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

Revision as of 18:25, 9 May 2019

Revision as of 18:35, 9 May 2019

Line 136:

*:I take the liberty of rephrasing the last phrase as {{tq|''in my '''4'''-AfD experience, in the last '''10''' years}}. (Vide [https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=Rama this tool].) [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence#Comment_by_Fram|Fram has already provided numerous counter-examples]].

*{{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 ofover 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 nominationsAfDs andor the DRV about Phelps. <u>people
*:People who supported deletion of Phelps over the two AfD/DRV, have 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, 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 isare heyou 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 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.

Line 145 ⟶ 146:

*: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}}

*:Your evaluation is what's blatantlyproved 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|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?