a situation like this where the universal credibility and respect he enjoyed would help calm the waters. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough that it's probably too late now. Anyway, MastCell's reference to his "line of work" reminds me of the recent shift in the thinking of how medical doctors respond to errors. Used to be they would deny and defend, in the thinking that any apology could be used against them in a malpractice suit. Many hospitals have recently discovered, however, that if doctors are honest and upfront and immediately apologize, the odds of a malpractice suit occurring in the first place are drastically reduced, so much so that the general thinking is beginning to shift in the opposite direction.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think a true mea culpa could have gone a long ways in restoring the damage to ArbCom's reputation that occurred from this incident. Maybe it's a non-issue, maybe it's just a vocal minority that has lost any faith anyway, I don't know.. In any case, I have to give a lot of respect to jpgordon for doing the right thing. I don't see anybody jumping on you for it, either, so.... Bah, what do I know? :) :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heh, just noticed MastCell is part of Wikiproject Medicine... perhaps I am being redundant then. hahahaha... ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some have gone so far as to call apology a basic clinical skill, like detecting a heart murmur or aspirating a knee joint. This study is perhaps relevant as well: "Nearly all complainants want to prevent the incident from happening again, not out of pure altruism, but in order to restore their sense of justice." But I digress. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]