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

Revision as of 18:03, 9 May 2019

Revision as of 18:07, 9 May 2019

Line 137:

*{{tq|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 near-sole advocate of two of the four linked AfDs did not get any support from the editorial community, as to deleting those two nominations and <u>people who supported deletion of Phelps over the two AfD/DRV, objected in some of the four AFDs</u>. (Icewhiz, Nateurium et al) I, for one, had opposed restoring Phelps but had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leslie_Kolodziejski&diff=895002098&oldid=895001574 reverted] Netoholic's tagging of suspected notability over one of those four articles.

*:Many over the Arb-Case (GAB, Lectonar, Fram, SoWhy, BKite, Nick et al) supported some sanction but did not participate in the 2 AfDs. Carrite asked for the article to be kept but asked for your desysop.
*::Where is he seeing such distinct co-relation? The cabal does NOT exist.

*{{tq|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 sichsuch 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 shallmay not be surprising in light of the massive propagation of the 18% figure. (The Arxiv research chooses to exploit h-index/net-cite-count, in a quasi-similar regard).

*: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 <u>existent </u> as compared to <u>nominated for deletion</u> as compared to <u>actually deleted</u>.)

*{{tq|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.

*{{tq|These nominations were mared with divisive arguments proved to be untrue}}

*:ThatYour evaluation is what's blatantly untrue. As to the diff provided over (andthere, [[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.

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. He's once again blaming the overall circumstances to be targeted and intentionally misogynistic.