Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:35, 9 May 2019

Latest revision as of 04:56, 8 June 2019

(43 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Arbitration case phase closed}}

{{tmbox

{{Casenav|case name=Rama|clerk1=DeltaQuad|clerk2=GoldenRing|clerk3=|draft arb=AGK|draft arb2=KrakatoaKatie|draft arb3=Worm That Turned|draft arb4=SilkTork|active=10|inactive=2|recused=0||}}

| type = content

| image = [[File:Information black.svg|45px|link=|alt=Information icon with black background.]]

| text = <center><big>'''The scope of this case is the administrative conduct of [[User:Rama]]. Therefore, anything to do with the content dispute shall be omitted from this case. If the scope is overran, clerks will remove the content. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 00:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)</big></center>

}}

{{Casenav}}

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]]. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

'''Submitting evidence'''

* Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.

* You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.

* Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks|arbitration clerks]] by e-mail or on the talk page.

'''Word and diff limits'''

* <u>The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 [[help:diffs|diffs]] for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users.<u> Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.</u>

* If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|Evidence talk page]].</u>

* Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

'''Supporting assertions with evidence'''

* Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a [[Wikipedia:Edit history|page history]], an editor's contributions, or a [[Special:log|log]] for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.

* Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the [[Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide|simple diff and link guide]] if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

'''Rebuttals'''

* The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions '''in your own section''', and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in [[wikt:tit-for-tat|tit-for-tat]] on this page.

* Analysis of evidence should occur on the [[../Workshop|/Workshop]] page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

'''Expected standards of behavior'''

* You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being [[WP:Incivil|incivil]] or engaging in [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], and to respond calmly to allegations against you.

* Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

'''Consequences of inappropriate behavior'''

* Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.

* Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.

* Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.

* Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

__TOC__

Line 55 ⟶ 20:

==Evidence presented by Black Kite==

<s>I note above that people are presenting evidence on the basis of the notability or otherwise of [[Clarice Phelps]]. This is, however, completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Phelps is notable or non-notable (personally I don't have a particularly strong view on way or the other).</s><small>Evidence referred to has been removed per page instructions</small>

A couple of points to begin with

* No, it wasn't wheel-warring. No already-reversed admin action was reversed.

Line 65 ⟶ 28:

* '''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" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AClarice_Phelps&type=revision&diff=894689719&oldid=894687333].

* '''Problem 65''' Rama then posted {{tq|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}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=894910058&oldid=894909914]. However, it is clear that Rama ''does'' feel passionately about the subject. {{tq|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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=895125515&oldid=895099217]

* '''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) {{tq|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}} <nowiki>[</nowiki>sic: should be [[WP:WL]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> {{tq|for invoking petty considerations to hinder diversity.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=895152685&oldid=895145261]

* '''Problem 7''' Good grief. {{tq| 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}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FRama%2FEvidence&type=revision&diff=896278779&oldid=896278720]

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. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

* '''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. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Line 147 ⟶ 111:

*{{tq|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, [[User_talk:David_Eppstein#Bogus_yourself|discussions have continued over Eppstein's t/p]] in the regard). There is not any one objective truth in these spheres.

*{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=889368900#Re3js3W69CrMinNGtLdWyYrnnKzHR26vu4BIO already deprecated] PORNBIO as a SNG and massive influx of deletion nominations have been since [[Special:Diff/895996848|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.

*{{tq|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. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style="color: red">&#x222F;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#070">WBG</b></span>]][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|^{<span style="color:#00F">converse</span>}]] 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Line 250 ⟶ 218:

=== 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 [[https://undark.org/2019/04/25/wikipedia-diversity-problem/]]. [[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 17:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

=== 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 [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=894673918]] has been written by Rama, here and not by some op-ed somewhere else.

* Asserting there were [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=895131604&oldid=895099217 nearly 30 references by solid institutions, US Navy, ONRL...]] is simply shameful. These 25 references were listed and commented at [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clarice_Phelps_(2nd_nomination) AfD2]], refer to the corresponding [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarice_Phelps&oldid=890845280 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 [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence&oldid=720085693 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. [[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 13:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by Cryptic ==

Line 269 ⟶ 243:

=== Rama was a soldier of a foreign army, not ===

* [https://undark.org/2019/04/25/wikipedia-diversity-problem/ The Undark blog] exists and was discussed on-wiki. This does not prove anything about Rama.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?type=revision&oldid=896278720&diff=896278779 Rama's statement, mentioning twitter] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#External_links|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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/894664956 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 ===

Line 279 ⟶ 254:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Clarice_Phelps&oldid=894689719#Comedy 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.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Clarice_Phelps&diff=894674799&oldid=894673741 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#User:Netoholic 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 [https://twitter.com/WikiWomenInRed/status/1126127118495244288 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FRama%2FEvidence&type=revision&diff=896356460&oldid=896335261 removed from this page] without clerk action.

==Evidence presented by Rama==

Line 312 ⟶ 290:

I disagree that the evidence removed here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence&diff=896305146&oldid=896303019] is not relevant to the case. [[User:Rama|Rama]] ([[User talk:Rama|talk]]) 17:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by AlanscottwalkerCyrilleDunant==

I am a detractor in this case's request, and did not and do not participate in any of the things Rama claims. Thus, Rama is simply not telling the truth. There is no possible reading of the evidence that Rama used considered judgement before the undeletion, they did not even educate themselves on the history of the article or related discussions. (and then were "surprised"(!), and that's what happens when you act like you are some unthinking avenger). In the undeletion, Rama sought to advance their own editorial decision making, using the community's tools. Such '''content dictator''' is not anyone's position on the pedia, least of all admins, no matter how much the admin acts to arrogate power to themselves, ''under any policy'', and because such action is '''always''' damaging, as what improves the Project is decided by consensus. Moreover, Rama did not even bring these claims to anyone on the pedia, which not only proves Rama abjectly did not fulfill their duties as an Admin, it suggests Rama is unfit in matters of communication as an administrator.

===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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&diff=next&oldid=894665718] 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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&diff=next&oldid=894665718] discussion on the undeletion starts

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

at 08:05, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&diff=next&oldid=894665718] talk of Arbcom.

at 08:19, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARama&type=revision&diff=894668584&oldid=894667509] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=894669741]

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=894675925&oldid=892329942] 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 {{tq|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 [[special:diff/896278779|(loaded with political significance)]] and to Wikipedia's irresponsible defiance against social justice([[special:diff/894673918|1]]) to justify their actions. It's demonstrably supported.

:*shooting yourself: Not what I said. I said {{tq|shooting yourself in the foot}}, a common English phrase meaning {{tq|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. [[special:diff/894674799|here]] and {{tq|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 {{tq|content dictator}} above, and an arbitrator received flak from two participants here for using the phrase {{tq|diversity terrorist}}. All similar in vein in intended meaning. In full what I said was {{tq|... 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.

{{tq|... 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 {{tq|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 [[special:diff/895586168|borrow]] from Fae's preferred rhetoric. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 23:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

===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. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 23:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

*{{tq|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}} - [[Special:diff/894673918|09:25 29 April 2019]]

*{{tq|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. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 23:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

===Rama has repeatedly cast aspersions===

*Key example: {{tq|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: [[Special:diff/894673918|1]], [[Special:diff/894674799|2]], [[Special:diff/894760070|3]], [[Special:diff/895125486|4]] and [[special:diff/896278779|5]].

*I also note that two Arbs switched stance from decline to accept as a direct result of Rama's responses

:*{{tq|I found Rama's statements on the matter concerning rather than reassuring}} - PMC

:*{{tq|My concerns regarding Rama's responses are growing}} - SilkTork

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

==Evidence presented by Sitush==

===Rebuttal of Fæ===

{{u|Fæ}} says under "Rama was a soldier of a foreign army, not" that {{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FRama%2FEvidence&type=revision&diff=896305146&oldid=896303019 remove by a clerk as out of scope], included {{tq|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 «&nbsp;due to harassment&nbsp;» }} I'm not sure of the significance of this "foreign army" concept, introduced in evidence by {{u|Pldx1}}, but clearly Rama was first alerted to the situation off-wiki and not from seeing the Undark piece discussed on-wiki.

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Clarice_Phelps&offset=20190429134620&action=history initial bunch of edits] following restoration came from {{u|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"! - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 01:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

=="Evidence" presented by GerardM==

<span class="history-deleted" style="color:#565656"><span title="Content was removed as out of scope">(Evidence submission removed)</span></span> [[User:GerardM|GerardM]] ([[User talk:GerardM|talk]]) 10:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

: {{Note2}} 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 [[Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee|appeal to]] the full committee. <span class="nowrap">[[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]][[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color: black;">&nbsp;&#9632;</span>]]</span> 11:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

=="Anti-evidence" presented by SN54129==

==={{reply|GerardM}}===

Please note {{tq|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"... [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SerialNumber''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]] 10:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

*{{reply|CyrilleDunant}} Repeatedly stating that I "threatened" Rama with Arbcom is an [[WP:ASPERSION|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 [[WP:AGF|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; [[special:diff/894675925|this diff]] rather suggests it should have been heeded, does it not...? [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SerialNumber''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]] 14:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama is casting aspersions. And being false in doing so. Rama's comment is either filled with their own racism and misogyny (Rama's argument amounts to, 'the pedia should have many poor biographies of white men, because somehow other people only require biographies because they are minorities and women'), or their excuses are simply false, and something they made-up after the fact, demonstrating their bad faith against others. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by Hydronium Hydroxide==

Further evidence, Rama did nothing a competent admin or even competent wikipedian would do about alleged harassment. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

===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 <u>posts and actions</u> 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008&section=64#Restoration_of_Clarice_Phelps at the ANI]:

* 07:38-07:39: {{noping|Rama}} restores article [[Draft:Clarice Phelps|Clarice Phelps]] and its talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Rama]

* 07:42: Rama removes AFD and notability tags from the article, but does not otherwise modify it from its pre-AFD state[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Clarice_Phelps&diff=894665061&oldid=890930157&diffmode=source]

* 07:56: {{noping|Serial_Number_54123}} adds a G4 speedy tag to the article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Clarice_Phelps&oldid=894666200]

* '''08:13: {{noping|Sitush}} protests the restoration'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rama&oldid=894667509]

:* '''08:19 Serial_Number_54123 agrees with Sitush and warns of the likelihood of Arbcom''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rama&oldid=894668584]

:* '''08:23: Sitush raises the issue at WP:ANI, and asks what to do.'''

:* 08:24: Sitush notifies Rama [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rama&oldid=894669178]

:* '''08:31: Serial_Number_54123 indicates that Arbcom should be used'''

:* <u>08:51: Rama responds at length in their first edit since 07:42 confirming that restoration to mainspace was and remains their intention</u>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rama&oldid=894671267]

:* '''08:53 to 09:25: Editors {{noping|Ymblanter}}, {{noping|Mr_rnddude}} (who also recommends keeping the article), {{noping|Lectonar}} (implicitly), and {{noping|Icewhiz}} affirm Rama's actions as Arbcom-worthy.'''

:* 09:03: {{noping|Fæ}} contests the speedy deletion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Clarice_Phelps&oldid=894671862]

:* <u>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</u>

:* '''09:32: {{noping|Fram}} recommends that Rama re-delete the article to avoid Arbcom, and use DRV instead'''

:* <u>09:34 Rama also contests the speedy</u>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Clarice_Phelps&oldid=894674799]

:* '''09:36: {{noping|Amakaru}} warns that if Rama doesn’t revert themselves that "escalation" (ie: Arbcom) is likely'''

:* <u>09:41-09:42: Rama posts and follows-up at ANI</u>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=894675436&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=894675540&diffmode=source]

* '''09:46: {{noping|Iffy}} opens the Arbcom case[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=894675925]'''

In short, [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] is not a great defence. <span style="font-size: 80%;color:blue">^~[[User:Hydronium Hydroxide|Hydronium^~Hydroxide]]^{~[[User talk:Hydronium Hydroxide|(Talk)]]~}</span> 12:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by {your user name}==