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

Revision as of 00:11, 11 May 2019

Latest revision as of 04:56, 8 June 2019

(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Arbitration case phase closed}}

{{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||}}

{{tmbox

| 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 256 ⟶ 220:

=== Re Fae ===

* I am not convinced that [[User:FaeFæ]] 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.

Line 419 ⟶ 383:

:* <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|FaeFæ}} 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'''