Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: DeltaQuad (Talk) & GoldenRing (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK (Talk) & KrakatoaKatie (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk) & SilkTork (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Evidence presented by TonyBallioni

Timeline

  • 31 August: Page created by Jesswade88.
  • 11 Feburary: Deleted by TonyBallioni following first deletion discussion. Deletion discussion was endorsed on 18 Feb.
  • 3 April: Created again by Jesswade88.
  • 4 April: Deleted again by TonyBallioni per CSD G4 and salted following second deletion discussion.
  • 26 April: Draft:Clarice E. Phelps was created by Hodgdon's secret garden.
  • 27 April: Draft moved to mainspace Clarice E. Phelps by admin DGG.
  • 27 April: Amakurudeleted the Clarice E. Phelps article as it had been tagged as {{db-repost}} by Tataral and the conditions for that seemed to be met.
  • 29 April: Rama undeleted the original article at Clarice Phelps.
  • 29 April: Fram moved the article to Draft:Clarice Phelps without leaving a redirect, after the opening of this case request.

I blatantly stole this from Amakuru's statement on the request page, but it is the most distilled form of the timeline, and I think it should be presented clearly. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama has not restored Clarice Phelps to mainspace since the case request started

Worth noting, once the case request started and Fram draftified it to Draft:Clarice Phelps, Rama did not continue insisting on their correctness and use their tools to restore it to mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Black Kite

A couple of points to begin with

  • No, it wasn't wheel-warring. No already-reversed admin action was reversed.
  • Rama has very few admin actions in the last 9 years. They hadn't actually restored any page since 2009, and hadn't deleted one (apart from G6 maintenance and obvious R3 errors) since 2012. This suggests that they may not be up-to-date with community norms regarding their position

The problems are this;

  • Problem 1 Rama undeleted the article despite the fact it had been through two AfDs and a DRV, and the community consensus at all three was to delete.
  • Problem 2 As the deleted article was salted, Rama edited through protection to do this.
  • Problem 3 When challenged on this, Rama did not reverse their action.
  • Problem 4 Rama then attacked other editors who had argued for the article's deletion, insinuating that they were "Far-Right" [1].
  • Problem 5 Rama then posted I think an administrator should clearly separate their administrative and editorial actions, which is obviously easier when one is indifferent to the subject ... In this particular instance, I do not feel personally passionate about the subject, I merely acted in what I perceived to be an opportunity to protect Wikipedia from bad press in a case that I though would not prove as divisive as it turned out to be [2]. However, it is clear that Rama does feel passionately about the subject. I thought it was a unfortunate incident that needed a little nudge and would solve itself when the editors involved would be informed that they were making Wikipedia look like a haven for Gamergate-style bullying and misogny; instead, I seem to have upset a hornet nest of people very much undisturbed that Wikipedia would be shown as insensitive to women and minorities to the general population is another personal attack on those who believed that Phelps' article should be deleted. [3]
  • Problem 6 Rama still believes they're right, even after this, and that they can invoke IAR even against consensus (and here's another attack against those who think the article should be deleted) I am clearly and obviously at fault for bypassing the restoration rules, while simultaneously being obviously right because of WP:IAR, and many of my detractors arguably fall under WP:LW [sic: should be WP:WL] for invoking petty considerations to hinder diversity. [4]
  • Problem 7 Good grief. In this case, English Wikipedia seems not just to reflect outside racism and misogyny, but to actively enforce one of its own ... Arbitrators should therefore rule in my favour on Good Faith grounds [5]

I think the phrase we reach for here is "when you're in a hole, stop digging". If Rama had immediately, when called out on their behaviour, admitted they were wrong, this wouldn't even have got to ArbCom. But equally, this clearly isn't conduct conducive to being an administrator. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Summary Rama should not have access to admin tools if this is how they're going to use them. Having said that, removing their tools would not be any big deal anyway, as they have hardly used them to the benefit of the encyclopedia in the last 8+ years anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am distinctly confused by the evidence of @Deryck Chan:. He states a reasonable admin could have deduced that there had been a significant change of circumstances between 4 April and 29 April, and therefore the prior deletion consensus should no longer be treated as a binding precedent. Except there was no change to the circumstances of the article; it had been deleted twice, discussed and confirmed at DRV, and salted. Prior deletion consensus should always be treated as binding - that's why we have WP:CSD#G4. The minor issue of it being re-created under a different name (and almost immediately sent to draft) was irrelevant. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Levivich

Rama promptly responded and gave justifications

On 29 April:

07:38 Rama restores the page

08:13 Sitush posts on Rama's talk page

08:23 Sitush opens an ANI thread

08:51 Rama posts reasons on his talk page

09:25 Rama posts reasons at ANI

09:46 Iffy posts this Arbcom request. Leviv ich 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From restoration to ANI in 45 minutes; from restoration to Arbcom in two hours eight minutes.

There was urgency

I respectfully disagree with SoWhy's statement that "The deletion was already covered in news sources well before 29 April (see WaPo from 12 April) ... there was no emergency situation ...". After April 12, more was published on April 24, 25 (2), 26 (2), and 29. Rama linked to the Apr. 25 article in the undeletion log entry, and cited the press in ADMINACCT responses. Leviv ich 17:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no strong consensus against recreation

  1. The first AfD, after 9 hours (in February), was 6 keeps and 1 redirect, but it was not speedy closed.
  2. The first DRV was endorsed, but had !votes like "sad endorse" or "reluctant endorse", and comments that while a delete close was within discretion, a no-consensus or keep close would also have been within discretion.
  3. The second AfD (in April) was speedy closed after 9 hours. It had two keep !votes and one userfy vote, plus my request for undeletion of the first article so it could be compared to the recreated article before !voting. The second AfD was started by the same editor as the first AfD and closed by the same admin, who salted the article.
  4. The second DRV was also endorsed and the closer wrote "There is no explicit consensus about whether the protection against recreation ('salting') was appropriate."

Evidence presented by Winged Blades of Godric

  • The multiple statements over the User-RFC point to the fact that Rama massively used admin tools to further his own view in deletion-disputes.
  • SoWhy writes:--An admin should not edit-war over their viewpoint with others and certainly should not do re-add speedy deletion tags after multiple admins have declined to delete it.
  • Xeno writes :-- Rama appears to have returned to acting on his extremist views on replaceability.
  • Modernist writes :- Unilaterally making obviously incorrect decisions in a collaborative project and defying consensus with very little rationale except for his own judgment that has been brought into question time and time again is unacceptable.
  • Lankiveil noted a particularly egregious edit-sum and one even suggested a desysop, given his contempt for the particular RFC.
  • LVU wrote :- Administrators are (supposed to be) vehicles by which Community consensus, be it via discussion or agreed policy or guideline, is enacted and not its interpretors. I have been able to review the ANI discussion as an observer only, and have come to the conclusion that Rama does not understand the admin remit with regard to his actions relating to Fair Use images.
  • Rama's statement at the RFC pointed fingers at others and claimed that some user was not competent et al and precisely none supported his views. His rebut to the original statement was not supported, either.
  • He continued with his actions amidst the RFC showing a blatant disregard for community expectations and subsequently got T-banned, unanimously.
  • Rama chose to respond by accusing the OP of harassing and stalking him whilst proclaiming of a grand CABAL conspiracy to brand him as a rouge admin.
  • Months after that, he was back in the same sphere, writing weird insensitive comments over FfDs and all that.

Remarks

Do we see any similarity with the issue at hand?

BU Rob13 proposed a motion that sought to make his previous conduct difficult to scrutinize. As much as I agree with the probable motivations to prevent a slug-fest, where every user who has been the subject of borderline controversial treatment from Rama chooses to pile on, I guess that we won't have any similar problem. We are talking about a sysop who did not hold the mop, for all practical purposes, since his last massive breach of trust and this AfD saga. (From 2011 to this day, Rama has taken around 30 logged actions).

Back over the T-Ban ANI, he had the fundamental inability to understand that his actions were blatant transgressions of community consensus and pointed to some imaginary support, which led Xeno to ask If it is not the community who is asking you to moderate your approach, why has no one stepped forward to endorse your approach?

Over here, we are witness to the same stuff -- That was not community consensus, simultaneously being obviously right because of WP:IAR et al. He continues to see the same conspiracy:-- there is a motivated opposition, the opposers are right-wingers et al.

So, to conclude, I do see a pattern of tool-misuse and mis-interpretation of community consensus, in the sparse occasions of mop-usage. ∯WBGconverse 06:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A rebut to Rama

  • Phelps' biography counted 28 references when I found it deleted for lack of notability — not only unusual, but unprecedented in my 16-year experience.
    I take the liberty of rephrasing the last phrase as in my 4-AfD experience, in the last 10 years. (Vide this tool.) Fram has already provided numerous counter-examples.
  • The deletion of Phelps' biography turned out not to be an isolated event, but the first in a string of incidents involving the same group of editors: this Arbitration; several Deletion Requests
    More wrong assertions without providing any data-set. Netoholic, the sole advocate over two of the four linked AfDs did not get any support from the editorial community, as to deleting those. He was not involved in either of the two AfDs or the DRV about Phelps.
    People who supported deletion of Phelps over the two AfD/DRV, have objected in some of the four AFDs. (Icewhiz, Nateurium et al) I, for one, had opposed restoring Phelps but had reverted Netoholic's tagging of suspected notability over one of those four articles.
    Many over the Arb-Case (GAB, Lectonar, Fram, SoWhy, BKite, Nick, Alan et al) supported some sanction but did not participate in the 2 AfDs. Carrite asked for the article to be kept over the 1st AfD but asked for your desysop.
    Where are you seeing such distinct co-relation? The cabal does NOT exist.
  • Such biographies on white male scientists do not come under the sort of scrutiny that Phelps' biography endured, even when they have far fewer references.
    David Eppstein is not a RS for asserting such details and his off-hand research is statistically meaningless for the above purpose, unless we can assert that the chosen sample is of near-similar quality or have near-similar referencing, as a control. (The Arxiv research chooses to exploit h-index/net-cite-count, in a quasi-similar regard). It might be very plausible that we create more low-quality female bios, which may not be surprising in light of the massive propagation of the 18% figure.
    The Arxiv piece does not say anything to this effect of greater scrutiny. (There's a difference between studying the differential (male-female) rates of bios being existent as compared to nominated for deletion as compared to actually deleted.)
  • Some stuff about arguments from AndrewDavidson and Gerard
    Post-fact explanation that (probably) seeks to assert that he was right and the community was (again) wrong as to the Phelps issue, by citing arguments from entirely unrelated AfDs with grossly dissimilar circumstances.
  • These nominations were mared with divisive arguments proved to be untrue
    Your evaluation is what's proved to be untrue. As to the diff provided over there, discussions have continued over Eppstein's t/p in the regard). There is not any one objective truth in these spheres.
  • Likewise, it is easy to find stubs about pornographic actresses. The overall effect of confining women to stereotypical gender roles needs not be underlined.
    The community has already deprecated PORNBIO as a SNG and massive influx of deletion nominations have been since predicted.
    Troutman opted to delete Phelps whilst !voting for the deprecation of the SNG. DGG asked for heightened restriction of PORNBIO whilst opting for deletion of Phelps and later, even restored it. Two/three others opted for deleting Phelps and keeping the SNG. In short, there's not much of a co-relation.
    There's no hidden agenda of the community and the final outcome certainly proves that your inference from a weird comparison is awfully wrong.
  • The artificial nature of the events unfolding on the English-speaking Wikipedia is also apparent when contrasted with other Wikimedia projects.
    The last time I checked, the sister projects (and even other language versions) were editorially independent. Why shall you compare apples and oranges?

Rama is cherry-picking favorable opinions and presenting them in a light of being a trademarked truth whilst (again) failing to recognize the (lack of) consensus notwithstanding some blatant mistruths. He's once again blaming the overall circumstances to be targeted and intentionally misogynistic.

In short, it's the 2010 saga and IDHT behaviour. He did not understand consensus, do not understand consensus and will not understand consensus. ∯WBGconverse 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S:-I thank the clerks for reverting his attempts to distort statistics. ∯WBGconverse 18:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by SoWhy

Rama is out of touch with how deletion works

Based on data helpfully compiled by Pldx1 at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Statement by Pldx1, Rama has only used admin tools 29 times between 2011 and 2019 (a drop coinciding with the last time he was admonished in 2010 (cf. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Statement by Hydronium Hydroxide). Of those uses, 27 were deletions or restorations, almost all of them maintenance-related. In the same time (actually, since 2009), they only participated in 4 AFDs and closed none as far as I can tell. As such it is safe to assume that Rama is no longer up to date on how deletion works.

Rama used admin tools to win a content dispute

The following is taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Statement by Rama:

Rama has explicitly stated if I had not been an administrator, I would not have done anything. They also said that they acted to rectify a state of affairs enforced unilaterally by one on the other; despite knowing well that established processes exist to address mistakes made in deletion-related discussions. It's clear that a) Rama had no interest in actually arguing in favor of overturning the deletion (by admitting that they would not have done anything if they couldn't have done what they did) and b) believes that their own opinion is sufficient grounds to restore an article where deletion has been previously been decided and upheld.

When criticized for their actions, Rama engaged in personal attacks and casting aspersions

The following is taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Statement by Rama:

  • composed of people willing to use spurious arguments
  • a hornet nest of people very much undisturbed that Wikipedia would be shown to the general population as insensitive to women and minorities,
  • the article on Phelps now appears to be part of a more general pattern of harassment against User:Jesswade88
  • many of my detractors arguably fall under WP:LW for invoking petty considerations to hinder diversity (they probably meant WP:WL)

There was no need to act immediately

With all due respect to the subject of the article, there was no need for immediate restoration of the article, bypassing the established processes. As Amakuru outlined (#Timeline), the article had been deleted twice by 4 April with the deletion reason clearly logged and visible for any admin viewing the page. The deletion was already covered in news sources well before 29 April (see WaPo from 12 April). At the time of Rama's actions, there was no emergency situation that required them or anyone else to unilaterally restore the article in question to avoid making Wikipedia look indifferent, incapable of correcting its mistakes, or even militant in its invisibilisation of women and minorities. At that time, any such "damage" would already have been done, so bringing this up at the appropriate venue would not have made a difference in this regard. In fact, by acting in this way, they hurt their cause because acting unilaterally is the opposite of allowing Wikipedia to "correct its mistakes".

Rama acted without previously sufficiently assessing the situation

As they said themselves, they acted without a complete assessment of the situation.

Rama did not act because new information became available after the last deletion

It has been brought up by others (although not by Rama itself) that new information that emerged after the 4 April deletion might have prompted Rama to restore the article because notability were to be assessed differently (see #Evidence presented by Deryck below).

Rama explicitly said that the article before deletion had solid references, indicating that they believed that no further references were required to establish the subject's notability and they thus did not act because of new information but because they believed the old information was judged incorrectly (made me think that the deletion process was mistaken). This coincides with the fact that all Rama did at the restored article was to remove the AFD and notability tags with the edit summary Notability is ridiculously obvious. They did especially not add any new sources (neither then nor until now). Regards SoWhy 11:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Deryck

Rama may not have known about events of 26-27 April upon article restoration on 29 April

Much of the debate here hinges on the fact that Rama unilaterally reversed a recent set of community decision and administrative action. However, when Rama restored the Clarice Phelps article on 29 April, only the following deletion log entries would have been visible to Rama:

Rama was unlikely to have known about the 26-27 April recreation and speedy-deletion (see #Evidence presented by TonyBallioni above) because these occurred at a different title, "Clarice E. Phelps", and none of the AfD and DRVs above had been updated to refer to the events of 26-27 April.

Therefore, when Rama restore the article on 29 April, what he would have understood was that nothing had happened to Wikipedia's coverage of Clarice Phelps since 4 April. Noting that most of the independent media coverage about Phelps occurred after and in response to the 4 April deletion (see e.g. this DuckDuckGo search), a reasonable admin could have deduced that there had been a significant change of circumstances between 4 April and 29 April, and therefore the prior deletion consensus should no longer be treated as a binding precedent.

The wider Wikipedia community may disagree with Rama's interpretation, but given the evidence that was available to Rama at the time of Rama's attempt to restore the article, it was not beyond admin discretion to interpret that there had been a sufficiently significant change of circumstances that a change of course was justifiable. Deryck C. 10:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The hasty filing of this arbitration case has curtailed the possibility of an amicable resolution

I quote User:Fæ's eloquent statement on this: This is a hasty request created literally 2 hours after the undeletion action by a requester that has done nothing to engage participants apart from issuing notices [...] nor had the procedural based discussion at ANI precisely focused on this undeletion been completed. An arbitration case may well be justified in this case to look at Rama's past sysop actions in general, but the filing of this case actually inflamed last week's events and prevented an amicable resolution via ANI. Deryck C. 16:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On-wiki events have off-wiki consequences

I would like to re-iterate User:Newyorkbrad's warning: Inevitably, a desysopping here would be described off-wiki as "next, English Wikipedia's highest authority removed an administrator as punishment for seeking to rescue this article." There can be little doubt that such an addition to the narrative would, unhelpfully, further compound the notoriety that this matter has already incurred. Deryck C. 16:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Iffy

Rama reversed an administrative action without following the applicable policies

WP:RAAA says that administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. The existence of 2 AFDs and a DRV should have made it obvious to Rama that restoring this article would not be uncontroversial. As pointed out by Black Kite and SoWhy above (and whose evidence sections I fully endorse), Rama restored the Clarice Phelps article without consulting the protecting/deleting admin, or following the spirit of WP:SALT by going straight to DRV with the evidence they cited in their log summary: Evidently notable, deletion of the article is a major embarassement for Wikipedia : https://undark.org/2019/04/25/wikipedia-diversity-problem/

This was not an emergency

To add to SoWhy's There was no need to act immediately section, an emergency use of admin tools should not be claimed unless there is a reasonable belief of a present and very serious emergency (i.e., reasonable possibility of actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a person if not acted upon with administrative tools) (from WP:TOOLMISUSE#Exceptional_circumstances.) This was not the case here, there was no risk of harm to any individual person or to the project that required skipping the usual processes. The existence of new evidence that may or may not prove that a subject is notable is not a reason to claim that there is an emergency.

Evidence presented by Icewhiz

1.Rama casted aspersions in an article talk page

12:14, 29 April 2019 - "you are also letting far-Right talking point slip"

09:34, 29 April 2019 - "there is a suspiciously selective enforcement of notability criteria on this case"

2. Rama willfully restored the article against community consensus, and was aware of multiple "deletion requests"

As evident in deletion log citing "Evidently notable, deletion of the article is a major embarassement for Wikipedia : https://undark.org/2019/04/25/wikipedia-diversity-problem/" - the linked piece discusses the Wikipedia deletion.

09:25, 29 April 2019 - " I understand that this disregards the previous Deletion Requests". Note Rama states they are familiar with "requests" - plural - indicating awareness of more than one deletion process.

3. Rama has asserted the article was backed up nearly 30 references by solid institutions (US Navy, Oak Ridge)

06:03, 2 May 2019 - "An article with nearly 30 references by solid institutions (US Navy, Oak Ridge) being deleted in such a way is a very unusual occurrence (I have never seen this before)"

4. AfD discussions clearly addressed the references discussed

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps, and more importantly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination) on the version Rama restored. The overall number of citations is explained as a WP:REFBOMB (" many of the sources don't mention the subject, mention the subject in passing, aren't reliable, aren't independent, or a combination thereof"). Each source present at the time of the AfD was analyzed in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. Specifically ORNL (Oak Ridge) is dismissed as non-independent PR by the subject's employer on their website. The US navy (recruitment PR) is dismissed since it doesn't mention Phelps at all - "ref7, ref8 - US navy, doesn't mention the subject."

5. 3+4 -> Rama does not understand Wikipedia notability and/or did not read the AfDs and DRV

Citing the subject's employer's PR - a non-independent source - is not a solid reference. Furthermore, Rama asserted that sources (from the US navy) that did not even mention the subject established notability. This is clearly dismissed in the AfD discussion, as well as being rather basic in regards WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:N.

Evidence presented by Pldx1

Admin Rama was rather waiting for an occasion to save the World

During the Request phase of this case, I have published the following result of some homework

User:Rama 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
edits 1402 7173 3822 6767 4164 3719 1745 476 2118 2281 171 1716 1497 369 613 343
admin 361 149 353 194 120 73 2 3 2 1 7 4 0 6 4

With the comment: The admin line comes from [public logs] by removing the moved/created/uploaded lines. The figures for 2011-2019 seem so low that I have perhaps missed something. Did I ? Pldx1 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINACT

One can argue that it was so urgent to save the World that User:Rama couldn't take the time to comply with WP:ADMINACCT before undeleting the Clarice Phelps article. But once the World saved, Admin Rama has not paid even a slight lip service to the concerns listed at WP:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination). For example: ref7ref8 US navy, doesn't mention the subject. Remark: evaluating the quality of such a lip service would have been outside the remit of this ArbCom case. But the lack of even that lip service is inside this remit. Pldx1 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier of a foreign army

A Wikipedia admin is supposed to act on behalf of the community that granted them their status. User:Rama has stated in many places that Rama's actions were dictated by [[6]]. Pldx1 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re Fae

  • I am not convinced that User:Fæ is acting as the lawyer chosen by User:Rama... or even that Fae's words are endorsed by Rama.
  • The following [[7]] has been written by Rama, here and not by some op-ed somewhere else.
  • Asserting there were [nearly 30 references by solid institutions, US Navy, ONRL...] is simply shameful. These 25 references were listed and commented at [AfD2], refer to the corresponding [article]. The Navy documents (7,8) don't ever mention Phelps. The ORNL documents about Te237 discovery (10,13,15,16) don't ever mention Phelps, and she is not on the photo of the team of 50 credited of the work at ORNL. The story is then enriched by 11 PR docs emitted in a PR context (75th anniversary, YMCA, outreach) 14,18,19,06,11,22,21,20,24,23,25 where Phelps is only one of the many... and the focus is not Te297. Therefore we don't have 30 solid references, but a fake reference list, in the [Wikicology] style. Page numbers (or time for a video) are never given: characteristic behavior. WP:Verifiability must remain the basis of everything here, and an admin is not supposed to go against this policy.
  • Following the chain ref21(05:31) -> ref06 (Phelps) -> laziness+inventivity -> shouting out of loud when caught red handed, leads to a good resume of this hoax. Pldx1 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Cryptic

No participation at second DRV

A second deletion review for the article was held at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1 after the events precipitating this case, and was closed on 8 May 2019.[8] Rama made no edits to it (full history).

This is mitigated somewhat by the submitter of the deletion review not having tagged the AFD per step 5 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review (AFD history), and not having specifically informed Rama of it (which isn't in the instructions, but probably should have been done anyway). The former isn't at all uncommon—I end up tagging the AFDs in probably around half of submitted DRVs, though usually I'm able to do so in a more timely manner. —Cryptic 03:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed the DRV was prominently mentioned at Draft talk:Clarice Phelps (§At Deletion Review). Rama edited that page multiple times (most recent edit) so was or should have been aware of it. —Cryptic 13:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFBOMB

Deletion of articles with many low-quality references is neither unprecedented nor even unusual, as asserted in Rama's evidence. WP:REFBOMB (permalink) is a frequently-cited essay at AFD, whether by direct link, to its fork WP:BOMBARD (permalink), or to unlinked mentions such as "refbombed" or "source bombing". Most examples hover around the 20-ref mark, but ten minutes' searching of closed AFDs found Burleigh Smith (AfD discussion), deleted for notability with 48 references, just five days prior to the Phelps article's restoration. —Cryptic 13:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Fae

There are lots of assertions made here so weak as to be laughable, if it were not worrying that they appear to be cherry picking to make allegations that seriously fail WP:ASPERSIONS. Here is some non-evidence which is "evidence". --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama was out to save the world, not

  • Public logs show that Rama was not very active. That's all they show, it is not proof of saving the world. Rama's motivations need more proof than bad faith speculation.

Rama was a soldier of a foreign army, not

  • The Undark blog exists and was discussed on-wiki. This does not prove anything about Rama.
  • Rama's statement, mentioning twitter WiR official twitter account It has also been implied that in some peculiar way, suffered from bias because they follow people on twitter, and Rama mentioned it was an embarrassment for Wikipedia recognizing the "real world" impact (diff). These types of repeated narrative which encourage the policing of any Wikipedian's off-wiki social media accounts actively damage Wikipedia. Arbcom could usefully rule on whether promoting the policing of real life social media accounts is "evidence" or "conspiracy theory".

Rama did not participate at second DRV

  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1 ... and there is no policy or guideline that would expect or require them to participate, and considering that Arbcom had stopped reasonable critical ANI discussion by the Wikipedia community in its tracks by accepting this case so it would be incredibly stupid for Rama to keep on making casual remarks without putting on an Arbcom level nitpicker resistant wikilawyer hat first, this is clearly evidence of ... literally nothing.

Rama asserted the article had nearly 30 references by solid institutions

  • diff Rama did not say they were reliable sources, or critical proof of notability, only that given nearly 30 references from what appear to be real institutions the deletion was unusual and was bad optics. Those are reasonable observations to make.

Rama casted aspersions, not

  • diff Rama stated "you are also letting far-Right talking point slip", which in the light of the language of the unsupported dismissive allegations of "politics and social justice", "shooting yourself", "discrimination", "commander-in-chief", it is understandable why someone would accurately describe the phrases as far-right talking points.
  • diff "suspiciously selective enforcement of notability criteria", well Rama has hardly been the first to believe there are systemic selective enforcement norms, compare with the concerns raised this week at ANI where AfDs have been created because of paying special attention to a member of the WiR project (based on reading the statement by the creator of those deletions), consequently by definition there are patterns of selective enforcement. Wikipedia does suffer from systemic bias and even if that boils down to the known fact that in the sample space of reliable sources, they suffer from selective bias, that still means that enforcement of notability criteria is problematic. There has been some recent analysis discussed, and despite perceptions statistical bias might be marginal, but this has yet to be published by WiR or friends. In the meantime, Rama's observation of current patterns is just that.

Rama is a racist and a misogynist (?)

  • (Yet to find the evidence) The allegations published on this page of "Rama's comment is either filled with their own racism and misogyny [...] or their excuses are simply false" appears to have been accepted as fact, but I am unable to find any evidence in Rama's contributions. Correction, the allegations have been removed from this page without clerk action.

Evidence presented by Rama

Wikipedia has a considerable corpus of rules, with a hierarchy of norms, including rules about bypassing the usual procedures in exceptional or clear-cut cases (WP:IAR, WP:WL, WP:SNOW). Arguments that procedures must be followed blindly are flawed: Wikipedia is not a test of unquestioning loyalty where doing evil would be preferred to interpreting rules. Of course we have process, but above all we do what is just and reasonable (WP:IAR), and do not let entanglement for the sake of rules steer us away from their spirit (WP:WL). All contributors, administrators included, can bypass usual rules in cases of exceptional dysfunctions harming the interest of Wikipedia.

To decide that my action was unjustifiable, one must prove that I could not have reasonably suspected something unusual and contrary to the interests of Wikipedia was happening. I will prove that there was in fact good reason to suspect so.

The deletion of Phelps' biography turned out not to be an isolated event, but the first in a string of incidents involving the same group of editors: this Arbitration; several Deletion Requests — Nia Imara (DR), Leslie Kolodziejski (DR), Ana Achúcarro (DR) and Sarah Tuttle (DR), all created by Dr. Wade; and a section on the Administrators' noticeboard [9].

Phelps' biography counted 28 references when I found it deleted for lack of notability — not only unusual, but unprecedented in my 16-year experience. It highlights a combination of factors loaded with political significance: the subject of the biography is an African-American woman; its author, Jesswade88, is a woman and a scientist; and it is part of an on-going (and celebrated [10][11][12][13]) project to improve coverage of women scientists on Wikipedia. Besides details, we should consider the overall effect using the Disparate impact criteria.

Wikipedia has biographies on scientists with significant academic achievements, but who are little known to the general public. Such biographies on white male scientists do not come under the sort of scrutiny that Phelps' biography endured, even when they have far fewer references.[14][15] I can give a couple of examples — privately to avoid WP:POINTly disruptions. Likewise, it is easy to find stubs about pornographic actresses. The overall effect of confining women to stereotypical gender roles needs not be underlined.

Within the span on a single week, four other articles authored by Jesswade88 were nominated for deletion. This resulted in overwhelming support for keeping three of the articles, their DRs closing with explicit mention to WP:SNOW, while the fourth is still under discussion. Others have characterised these nominations as "really really unhealthy pattern" [16] producing an undesirable effect for Wikipedia through technicalities (WP:WL). User:GerardM and User:Andrew Davidson, in particular, have discredited certain arguments [17] [18] [19] that had also been used to erase Phelps' biography. These nominations were mared with divisive arguments proved to be untrue,[20] and were seen as disruptive enough to be reported on the Administrators' noticeboard. These events give a new perspective on the deletion of Phelps’ biography.

Statistical material not germane to the case scope removed. GoldenRing (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The artificial nature of the events unfolding on the English-speaking Wikipedia is also apparent when contrasted with other Wikimedia projects: on 4 May 2019, Clarice Phelps was featured on the front page of Wikidata (see screenshot), and there were biographies about her on three Wikipedias, including Simple English.

  • Front page of Wikidata, 4 May 2019
    Front page of Wikidata, 4 May 2019

The overall effect (deletion of women and people of colour, attempts to stall initiatives that promote diversity, inhibiting prominent women contributors) seems targeted. If the Wikipedia community was as impartial as claimed, this kind of behaviour would not occur often enough to be noticed. In this case, English Wikipedia seems not just to reflect outside racism and misogyny, but to actively enforce one of its own.

To confirm that the effect is as I characterise, I respectfully suggest that Arbiters reach out to Dr. Wade (User:Jesswade88) and ask how she perceived these events; in particular, whether she felt treated with respect, fairness and impartiality.

The events I have described are exceptional or atypical of natural Wikipedia patterns. In destroying valuable content, driving excellent editors away and harming the public image of Wikipedia, they are contrary to its interests. Thus, it cannot have been unreasonable to suspect an exceptional dysfunction. Arbitrators should therefore rule in my favour on Good Faith grounds — and the community should work together to encourage more diversity in its articles and among its contributors. Rama (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the evidence removed here [21] is not relevant to the case. Rama (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by CyrilleDunant

This arbitration case was not brought forth in good faith

Disclaimer: I know User:Rama personally. I know he acted in good faith, but this cannot be proven in what seems to me quite an unjust set-up, as I will try to show below.

There was no attempt at warning/telling User:Rama that they had stepped into an acrimonious dispute: [22] and following. Rama is apparently meant to serve as an example of sorts.

It seems to me quite impossible for Rama to prove their good faith: they acted in some way which may or may not have been correct, but was given no opportunity to consider the circumstances or reverse their actions. This is critical as the scope is strictly limited to the actions of the accused: they pressed a button, and almost instantly after found themselves in front of the ArbCom. And as per the link above, the users demanding arbitration actually believe Rama acted in good faith, if foolishly.

The timeline to the arbcom shows Rama was not engaged assuming good faith

at 07:38, the page was undeleted.

at 07:50, [23] discussion on the undeletion starts

at 08:13, Rama was notified he had stepped on toes

at 08:05, [24] talk of Arbcom.

at 08:19, [25] Rama is threatened by User:Serial_Number_54129.

by 08:24, there is a discussion on the admin's noticeboard of which Rama is notified

at 08:31 User:Serial_Number_54129 pushes for the arbcom [26]

at 08:51, Rama responds (negatively but politely)

at 08:56, Rama is threatened (again) by User:Serial_Number_54129

at 09:46, the case is brought to the arbcom [27] by User:Iffy, who did not participate in any of the previous discussions.

As an aside, the evidence removed by the clerk, coupled with the excerpt I have given indicate coordination. I was under the impression this was frowned upon.

Evidence presented by Mr rnddude

Rebuking some of Fae's "evidence"

Briefly, I think it wise to dismiss Fae's claim that in the light of the language of the unsupported dismissive allegations of "politics and social justice", "shooting yourself", "discrimination", "commander-in-chief" ....

Unsupported dismissive allegation of:
  • politics and social justice: Rama has cited both political significance (loaded with political significance) and to Wikipedia's irresponsible defiance against social justice(1) to justify their actions. It's demonstrably supported.
  • shooting yourself: Not what I said. I said shooting yourself in the foot, a common English phrase meaning inadvertently make a situation worse for oneself. No idea how this relates to far-right-ism.
  • discrimination: Who did I say was being discriminated against? Nobody. The allegation is from Jarvis, in the undark article, and from Rama (e.g. here and The overall effect ... seems targeted - from above statement) that Wikipedia/ns are being discriminatory. It's, again, demonstrably supported.
  • commander-in-chief: I'm not the only person to assert this either. Alanscottwalker refers to content dictator above, and an arbitrator received flak from two participants here for using the phrase diversity terrorist. All similar in vein in intended meaning. In full what I said was ... but unlike you I don't behave like commander-in-chief of Wikipedia and so accept that others will have different views and that a consensus will form accordingly. I again have no idea how this relates to far-right-ism.

... it is understandable why someone would accurately describe the phrases as far-right talking points. Of the two that I can relate to politics, both are easily proven. The other two I can't make fit into any definition of politics. I did note Fae's comment (veiled threat) elsewhere that anyone making a flawed summary would be quickly picked up on it anyway, we have plenty of boomerang spotters around. "Flawed" doesn't cover Fae's presented evidence, it's much closer to targeted premeditated dishonesty to borrow from Fae's preferred rhetoric. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama was notified that they had stepped into an acrimonious dispute, contrary to the above assertion

  • Before it was brought to AN/I and later ARBCOM, it was raised on Rama's talk page: User_talk:Rama#Phelps. They could have reversed this situation at any point, even when it was submitted at Arbcom. To suggest they had no opportunity to rectify the situation and re-instill confidence in their abilities as an admin is untrue. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama, in their own words, engaged in (politically motivated) activism

  • I understand that this disregards the previous Deletion Requests, but doing otherwise would amount to a dismissive and defiant "Wikipedia is not for Social Justice" attitude, which would be irresponsible and deeply suspicious - 09:25 29 April 2019
  • The overall effect (deletion of women and people of colour, attempts to stall initiatives that promote diversity, inhibiting prominent women contributors) seems targeted - From Rama's evidence.

That Rama has a strongly held belief is not relevant. That they used their tools to act on those beliefs, that they refused to reverse or reconsider their actions when it became apparent that it was controversial, and that they repeatedly cast aspersions against Wikipedians (ongoing), however, is. It is demonstrative of a temperament fundamentally unsuited to holding the tools. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama has repeatedly cast aspersions

  • Key example: I thought it was a unfortunate incident that needed a little nudge and would solve itself when the editors involved would be informed that they were making Wikipedia look like a haven for Gamergate-style bullying and misogny - From main case page.
  • Other diffs containing aspersion casting: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
  • I also note that two Arbs switched stance from decline to accept as a direct result of Rama's responses
  • I found Rama's statements on the matter concerning rather than reassuring - PMC
  • My concerns regarding Rama's responses are growing - SilkTork

Arbitrators should therefore rule in my favour on Good Faith grounds. The emperor has failed to notice that they lack clothes. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Sitush

Rebuttal of Fæ

Fæ says under "Rama was a soldier of a foreign army, not" that The Undark blog exists and was discussed on-wiki. This does not prove anything about Rama but Rama's own evidence, presented after that of Fæ and in the bit later remove by a clerk as out of scope, included Off-wiki, at the same time (3 May), the Twitter account whose tweet had made me aware of the incident in the first place went private « due to harassment » I'm not sure of the significance of this "foreign army" concept, introduced in evidence by Pldx1, but clearly Rama was first alerted to the situation off-wiki and not from seeing the Undark piece discussed on-wiki.

The initial bunch of edits following restoration came from Victuallers from around 30 minutes later. They probably had the article watchlisted from the previous incarnation, as I did, but even if not I don't think I'd describe them as part of a "foreign army"! - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Evidence" presented by GerardM

(Evidence submission removed) GerardM (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: I have removed this evidence submission, which dealt with content issues outside the scope of this case. This is an action by an arbitrator that should not be reversed except on appeal to the full committee. AGK ■ 11:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-evidence" presented by SN54129

@GerardM:

Please note Evidence must include links. Your "evidence", such as it is, does not and may be removed. It could, therefore, also be seen "as an example of unacceptable behaviour"; as you yourself point out, "making accusations is not a zero sum game"... ——SerialNumber54129 10:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CyrilleDunant: Repeatedly stating that I "threatened" Rama with Arbcom is an aspersion which you should withdraw; I merely told them—twice—the likely unintended consequence of their actions as I would any inexperienced editor. It is a shame, but maybe unsurprising in the circumstances, that while complaining of a supposed lack of good faith being shown to Rama here, you show as much to me. I would have thought it was clear (as it was to me at the time) that—far from being a threat—this was useful and perhaps even beneficial advice; this diff rather suggests it should have been heeded, does it not...? ——SerialNumber54129 14:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Hydronium Hydroxide

Rama received sufficient notice to avoid this case being requested

A number of assertions above deal with the possibility that the Arbcom case request was launched prematurely. Although the request was launched just over two hours after Rama restored the page to mainspace, Rama had plenty of indications in that time that an Arbcom request was very likely unless they reverted their actions. Rama's posts and actions in that time confirmed that they intended to leave the article in mainspace. All times are UTC on 29 April 2019. All unsourced points appear at the ANI:

  • 07:38-07:39: Rama restores article Clarice Phelps and its talk page[28]
  • 07:42: Rama removes AFD and notability tags from the article, but does not otherwise modify it from its pre-AFD state[29]
  • 07:56: Serial_Number_54123 adds a G4 speedy tag to the article[30]
  • 08:13: Sitush protests the restoration[31]
  • 08:19 Serial_Number_54123 agrees with Sitush and warns of the likelihood of Arbcom [32]
  • 08:23: Sitush raises the issue at WP:ANI, and asks what to do.
  • 08:24: Sitush notifies Rama [33]
  • 08:31: Serial_Number_54123 indicates that Arbcom should be used
  • 08:51: Rama responds at length in their first edit since 07:42 confirming that restoration to mainspace was and remains their intention[34]
  • 08:53 to 09:25: Editors Ymblanter, Mr_rnddude (who also recommends keeping the article), Lectonar (implicitly), and Icewhiz affirm Rama's actions as Arbcom-worthy.
  • 09:03: Fæ contests the speedy deletion[35]
  • 09:25: Rama responds at WP:ANI in their first post since 08:51 again confirming that restoration to mainspace was and remains their intention
  • 09:32: Fram recommends that Rama re-delete the article to avoid Arbcom, and use DRV instead
  • 09:34 Rama also contests the speedy[36]
  • 09:36: Amakaru warns that if Rama doesn’t revert themselves that "escalation" (ie: Arbcom) is likely
  • 09:41-09:42: Rama posts and follows-up at ANI[37][38]
  • 09:46: Iffy opens the Arbcom case[39]

In short, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not a great defence. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence&oldid=900875229"