Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Evidence by Alanscottwalker: the evidence I responded to has been partially removed, so removing |
Mr rnddude (talk | contribs) →Evidence presented by {your user name}: Well, I may as well present some evidence, though it's already overwhelming. |
||
Line 326:
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
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person''
===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: Both at AN/I and in their evidence presented directly above, Rama has referred both to political significance [[special:diff/896278779|(It highlights a combination of factors 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 that Rama acted in the name of "politics and social justice".
:*Dismissive allegations of shooting yourself: Not what I said, and certainly not an allegation. 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.
:*Unsupported dismissive allegation of discrimination: Against who? 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 (deletion of women and people of colour, attempts to stall initiatives that promote diversity, inhibiting prominent women contributors) seems targeted}} - from above statement) that Wikipedia/ns are being discriminatory. It's, again, demonstrably supported.
:*Dismissive allegation of 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===
*{{tq|There was no attempt at warning/telling User:Rama that they had stepped into an acrimonious dispute}} - Yes there was. 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|''My undeletion of Clarice Phelps's biography is an emergency measure'' to answer criticism in the press and show Wikipedia to be responsive, responsible, and capable of correcting mistakes quickly. 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, and can also be filed under aspersion casting below.
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, as you'll see in a moment), 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===
I had compiled a bunch of statements in the case request phase, and Fae had proposed that they should be left until the case was officially opened. I've selected a few quotes that contain aspersion casting, along with a couple that I recently noticed while going through statements.
*{{tq|The article in question makes a convincing case that the article ''is victim of an unfortunately selective enforcement of notability'' criteria, and is ''an embarrasment to Wikipedia''}} - [[Special:diff/894673918|09:25 29 April 2019]]
*{{tq|... because ''there is a suspiciously selective enforcement of notability criteria on this case'' ...}} - [[Special:diff/894674799|09:34 29 April 2019]]
*{{tq|This is an exceptional measure — I have never before seen an article with such solid references be questioned in such a manner}} - From main case page. Indirect aspersion, and one should look at Fram's comment on talk debunking the suggestion that articles with large quantities of references are never questioned.
*{{tq|... it has shown that one of the sides is composed of people willing to use spurious arguments}} - They've repeated the assertion here, albeit without obvious bad faith attribution, {{tq|... in particular, have discredited certain arguments that had also been used to erase Phelps' biography}}. WBG put it best with {{tq|post-fact explanation ... assert that he was right and the community was (again) wrong}}.
*{{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. Honestly at this point, you may as well just read their statements ''to Arbcom'' rather than have all of it listed here.
*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)
===Some contrast between Rama's statement in the case request and the case opening===
*{{tq|I recognise that my recent action on Clarice Phelps' biography was not ideal, I recognise the error and I will be more careful in the future}} versus their statements on this page and {{tq|[t]o decide that my action was unjustifiable, one must prove that I could not have reasonably suspected something unusual and contrary to the interests of Wikipedia was happening. I will prove that there was in fact good reason to suspect so}}. Which is it, do you recognize your error or profess the justness of your actions? It reads to me as though you had hoped your attempted assurances at the time of the case being requested would let you avoid scrutiny. Now that you can't avoid scrutiny, you're right back to aspersion casting and declarations of innocence. I think it within reason to start assuming bad faith on your part at this point. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 23:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
| |||