Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Rama
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Winged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 9 May 2019 (→A rebut to Rama: CE;). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main case page (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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 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 arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

  • The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
  • 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 Evidence talk page.
  • 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 page history, an editor's contributions, or a 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 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 tit-for-tat on this page.
  • Analysis of evidence should occur on the /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 incivil or engaging in 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.

Evidence presented by TonyBallioni

Timeline

I blatantly stole this from Amakuru's statement on the request page, but it is the most distilled form of the timeline, and I think it should be presented clearly. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama has not restored Clarice Phelps to mainspace since the case request started

Worth noting, once the case request started and Fram draftified it to Draft:Clarice Phelps, Rama did not continue insisting on their correctness and use their tools to restore it to mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Black Kite

I note above that people are presenting evidence on the basis of the notability or otherwise of Clarice Phelps. This is, however, completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Phelps is notable or non-notable (personally I don't have a particularly strong view on way or the other).Evidence referred to has been removed per page instructions

A couple of points to begin with

  • No, it wasn't wheel-warring. No already-reversed admin action was reversed.
  • Rama has very few admin actions in the last 9 years. They hadn't actually restored any page since 2009, and hadn't deleted one (apart from G6 maintenance and obvious R3 errors) since 2012. This suggests that they may not be up-to-date with community norms regarding their position

The problems are this;

  • Problem 1 Rama undeleted the article despite the fact it had been through two AfDs and a DRV, and the community consensus at all three was to delete.
  • Problem 2 As the deleted article was salted, Rama edited through protection to do this.
  • Problem 3 When challenged on this, Rama did not reverse their action.
  • Problem 4 Rama then attacked other editors who had argued for the article's deletion, insinuating that they were "Far-Right" [1].
  • Problem 6 Rama then posted I think an administrator should clearly separate their administrative and editorial actions, which is obviously easier when one is indifferent to the subject ... In this particular instance, I do not feel personally passionate about the subject, I merely acted in what I perceived to be an opportunity to protect Wikipedia from bad press in a case that I though would not prove as divisive as it turned out to be [2]. However, it is clear that Rama does feel passionately about the subject. 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; instead, I seem to have upset a hornet nest of people very much undisturbed that Wikipedia would be shown as insensitive to women and minorities to the general population is another personal attack on those who believed that Phelps' article should be deleted. [3]
  • Problem 6 Rama still believes they're right, even after this, and that they can invoke IAR even against consensus (and here's another attack against those who think the article should be deleted) I am clearly and obviously at fault for bypassing the restoration rules, while simultaneously being obviously right because of WP:IAR, and many of my detractors arguably fall under WP:LW [sic: should be WP:WL] for invoking petty considerations to hinder diversity. [4]

I think the phrase we reach for here is "when you're in a hole, stop digging". If Rama had immediately, when called out on their behaviour, admitted they were wrong, this wouldn't even have got to ArbCom. But equally, this clearly isn't conduct conducive to being an administrator. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Summary Rama should not have access to admin tools if this is how they're going to use them. Having said that, removing their tools would not be any big deal anyway, as they have hardly used them to the benefit of the encyclopedia in the last 8+ years anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am distinctly confused by the evidence of @Deryck Chan:. He states a reasonable admin could have deduced that there had been a significant change of circumstances between 4 April and 29 April, and therefore the prior deletion consensus should no longer be treated as a binding precedent. Except there was no change to the circumstances of the article; it had been deleted twice, discussed and confirmed at DRV, and salted. Prior deletion consensus should always be treated as binding - that's why we have WP:CSD#G4. The minor issue of it being re-created under a different name (and almost immediately sent to draft) was irrelevant. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Levivich

Rama promptly responded and gave justifications

On 29 April:

07:38 Rama restores the page

08:13 Sitush posts on Rama's talk page

08:23 Sitush opens an ANI thread

08:51 Rama posts reasons on his talk page

09:25 Rama posts reasons at ANI

09:46 Iffy posts this Arbcom request. Leviv ich 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From restoration to ANI in 45 minutes; from restoration to Arbcom in two hours eight minutes.

There was urgency

I respectfully disagree with SoWhy's statement that "The deletion was already covered in news sources well before 29 April (see WaPo from 12 April) ... there was no emergency situation ...". After April 12, more was published on April 24, 25 (2), 26 (2), and 29. Rama linked to the Apr. 25 article in the undeletion log entry, and cited the press in ADMINACCT responses. Leviv ich 17:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no strong consensus against recreation

  1. The first AfD, after 9 hours (in February), was 6 keeps and 1 redirect, but it was not speedy closed.
  2. The first DRV was endorsed, but had !votes like "sad endorse" or "reluctant endorse", and comments that while a delete close was within discretion, a no-consensus or keep close would also have been within discretion.
  3. The second AfD (in April) was speedy closed after 9 hours. It had two keep !votes and one userfy vote, plus my request for undeletion of the first article so it could be compared to the recreated article before !voting. The second AfD was started by the same editor as the first AfD and closed by the same admin, who salted the article.
  4. The second DRV was also endorsed and the closer wrote "There is no explicit consensus about whether the protection against recreation ('salting') was appropriate."

Evidence presented by Winged Blades of Godric

  • The multiple statements over the User-RFC point to the fact that Rama massively used admin tools to further his own view in deletion-disputes.
  • SoWhy writes:--An admin should not edit-war over their viewpoint with others and certainly should not do re-add speedy deletion tags after multiple admins have declined to delete it.
  • Xeno writes :-- Rama appears to have returned to acting on his extremist views on replaceability.
  • Modernist writes :- Unilaterally making obviously incorrect decisions in a collaborative project and defying consensus with very little rationale except for his own judgment that has been brought into question time and time again is unacceptable.
  • Lankiveil noted a particularly egregious edit-sum and one even suggested a desysop, given his contempt for the particular RFC.
  • LVU wrote :- Administrators are (supposed to be) vehicles by which Community consensus, be it via discussion or agreed policy or guideline, is enacted and not its interpretors. I have been able to review the ANI discussion as an observer only, and have come to the conclusion that Rama does not understand the admin remit with regard to his actions relating to Fair Use images.
  • Rama's statement at the RFC pointed fingers at others and claimed that some user was not competent et al and precisely none supported his views. His rebut to the original statement was not supported, either.
  • He continued with his actions amidst the RFC showing a blatant disregard for community expectations and subsequently got T-banned, unanimously.
  • Rama chose to respond by accusing the OP of harassing and stalking him whilst proclaiming of a grand CABAL conspiracy to brand him as a rouge admin.
  • Months after that, he was back in the same sphere, writing weird insensitive comments over FfDs and all that.

Remarks

Do we see any similarity with the issue at hand?

BU Rob13 proposed a motion that sought to make his previous conduct difficult to scrutinize. As much as I agree with the probable motivations to prevent a slug-fest, where every user who has been the subject of borderline controversial treatment from Rama chooses to pile on, I guess that we won't have any similar problem. We are talking about a sysop who did not hold the mop, for all practical purposes, since his last massive breach of trust and this AfD saga. (From 2011 to this day, Rama has taken around 30 logged actions).

Back over the T-Ban ANI, he had the fundamental inability to understand that his actions were blatant transgressions of community consensus and pointed to some imaginary support, which led Xeno to ask If it is not the community who is asking you to moderate your approach, why has no one stepped forward to endorse your approach?

Over here, we are witness to the same stuff -- That was not community consensus, simultaneously being obviously right because of WP:IAR et al. He continues to see the same conspiracy:-- there is a motivated opposition, the opposers are right-wingers et al.

So, to conclude, I do see a pattern of tool-misuse and mis-interpretation of community consensus, in the sparse occasions of mop-usage. ∯WBGconverse 06:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A rebut to Rama

  • Phelps' biography counted 28 references when I found it deleted for lack of notability — not only unusual, but unprecedented in my 16-year experience.
    I take the liberty of rephrasing the last phrase as in my 4-AfD experience, in the last 10 years. (Vide this tool.) Fram has already provided numerous counter-examples.
  • 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 sole advocate over 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 AfDs or the DRV about Phelps.
    People who supported deletion of Phelps over the two AfD/DRV, have objected in some of the four AFDs. (Icewhiz, Nateurium et al) I, for one, had opposed restoring Phelps but had 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 are you seeing such distinct co-relation? The cabal does NOT exist.
  • 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.
    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 existent as compared to nominated for deletion as compared to actually deleted.)
  • 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.
  • These nominations were mared with divisive arguments proved to be untrue
    Your evaluation is what's proved to be untrue. As to the diff provided over there, discussions have continued over Eppstein's t/p in the regard). There is not any one objective truth in these spheres.
  • 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?

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.

In short, it's the 2010 saga and IDHT behaviour. He did not understand consensus, do not understand consensus and will not understand consensus. ∯WBGconverse 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S:-I thank the clerks for reverting his attempts to distort statistics. ∯WBGconverse 18:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by SoWhy

Rama is out of touch with how deletion works

Based on data helpfully compiled by Pldx1 at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Statement by Pldx1, Rama has only used admin tools 29 times between 2011 and 2019 (a drop coinciding with the last time he was admonished in 2010 (cf. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Statement by Hydronium Hydroxide). Of those uses, 27 were deletions or restorations, almost all of them maintenance-related. In the same time (actually, since 2009), they only participated in 4 AFDs and closed none as far as I can tell. As such it is safe to assume that Rama is no longer up to date on how deletion works.

Rama used admin tools to win a content dispute

The following is taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Statement by Rama:

Rama has explicitly stated if I had not been an administrator, I would not have done anything. They also said that they acted to rectify a state of affairs enforced unilaterally by one on the other; despite knowing well that established processes exist to address mistakes made in deletion-related discussions. It's clear that a) Rama had no interest in actually arguing in favor of overturning the deletion (by admitting that they would not have done anything if they couldn't have done what they did) and b) believes that their own opinion is sufficient grounds to restore an article where deletion has been previously been decided and upheld.

When criticized for their actions, Rama engaged in personal attacks and casting aspersions

The following is taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Statement by Rama:

  • composed of people willing to use spurious arguments
  • a hornet nest of people very much undisturbed that Wikipedia would be shown to the general population as insensitive to women and minorities,
  • the article on Phelps now appears to be part of a more general pattern of harassment against User:Jesswade88
  • many of my detractors arguably fall under WP:LW for invoking petty considerations to hinder diversity (they probably meant WP:WL)

There was no need to act immediately

With all due respect to the subject of the article, there was no need for immediate restoration of the article, bypassing the established processes. As Amakuru outlined (#Timeline), the article had been deleted twice by 4 April with the deletion reason clearly logged and visible for any admin viewing the page. The deletion was already covered in news sources well before 29 April (see WaPo from 12 April). At the time of Rama's actions, there was no emergency situation that required them or anyone else to unilaterally restore the article in question to avoid making Wikipedia look indifferent, incapable of correcting its mistakes, or even militant in its invisibilisation of women and minorities. At that time, any such "damage" would already have been done, so bringing this up at the appropriate venue would not have made a difference in this regard. In fact, by acting in this way, they hurt their cause because acting unilaterally is the opposite of allowing Wikipedia to "correct its mistakes".

Rama acted without previously sufficiently assessing the situation

As they said themselves, they acted without a complete assessment of the situation.

Rama did not act because new information became available after the last deletion

It has been brought up by others (although not by Rama itself) that new information that emerged after the 4 April deletion might have prompted Rama to restore the article because notability were to be assessed differently (see #Evidence presented by Deryck below).

Rama explicitly said that the article before deletion had solid references, indicating that they believed that no further references were required to establish the subject's notability and they thus did not act because of new information but because they believed the old information was judged incorrectly (made me think that the deletion process was mistaken). This coincides with the fact that all Rama did at the restored article was to remove the AFD and notability tags with the edit summary Notability is ridiculously obvious. They did especially not add any new sources (neither then nor until now). Regards SoWhy 11:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Deryck

Rama may not have known about events of 26-27 April upon article restoration on 29 April

Much of the debate here hinges on the fact that Rama unilaterally reversed a recent set of community decision and administrative action. However, when Rama restored the Clarice Phelps article on 29 April, only the following deletion log entries would have been visible to Rama:

Rama was unlikely to have known about the 26-27 April recreation and speedy-deletion (see #Evidence presented by TonyBallioni above) because these occurred at a different title, "Clarice E. Phelps", and none of the AfD and DRVs above had been updated to refer to the events of 26-27 April.

Therefore, when Rama restore the article on 29 April, what he would have understood was that nothing had happened to Wikipedia's coverage of Clarice Phelps since 4 April. Noting that most of the independent media coverage about Phelps occurred after and in response to the 4 April deletion (see e.g. this DuckDuckGo search), a reasonable admin could have deduced that there had been a significant change of circumstances between 4 April and 29 April, and therefore the prior deletion consensus should no longer be treated as a binding precedent.

The wider Wikipedia community may disagree with Rama's interpretation, but given the evidence that was available to Rama at the time of Rama's attempt to restore the article, it was not beyond admin discretion to interpret that there had been a sufficiently significant change of circumstances that a change of course was justifiable. Deryck C. 10:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The hasty filing of this arbitration case has curtailed the possibility of an amicable resolution

I quote User:Fæ's eloquent statement on this: This is a hasty request created literally 2 hours after the undeletion action by a requester that has done nothing to engage participants apart from issuing notices [...] nor had the procedural based discussion at ANI precisely focused on this undeletion been completed. An arbitration case may well be justified in this case to look at Rama's past sysop actions in general, but the filing of this case actually inflamed last week's events and prevented an amicable resolution via ANI. Deryck C. 16:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On-wiki events have off-wiki consequences

I would like to re-iterate User:Newyorkbrad's warning: Inevitably, a desysopping here would be described off-wiki as "next, English Wikipedia's highest authority removed an administrator as punishment for seeking to rescue this article." There can be little doubt that such an addition to the narrative would, unhelpfully, further compound the notoriety that this matter has already incurred. Deryck C. 16:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Iffy

Rama reversed an administrative action without following the applicable policies

WP:RAAA says that administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. The existence of 2 AFDs and a DRV should have made it obvious to Rama that restoring this article would not be uncontroversial. As pointed out by Black Kite and SoWhy above (and whose evidence sections I fully endorse), Rama restored the Clarice Phelps article without consulting the protecting/deleting admin, or following the spirit of WP:SALT by going straight to DRV with the evidence they cited in their log summary: Evidently notable, deletion of the article is a major embarassement for Wikipedia : https://undark.org/2019/04/25/wikipedia-diversity-problem/

This was not an emergency

To add to SoWhy's There was no need to act immediately section, an emergency use of admin tools should not be claimed unless there is a reasonable belief of a present and very serious emergency (i.e., reasonable possibility of actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a person if not acted upon with administrative tools) (from WP:TOOLMISUSE#Exceptional_circumstances.) This was not the case here, there was no risk of harm to any individual person or to the project that required skipping the usual processes. The existence of new evidence that may or may not prove that a subject is notable is not a reason to claim that there is an emergency.

Evidence presented by Icewhiz

1.Rama casted aspersions in an article talk page

12:14, 29 April 2019 - "you are also letting far-Right talking point slip"

09:34, 29 April 2019 - "there is a suspiciously selective enforcement of notability criteria on this case"

2. Rama willfully restored the article against community consensus, and was aware of multiple "deletion requests"

As evident in deletion log citing "Evidently notable, deletion of the article is a major embarassement for Wikipedia : https://undark.org/2019/04/25/wikipedia-diversity-problem/" - the linked piece discusses the Wikipedia deletion.

09:25, 29 April 2019 - " I understand that this disregards the previous Deletion Requests". Note Rama states they are familiar with "requests" - plural - indicating awareness of more than one deletion process.

3. Rama has asserted the article was backed up nearly 30 references by solid institutions (US Navy, Oak Ridge)

06:03, 2 May 2019 - "An article with nearly 30 references by solid institutions (US Navy, Oak Ridge) being deleted in such a way is a very unusual occurrence (I have never seen this before)"

4. AfD discussions clearly addressed the references discussed

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps, and more importantly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination) on the version Rama restored. The overall number of citations is explained as a WP:REFBOMB (" many of the sources don't mention the subject, mention the subject in passing, aren't reliable, aren't independent, or a combination thereof"). Each source present at the time of the AfD was analyzed in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. Specifically ORNL (Oak Ridge) is dismissed as non-independent PR by the subject's employer on their website. The US navy (recruitment PR) is dismissed since it doesn't mention Phelps at all - "ref7, ref8 - US navy, doesn't mention the subject."

5. 3+4 -> Rama does not understand Wikipedia notability and/or did not read the AfDs and DRV

Citing the subject's employer's PR - a non-independent source - is not a solid reference. Furthermore, Rama asserted that sources (from the US navy) that did not even mention the subject established notability. This is clearly dismissed in the AfD discussion, as well as being rather basic in regards WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:N.

Evidence presented by Pldx1

Admin Rama was rather waiting for an occasion to save the World

During the Request phase of this case, I have published the following result of some homework

User:Rama 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
edits 1402 7173 3822 6767 4164 3719 1745 476 2118 2281 171 1716 1497 369 613 343
admin 361 149 353 194 120 73 2 3 2 1 7 4 0 6 4

With the comment: The admin line comes from [public logs] by removing the moved/created/uploaded lines. The figures for 2011-2019 seem so low that I have perhaps missed something. Did I ? Pldx1 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINACT

One can argue that it was so urgent to save the World that User:Rama couldn't take the time to comply with WP:ADMINACCT before undeleting the Clarice Phelps article. But once the World saved, Admin Rama has not paid even a slight lip service to the concerns listed at WP:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination). For example: ref7ref8 US navy, doesn't mention the subject. Remark: evaluating the quality of such a lip service would have been outside the remit of this ArbCom case. But the lack of even that lip service is inside this remit. Pldx1 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier of a foreign army

A Wikipedia admin is supposed to act on behalf of the community that granted them their status. User:Rama has stated in many places that Rama's actions were dictated by [[5]]. Pldx1 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Cryptic

No participation at second DRV

A second deletion review for the article was held at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1 after the events precipitating this case, and was closed on 8 May 2019.[6] Rama made no edits to it (full history).

This is mitigated somewhat by the submitter of the deletion review not having tagged the AFD per step 5 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review (AFD history), and not having specifically informed Rama of it (which isn't in the instructions, but probably should have been done anyway). The former isn't at all uncommon—I end up tagging the AFDs in probably around half of submitted DRVs, though usually I'm able to do so in a more timely manner. —Cryptic 03:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed the DRV was prominently mentioned at Draft talk:Clarice Phelps (§At Deletion Review). Rama edited that page multiple times (most recent edit) so was or should have been aware of it. —Cryptic 13:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFBOMB

Deletion of articles with many low-quality references is neither unprecedented nor even unusual, as asserted in Rama's evidence. WP:REFBOMB (permalink) is a frequently-cited essay at AFD, whether by direct link, to its fork WP:BOMBARD (permalink), or to unlinked mentions such as "refbombed" or "source bombing". Most examples hover around the 20-ref mark, but ten minutes' searching of closed AFDs found Burleigh Smith (AfD discussion), deleted for notability with 48 references, just five days prior to the Phelps article's restoration. —Cryptic 13:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Fae

There are lots of assertions made here so weak as to be laughable, if it were not worrying that they appear to be cherry picking to make allegations that seriously fail WP:ASPERSIONS. Here is some non-evidence which is "evidence". --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama was out to save the world, not

  • Public logs show that Rama was not very active. That's all they show, it is not proof of saving the world. Rama's motivations need more proof than bad faith speculation.

Rama was a soldier of a foreign army, not

  • The Undark blog exists and was discussed on-wiki. This does not prove anything about Rama.

Rama did not participate at second DRV

  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1 ... and there is no policy or guideline that would expect or require them to participate, and considering that Arbcom had stopped reasonable critical ANI discussion by the Wikipedia community in its tracks by accepting this case so it would be incredibly stupid for Rama to keep on making casual remarks without putting on an Arbcom level nitpicker resistant wikilawyer hat first, this is clearly evidence of ... literally nothing.

Rama asserted the article had nearly 30 references by solid institutions

  • diff Rama did not say they were reliable sources, or critical proof of notability, only that given nearly 30 references from what appear to be real institutions the deletion was unusual and was bad optics. Those are reasonable observations to make.

Rama casted aspersions, not

  • diff Rama stated "you are also letting far-Right talking point slip", which in the light of the language of the unsupported dismissive allegations of "politics and social justice", "shooting yourself", "discrimination", "commander-in-chief", it is understandable why someone would accurately describe the phrases as far-right talking points.
  • diff "suspiciously selective enforcement of notability criteria", well Rama has hardly been the first to believe there are systemic selective enforcement norms, compare with the concerns raised this week at ANI where AfDs have been created because of paying special attention to a member of the WiR project (based on reading the statement by the creator of those deletions), consequently by definition there are patterns of selective enforcement. Wikipedia does suffer from systemic bias and even if that boils down to the known fact that in the sample space of reliable sources, they suffer from selective bias, that still means that enforcement of notability criteria is problematic. There has been some recent analysis discussed, and despite perceptions statistical bias might be marginal, but this has yet to be published by WiR or friends. In the meantime, Rama's observation of current patterns is just that.

Evidence presented by Rama

Wikipedia has a considerable corpus of rules, with a hierarchy of norms, including rules about bypassing the usual procedures in exceptional or clear-cut cases (WP:IAR, WP:WL, WP:SNOW). Arguments that procedures must be followed blindly are flawed: Wikipedia is not a test of unquestioning loyalty where doing evil would be preferred to interpreting rules. Of course we have process, but above all we do what is just and reasonable (WP:IAR), and do not let entanglement for the sake of rules steer us away from their spirit (WP:WL). All contributors, administrators included, can bypass usual rules in cases of exceptional dysfunctions harming the interest of Wikipedia.

To 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.

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 — Nia Imara (DR), Leslie Kolodziejski (DR), Ana Achúcarro (DR) and Sarah Tuttle (DR), all created by Dr. Wade; and a section on the Administrators' noticeboard [7].

Phelps' biography counted 28 references when I found it deleted for lack of notability — not only unusual, but unprecedented in my 16-year experience. It highlights a combination of factors loaded with political significance: the subject of the biography is an African-American woman; its author, Jesswade88, is a woman and a scientist; and it is part of an on-going (and celebrated [8][9][10][11]) project to improve coverage of women scientists on Wikipedia. Besides details, we should consider the overall effect using the Disparate impact criteria.

Wikipedia has biographies on scientists with significant academic achievements, but who are little known to the general public. 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.[12][13] I can give a couple of examples — privately to avoid WP:POINTly disruptions. Likewise, it is easy to find stubs about pornographic actresses. The overall effect of confining women to stereotypical gender roles needs not be underlined.

Within the span on a single week, four other articles authored by Jesswade88 were nominated for deletion. This resulted in overwhelming support for keeping three of the articles, their DRs closing with explicit mention to WP:SNOW, while the fourth is still under discussion. Others have characterised these nominations as "really really unhealthy pattern" [14] producing an undesirable effect for Wikipedia through technicalities (WP:WL). User:GerardM and User:Andrew Davidson, in particular, have discredited certain arguments [15] [16] [17] that had also been used to erase Phelps' biography. These nominations were mared with divisive arguments proved to be untrue,[18] and were seen as disruptive enough to be reported on the Administrators' noticeboard. These events give a new perspective on the deletion of Phelps’ biography.

Statistical material not germane to the case scope removed. GoldenRing (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The artificial nature of the events unfolding on the English-speaking Wikipedia is also apparent when contrasted with other Wikimedia projects: on 4 May 2019, Clarice Phelps was featured on the front page of Wikidata (see screenshot), and there were biographies about her on three Wikipedias, including Simple English.

  •  
    Front page of Wikidata, 4 May 2019

The overall effect (deletion of women and people of colour, attempts to stall initiatives that promote diversity, inhibiting prominent women contributors) seems targeted. If the Wikipedia community was as impartial as claimed, this kind of behaviour would not occur often enough to be noticed. In this case, English Wikipedia seems not just to reflect outside racism and misogyny, but to actively enforce one of its own.

To confirm that the effect is as I characterise, I respectfully suggest that Arbiters reach out to Dr. Wade (User:Jesswade88) and ask how she perceived these events; in particular, whether she felt treated with respect, fairness and impartiality.

The events I have described are exceptional or atypical of natural Wikipedia patterns. In destroying valuable content, driving excellent editors away and harming the public image of Wikipedia, they are contrary to its interests. Thus, it cannot have been unreasonable to suspect an exceptional dysfunction. Arbitrators should therefore rule in my favour on Good Faith grounds — and the community should work together to encourage more diversity in its articles and among its contributors. Rama (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the evidence removed here [19] is not relevant to the case. Rama (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence by Alanscottwalker

I am a detractor in this case's request, and did not and do not participate in any of the things Rama claims. Thus, Rama is simply not telling the truth. There is no possible reading of the evidence that Rama used considered judgement before the undeletion, they did not even educate themselves on the history of the article or related discussions. (and then were "surprised"(!), and that's what happens when you act like you are some unthinking avenger). In the undeletion, Rama sought to advance their own editorial decision making, using the community's tools. Such content dictator is not anyone's position on the pedia, least of all admins, no matter how much the admin acts to arrogate power to themselves, under any policy, and because such action is always damaging, as what improves the Project is decided by consensus. Moreover, Rama did not even bring these claims to anyone on the pedia, which not only proves Rama abjectly did not fulfill their duties as an Admin, it suggests Rama is unfit in matters of communication as an administrator.

Rama is casting aspersions. And being false in doing so. Rama's comment is either filled with their own racism and misogyny (Rama's argument amounts to, 'the pedia should have many poor biographies of white men, because somehow other people only require biographies because they are minorities and women'), or their excuses are simply false, and something they made-up after the fact, demonstrating their bad faith against others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence, Rama did nothing a competent admin or even competent wikipedian would do about alleged harassment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence&oldid=896323933"