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

Revision as of 18:35, 9 May 2019

Revision as of 20:04, 9 May 2019

Line 318:

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)

==Evidence presented by CyrilleDunant==

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

===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.

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 {your user name}==