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

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)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comments by Winged Blades of Godric

In light of Joe's wikibreak, shall we have some delay as to the commencement of this phase? Regards, ∯WBG^converse 16:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Joe has said that he retains some internet access and expects to post a PD, but that it may well not be today. GoldenRing (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. ∯WBG^converse 11:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The draft should be published in the early part of next week. It has been a busy week for the committee and I think drafts need putting out in a state fit for voting or not at all. AGK ■ 21:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

LC's edit made this re-pop on my watch-list and I concur with him. Are we (yet again) going to see a date-shift? ∯WBG^converse 11:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The clerks haven't been notified of anything, but we are watching for it. @AGK: -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Assuming that field works don't get thrust down all of a sudden, I am unsure as to why Joe was chosen, at the first place. ∯WBG^converse 12:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

If only the arbitrators were a quarter as proactive in writing the draft, as much as the clerks are proactive in refactoring others' comments. ∯WBG^converse 18:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• @AGK: -- To repeat V93's comment over a quasi-similar case :- I would urge the committee to examine all of Andrevan's actions, even if they are older than usual. There is a catch-22 situation with users who have low levels of activity. Single incidents cannot be reported because they are single incidents; patterns of bad behavior cannot be reported because the edits establishing a pattern stretch occur over a lengthy period of time, and may be considered "stale".

  I think the stuff about his unbecoming conduct, as determined by the previous User-RFC and TBan, shall go in the PD as a FOF. You need to formulate the 30-admin-action-stuff as a justification for including the former point (which would have been normally considered stale) and carefully enough, so as to avoid sending a message that such minimal activity levels are frowned upon (by the Committee). ∯WBG^converse 19:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  I disagree with Vanamonde93. Bad admins can be spotted and reported even if they're semi-inactive. Whether we brush it under the carpet is another matter entirely. The solution here is not to tar all semi-inactive admins with the same brush. AGK ■ 19:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see, as to how the proposal tars all semi inactive admins with any brush. It is a mere statement of fact, whose inclusion_rationale has been very well documented by SilkTork. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 19:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No clue what you mean, really. It is not a stand-alone statement of fact, as is very little in an arbitration decision. There is a point being made, as several arbitrators' votes plainly show. AGK ■ 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Leaky caldron

Not a good look, persistently missing targets without providing a reason or revised date. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it is acceptable that one of the drafting members has gone off to dig holes in a field and the other is silent. I suggest when it comes to an application for a further term they, and maybe the rest of Arcom., have dug themselves into a hole. You seem to ignore the fact that there is a guy waiting to hear his future as as Admin. Unlike revenge, justice is a dish best not served cold. Being busy doesn't come close to a justifiable reason for having the wrong drafters for this case. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The PD date was extended last week to May 28 due to Joe's unforeseen absence. A few days have elapsed from the revised deadline and we are looking into whether the PDs will be posted soon or if we need to swap people in for drafting. We are well aware of the fact the case is in process and people are waiting. Being busy or having unforeseen events is a justifiable reason for not being able to meet a deadline. Mkdw ^talk 19:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but I think the characterization of Joe's real life job as '(going) off to dig holes in a field' as condescending and rather rude. I'm sure you wouldn't like to have one of us dismiss your job in such a manner, so let's not do that to an arb simply because he's an easy target. As Mkdw said, we're aware of the drafting situation, and while we're not pleased, the community in its wisdom decided to decrease the number of warm bodies available to do this work, so we're doing what we can as we can. We're not ignoring anything. We'll update everyone as soon as possible. Katie^talk 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't really "care" what you think. I "think" this case is being handled in a wholly inept and slipshod fashion. If the cap fits, wear it. Instead of lecturing me on civility can I suggests you step into the drafting hole left by Joe? I am sure you have been well aware of his planned absence for over 2 weeks. The fact is that, as pointed out, there are too many of you, not too few. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Several extra arbs are now working on the draft decision. We hope to go into voting before the weekend is out. AGK ■ 16:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Pldx1

• According to [casenav/data], the proposed decision was due 21 May 2019. And now, ten days later, we have an interesting case: should Arbcom be trouted --as a body-- for not applying WP:ADMINACCT to herself and explain why a full working set of drafting arbitrators has not been maintained ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We have asked for an update from the drafting arbitrators. Hopefully we will get an update soon. Usually the committee asks for volunteers to draft the case. I know lately, it has been particularly busy with other case requests, ARCAs, and appeals. As a separate note, the relevant policy is WP:ARBCOND. WP:ADMINACCT is relevant to administrators. While arbitrators are typically also administrators, drafting a case is not a function of being an administrator, but rather being an arbitrator. Mkdw ^talk 17:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• According to Arbitrator Opabinia regalis: the debate surrounding this article and the community's treatment of it did bring the project into disrepute. Great assertion. This seems to contradict: the scope of this case is the administrative conduct of User:Rama. Therefore, anything to do with the content dispute shall be omitted from this case. But let us follow the Greats and remember that:

- [The first version] of the article asserted that the subject graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014... and sourced this assertion to an article centered on Tennessee softball co-head coach Karen Weekly, article that only names C.P., without saying anything more. This version was retired following a first AfD procedure.

- [The second version ] of the article was displaying a reference list of 25 items, that were commented at [AfD2]. The documents from the Navy (7,8) don't ever mention Phelps. The ORNL documents about Te237 discovery (10,13,15,16) don't ever mention Phelps, and she is not on the photo of the team of 50 credited of the work at ORNL. The story is then enriched by 11 PR docs emitted in a PR context (75th anniversary, YMCA, outreach) 14,18,19,06,11,22,21,20,24,23,25 where Phelps is only one of the many... and the focus is not Te297. In other word, that was a fake reference list, in the [Wikicology] style. Page numbers (or time for a video) were never given: characteristic behavior. This version was retired following a second AfD procedure.

- The low quality of this article can be explained by various reasons, laziness+inventiveness being the most probable. But instead of recognizing this low quality, and finding better facts and better sources, the keep !voters have chosen to launch a political campaign, inside and outside Wikipedia. This was the basis of Rama's action, who summarized his rationales at his [Rama, Bullying section] by Selectively enforcing the rules in a particularly stringent manner... is dysfunctional.... and has obvious racist and sexist connotations.

- Suggesting that different rules should be applied to different persons, is only suggesting that biographies of women in STEM could be of lower quality. Such a suggestion would be a strong cause of disrepute. Indeed !

End of the digression. Arbitrator Opabinia regalis should perhaps recenter the rationales she uses, and remain focused on the scope of the case, i.e. the administrative conduct of User:Rama. Beware of If the scope is overran, clerks will remove the content! Pldx1 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• @CyrilleDunant: This article was part of a series of biographies. For various reasons, this article was not aligned with the sources it used. A reasonable attitude would have been to acknowledge this fact: good faith errors can still occur! But trying to hide the errors contained in this article by a political campaign, up to the brute force undeletion of the article, was not reasonable, and was not a no consequences [action]. This behavior cast doubts on the whole series. Perhaps, you should consider this consequence. Pldx1 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Beeblebrox

It seems to me that if Joe had to take an unscheduled wikibreak, he should simply be replaced as drafting arb. I know real life happens sometimes, but as stated above it is unfair to the parties, in particular to Rama, to just leave this hanging for weeks. The workshop closed two weeks ago and the committee has had all evidence presented by three weeks ago. our last comment from the remaining drafting arb was over one week ago. For a minute there it looked like this iteration of the committee was going to do better in these types of situations. I understand wanting to get it right but it simply shouldn't take this long to shuffle the chairs a bit and have a different arb step in and complete the PD with AGK. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Beeblebrox: the committee is working on solving the issue MKDW and Katie responded to some of these concerns above. Regards, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but I thin you are mistaken. I am a huge supporter of IAR and am very aware of how many times admins do so without explicitly saying so, but I don't thin it applies in this case. The reason is that Rama did not elect to ignore a rule, he elected to ignore consensus. A consensus he had to know existed by his own account. Wikipedia:Ignore consensus is a redlink for a reason. (oh boy, am I ever relieved that it really is a redlink) Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If Rama had explained what they were doing, and maintained a calm and reasonable demeanour in response to concerns raised at the deletion, I don't think we would be here now. I don't think we should be in the business of desysopping an admin who performs an action they genuinely feel is in the best interest of the project, and I wonder what message that sends out. However, an admin who has deliberately avoided raising the matter with the appropriate admin before reversing them, and who claims to be threatened and bullied by those who legitimately raise concern, and then presents themselves as being antagonistic to the community and the community's rules and procedures, is not best suited to remain an admin. So it's not for the use of the admin tool in undeleting the article, but for all that surrounds that act both before and during this case, that I feel is the appropriate reason for desysopping. But having said my piece, I'm not going to argue anyone else into accepting it. I can see there are other ways of interpreting this case, and that's why it is useful to have a range of individuals on the committee. SilkTork (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Levivich

Who thinks it would be a bad idea if we were to, tomorrow, hold elections and add 10 more arbs to the panel to help shoulder the burden? Because I can think of 10 admin off the top of my head who I would vote for, and this isn't the only delay; we have several ARCAs that have been open for over a month. The firearms thing I think took two months? Why not have more hands to help? – Levivich 22:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: A good point, but one that can be ameliorated by using panels, like the US federal court system does. You don't need all 30 arbs to weigh in on everything. Form panels of 3 or 5 or 10 to handle specific workflows, and have a deep bench from which to draw, so that volunteers can freely go active/inactive, and we still have a sufficiently-large pool of available talent. (Clerks could help form those panels.) You're on my short list of 10 BTW :-) – Levivich 23:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I just want to comment that "I still think I was right, but I wouldn't do it again", is a perfectly acceptable response to wrongdoing. We cannot/should not demand that a person agree they were wrong, or else be desysoped. That regulates thought rather than action. Nor should we say, "Well, if he thinks he was right, it means he might do it again." Again, that regulates thought rather than action. We are talking about one bad IAR here, and at most, two bad admin actions in 10 years. Nobody should be seriously punished for such limited transgression. As for the during-arbitration-behavior, I agree with OR about not "counting" it, and I note that far worse language over on the Polish case request resulted in only a warning. If an admonishment is not enough, I hope the committee can find something in between admonishment and desysop. (Like maybe a restriction on undeletion.) – Levivich 00:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this just bothers me so.

• Can you imagine judging somebody for something they did ten years ago in any other context? Who cares how many edits transpired–it's ten years. I mean, we are not the same people we were ten years ago. Imagine if I broke the printer, then never used the printer, and broke it again in ten years, and somebody said, "that's it, you can't use the printer anymore". If I borrowed your car and crashed it, and then borrowed it again 3 times a year for ten years and didn't crash it, and then crashed it again, it'd be nuts to conclude from that that I cannot drive a car. All these explanations-by-analogy I've read justifying looking at an action from ten years ago seem totally unrealistic to me; I cannot wrap my mind around it. Can you imagine a workplace performance evaluation based on something that happened 10 years ago? In most legal jurisdictions, you can't even admit evidence of a criminal conviction if it's ten years old. Like nowhere else in civilized society would we hold two transgressions in 10 years against anyone. Nowhere.
• Then there's desysoping someone for undeleting a page one time. How can that even be on the table as a sanction, nevermind receiving five votes? Rama didn't even block a user, or delete a page, he undeleted a page. So easy to fix! So harmless! Look, when GoldenRing (sorry to use you as an example, GR) deleted a page and said it was a DS sanction, nobody considered any sanctions, and that deletion was also against consensus as evidenced by a DRV. I can easily agree that a deletion against consensus in that situation isn't a desysopable offense, but I cannot wrap my mind around why one undeletion against consensus would be a desysopable offense.
• It's just patently unfair to judge an IAR action as being "incorrect", while prohibiting the defendant from presenting evidence that shows that it was correct. It's like some arbitrators' approach in this case was "it was a bad IAR and we don't want to hear anything otherwise". That just doesn't seem like a fair hearing. I can't wrap my head around that one, either–doesn't this strike you (the arbs) as unfair? Why not? If you judge the IAR incorrect, then how would Rama show that the IAR was justified, even in theory? What kind of evidence would have hypothetically convinced you that the IAR was justified?
• "I won't do it again" isn't good enough here–why not? Even if it isn't good enough, why not consider outright preventing Rama from undeleting anything? There is a perfectly acceptable lesser sanction available to Arbcom–can't wrap my mind around why you're not taking Door #2 here instead of a desysop.
• If you're not taking the bit away for "one bad IAR", if you're not taking the bit away based on any evaluation of content, if you're not taking the bit away based on statements made during the arbitration, then what is the basis of your decision to take the bit away? What is the potential harm you are stopping by using such a drastic sanction, which no other sanction would prevent? I really hope some of the Arbs change their mind. Barring that, I hope somebody writes an explanation that least explains what exactly it was that Rama did that was so bad that the bit must be taken away, because the current proposed decision doesn't do that, at least not for me. I'll shut up now, promise. – Levivich 06:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Iridescent

@Levivich, because counter-intuitively the more arbs there are, the longer work takes to be done, which is why the number of arbs was reduced in the first place. Because so much of the committee's work takes place on mailing lists, if every member needs to read through the responses of 30 people to every comment instead of the responses of 10 people, it means the arbs are literally spending hours every day checking their messages—my "Inbox (644 new messages)" screenshot isn't doctored in any way—and consequently have less time to engage on-wiki. ‑ Iridescent 22:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work; we tried that in the past with such initiatives as the Ban Appeals Group, a designated arb taking turns to pre-moderate incoming messages, etc, and all that happens is that people who are dissatisfied with the decision of the sub-group (and there's always someone unhappy with any decision) appeal to the full committee so you end up doubling the workload.

Because by necessity so much takes place in secret, until you've been there one really can't appreciate just how much of Arbcom's work goes on behind the scenes. As I understand it things aren't as bad as they used to be now the WMF have taken over some functions directly, but even now I'd imagine any reasonably conscientious arb is spending at least an hour per day just reviewing the torrent of emails, checking recent changes on all the arbitration pages (of which there are hundreds, albeit mostly dormant and archived), monitoring AN, ANI and the Village Pumps, and checking all recent changes on Arbwiki. Every additional editor you add to that pile is another editor you're taking away from doing anything actually useful, in addition to the additional work that editor generates for the other arbs. (Even if you do have subgroups, all the non-members of the subgroups still need to be appraised and offer feedback on what the subgroup is doing.) If we really need to retain a single all-encompassing committee, the optimum size would probably be between five and seven; the delays you're complaining about are an artefact of the committee being too large, not too small. ‑ Iridescent 23:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What Alanscottwalker said. IAR is "If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it", not "do whatever you want"; the onus on anyone invoking it is to demonstrate why invoking it is necessary to improve Wikipedia. Breaching policy and invoking IAR is a last resort, not a first port of call; the intent behind IAR is for such situations as "this image isn't clear at the default size so I'll make it larger even though that breaches the Manual of Style", not "Admins are free to disregard WP:ADMINACCT if they don't feel like explaining". ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Pppery

@Iridescent and Levivich: May I suggest that you move your discussion about the size of the Arbitration Committee to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee or some other more appropriate place? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Update

A PD is being worked on at the moment. It is hoped to have it ready soon. SilkTork (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Sitush

@AGK: The PD FOF #2 refers to Rama first becoming aware of the deletion through a press story but Rama has been inconsistent about this, claiming at one point that they first became aware through a Twitter feed that subsequently went private. They were prepared to disclose the details but not on-wiki. - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think that changes anything, but I appreciate your drawing my attention to that diff. AGK ■ 19:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@CyrilleDunant: DeltaQuad didn't do anything wrong, accidentally or otherwise, despite what you suggest. They merely followed procedure. You are welcome to suggest how that procedure might be improved, of course. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@CyrilleDunant: none of this would have happened if Rama had not dug their heels in. From within 30 minutes of restoring the article and right through to this very page yesterday, Rama had opportunities to acknowledge the issues. Along the way, plenty of people argued that (a) Rama could revert their action, (b) a full case was not necessary and (c) desysop was not necessary but Rama persisted, even doubled-down, in their position. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@CyrilleDunant: so a violation of community norms and trust is inconsequential, along with additional outside commentary generated by it? We will have to agree to differ about how this place is supposed to work. Like it or not, I don't think our opinions are likely to change anything now (although I do vaguely recall a case some years ago where the outcome completely flipped in the last 24 hours or so, so feel free to continue in my absence). - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: there has been much discussion of aspects of systemic bias as a consequence of the Phelps affair, at the AfDs, DRVs and on some noticeboards. More than one person seemed to suggest that the notability criteria for women should be lowered in ordered to address what they perceive as an imbalance in the gender ratio of biographies here. One of the counters to that has been that it is condescending to women and that if the bar is lowered for all as a means of avoiding that condescension, there will likely still be a massive imbalance because more men will qualify for biographies, too. Basically, as umpteen people have said for years and repeated in relation to this specific bio, the sad reality is that the world is out of kilter and will be so for many generations to come, not only because there are still systemic issues in society but because of the historic greater bias of the past. We either reflect the real world or we become some sort of campaigning organ to actively promote diversity etc and accept that in doing so we will be creating two-tier notability requirements that may ultimately devalue despite their good intentions. It is, I think, likely to be an intractable problem and I'm not sure how ArbCom can fix it. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The idea that attempts to correct for known biases are "condescending" is one I held in real life for a long time - and honestly, I've completely gotten over it. "I don't want to be invited/selected/hired/etc. for my gender (or whatever), I want it on merit!" is all well and good if you think "merit" is an unbiased measure that is getting unfairly distorted or misperceived. When all the signals of "merit" are themselves biased, it becomes a little clearer than deliberate corrections can be useful. It doesn't need to be an emotive thing; it's just a boring old measurement error, like keeping in mind that the clock in the conference room runs five minutes slow and remembering to adjust if you're figuring out what time you have to leave to catch your train. Same principle operates in a Wikipedia context - it's not "condescending" or "special treatment" to recognize that the signals of what makes someone significant enough to write about can vary with demographic factors and that we might be able to correct for those things.

In any event, for all the drama of this particular incident I don't personally think the ratio of biographies is all that useful of a metric. Partly for the reasons you cite, historical bias in sources, and partly because I think it leaves a lot of subtler issues unaddressed. A lot of talk around systemic bias issues is a little sloppy in distinguishing between representation in the editing population and representation in terms of content, and sometimes goes a step further and assumes that reducing the skew in editor demographics will naturally reduce the content bias. That theory is a bit condescending, IMO - the idea that women editors will naturally want to write about "women's stuff". I don't know quite what you mean about a "campaigning organ", but that sounds like a false dichotomy.

Anyway, this is a bit beyond the topic of the case, but I don't claim arbcom can fix any of it. That was kind of my point, and why I wrote long posts explaining my rationale - I think the structure of an arbcom case is built on assumptions that it turns out aren't very useful when applies to this particular situation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Regardless of how it is framed, I suspect the issue is likely intractable without some major shift in the purpose or methodology of Wikipedia but your comments generally are food for thought and discussion at some more appropriate venue. Alas, while I accept that arbcom is imperfect like everything else, until things change via those types of discussion it seems that arbcom is the only means we have to stop a "wild west" type of situation emerging, with admins taking it upon themselves to IAR/over-rule pretty much anything with which they choose to sympathise. We all know from experience that it is not always the case that admins deserve the trust placed in them (Od Mishehu being the latest) and without some recourse to "rules" there would be no rational way to address the matter on those occasions when people feel trust has been betrayed. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@CyrilleDunant: regarding this, there are not "occasional errors" - there are lots of errors and they're in BLPs. You've also conveniently omitted at least one relevant later comment by me - see here. FWIW, there have been lots of problems with Wilfred Reilly that I have been dealing with over the last day or two - it's a BLP and it needs sorting out but it has nothing to do with Jesswade88 or Rama. We really should not let situations such as this fester because WP:BLP is right up close to policies such as WP:COPYRIGHT when it comes to some sort of hierarchy of importance. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@CyrilleDunant: I am not harassing anyone. Please stop these baseless accusations. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic

Proposed FOF#1 states (or at least heavily implies) that there were two DRVs on 29 April when Rama restored the article. The second DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1, linked as "2") didn't open until May 1 and wasn't closed until May 8. —Cryptic 19:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've taken care of that: Special:Diff/899848994/prev. Thanks, AGK ■ 19:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Amakuru

Irrespective of the other aspects of this case, I fully agree with Silktork's oppose on the wording of Principle #6 (IAR). IAR is not just a policy, but one of the five pillars, and it is vital to its functioning that it not be qualified by a necessity of "emergencies" or "unanticipated situations". That's not to say IAR is a carte blanche for anyone to do anything they want against the policies, and community consensus can always deem retrospectively that a particular case was not a valid application of the principle. But the important thing is that each case is assessed on its own merits. I would urge the Committee not to pass this particular principle because it represents a change to community norms, which should only happen via an RFC. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: @SoWhy: I suspect we're more or less on the same page here. There's no doubt that IAR is to be taken alongside WP:CON and all the other norms that make the community function. There's also little doubt that the particular invocation of IAR under discussion here was not a justified one (albeit that I accept Rama's assertion that they invoked it in good faith). There's nothing wrong with #6 as a general observation on the way things typically work. But I just don't want us to end up in a situation down the line, where people argue that IAR can't be invoked for a given case because ArbCom has pronounced here that it may only be used under circumstances X, Y and Z. I'm not sure the IAR observation is particularly necessary for the outcome of this case and it risks opening up a future can of worms. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it time to close the case? The section at the bottom says clerks should step in 24 hours after the fourth net support vote, which I think was reached sometime on Tuesday evening. Unless I'm misunderstanding the process!

Also, while I'm here let me send my best wishes to Rama. Although I've disagreed with some of the opinions they've expressed along the way here, I remain of the opinion that the original delete was done with the best of intentions and in good faith. If (as seems probable) they are desysopped, I hope they do not give up on this project of ours - there is still much to be done, and the more experienced people we have the better. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Yes, the clerks will close the case... when either DQ or I have the right amount of time on our hands. Closing a case is non-trivial and I'm waiting until I have an hour or so I can dedicate to it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Alanscottwalker

The implication of Amakuru's sentiment is wrong, IAR has never been the only pillar of the community. Nor is it, as a matter of community norm, nearly as important as, and as normalized as, Discussion. Perhaps some people are confused by only reading IAR, but only reading IAR makes no logical nor practical sense. IAR is not Ignore Other Editors (WP:IOE). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Rama's judgement was not poor, it was egregiously poor: 1) They used a BLP as a football. 2) They have done nothing but bring the project into disrepute. 3) They usurped editorial decision making by use of tools not given them for usurping editorial decision making, thereby abusing power. 4) They breached multiple community norms, around the central working principles of the project: discussion, and assuming bad faith. 5) They have cast aspersions in deed and in word on editors who are unequivocally committed to diversity of coverage (just look to editors' editing history). 6) Assuming they did not just imagine the alleged "emergency", which I gather is where those who claim Rama's judgement was just 'poor' are, Rama has an extreme and unsupportable view of what an emergency is (it's just not an emergency not to have an article on Wikipedia).

It makes a mockery of IAR and the rest of the pillars, and indeed all the PAGs, to say editorial content decisions are 'rules'. Deletion is an editorial content decision. Editorial decisions are decisions of content editors (decisions which admins cannot make, without abuse of power), they are not rules. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, it is unseemly (and an indication of untrustworthiness) if an administrator believes: 'you will/should no longer be an administrator', or 'let Arbcom and RfA decide, if you should be an administrator' are 'threats': Such an administrator denigrates the very concept of 'threat', or has no trustworthy understanding of what a threat is. Becoming not a Wikipedia administrator is, as they say, just 'no big deal', especially, where what one seems to want to do is make content edits, and not uninvolved admin actions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Rama: You still don't get it. It has not been "construed it as some sort of power-grab". It has been construed as an illegitimate exercise of permissions, thus an 'abuse of power'. It matters not whatever you think you were trying to grab, in many ways it's worse if you are negligent, actually, because negligence is likely to repeat. But really, if you don't understand that you misused power beyond what content editors are afforded, there is little point in you being an administrator. Not only that, but than you had the unmitigated gall to cast aspersions (aka, lies) about the people who criticized your actions in the comments linked by Mkdw. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regelis: Whether Rama is an administrator or not, discussion and reflection can and will continue. But shoot now, discuss later is not really a discussion or reflection principle. Rama refused to discuss. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by SoWhy

In addition to what Alanscottwalker and Iridescent correctly noted, one has to remember while IAR is one of the pillars, so is the one that says (among other things) Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Unlike Amakuru, I thus don't see any problems with proposed principle #6. It merely repeats what has been consensus for as long as I have been an editor (and most likely longer), i.e. that IAR is not a carte blanche you can use whenever you feel like ignoring what others think. There is a reason the page Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and especially the WP:NOTIAR subsection have been in existence for more than a decade. Regards SoWhy 17:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding proposed FoF #5 (Casting aspersions): While I understand the hesitance of using an editor's behavior during a stressful proceeding against them, I urge the Committee to remember that due to the unique circumstances of Rama's actions, most behavioral evidence has to be Case-related and thus should not be disregarded just because of that. If an editor acts in a problematic way and a Case request is quickly started, it stands to reason that most behavioral problems will only be seen during the Case. That does not make these statements less problematic though. Rama has from the beginning [1] been insinuating that the deletion of Phelps' article happened because of some grand conspiracy against women and minorities, something they have followed up on the article's talk page and ANI before becoming more explicit in their aspersions during this Case. So their behavior during this Case was merely a continuance of their pre-Case behavior and thus should be considered as well. On a side note, admins are often confronted with stressful situations, so how one handles the stress of a ArbCom Case is imho indicative of how they will handle other admin situations. Regards SoWhy 09:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I think your comment re. desysop sounds as if you are discussing the merits of the article Rama restored in justifying your position, something you should probably be avoid. Rama's actions should not be considered differently based on whether he restored Phelps' article or one, say, about a far-right, nationalist racist with the IQ of a banana. Restoring an article based on what you believe is right or wrong is always a problem, not just when the existence of the article is clearly unwanted. Also, as KrakatoaKatie correctly notes: As bad as Rama's conduct has been, the worse part is that Rama does not seem to understand why it was a problem. One cannot assume that this was an "isolated error of judgment made in good faith" if the erring user keeps insisting that they acted correctly. Even those diffs you cite in Rama's favor do not inspire confidence. Yes, they claim they won't do it again, but at the same time repeat that they were right to do so and cast aspersions on those critical of said actions while doing so ("while simultaneously being obviously right because of WP:IAR, and many of my detractors arguably fall under WP:LW for invoking petty considerations to hinder diversity"). As one of those "detractors" who is very much in favor of diversity, I don't think that is behavior that inspires confidence that Rama actually understood why this Case was opened. Regards SoWhy 10:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wrote quite a lot of text (probably too much) in my votes explaining my view on the "content" aspect, so I'll refer you to that. In fact, I think the least successful feature of this case has been the stolid insistence on treating the whole incident as an individual "conduct" matter, as if conduct occurs in a vacuum. The thing about systemic bias is that it doesn't fit well into a paradigm that assumes most important topics can be divided into "content" and "conduct". That's the whole point of the "systemic" concept - the bias exists in the system itself and operates independently of the best intentions of the people working within that system. Most people would agree, in the abstract, that systemic bias exists and should be mitigated, but hardly anyone thinks they personally are contributing. That's kind of inevitable, the same way everyone gets annoyed about traffic but nobody likes to think about they fact that they are "traffic" too. So when someone says there was bias that a process you (generic) participated in or endorsed the outcome of or don't see any problem with, it's awfully easy to think "well, I'm not biased!" and conclude it's just pointless aspersion-casting. And if someone takes action on the grounds that they thought there was bias, that's easy to chalk up to one wayward admin supervoting, overriding consensus, being arrogant and self-righteous, etc, and we end up denying ourselves the opportunity to do any serious community self-reflection on whether they identified a genuine issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration is an organ of Wikipedia, designed to resolve problems – to issue written decisions. It is an administration, and tends to take the shortest path to decisions. The issues that you highlight seem like matters for the arbitrators to weigh up when writing the decision and casting their vote. Do you think they did so in this case? AGK ■ 08:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I can't know anything more about what anyone else is thinking than what they've said they're thinking :) I'm certainly not saying that anyone has taken shortcuts in reviewing the evidence, if that's what you mean. I think that once this became an arbcom case about a specific person's "admin conduct", and not a community discussion about more constructive ways to flag concerns about systemic bias in community processes, we were using the wrong tool for the job at hand. (Or, maybe a better analogy, we were focusing too much on the clumsy person who knocked the fence down, and not enough on the fact that fence needed repair to begin with.) Probably I can summarize my view as "the way the case unfolded didn't change my mind very much from my original post voting to decline the case". Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) There is no contradiction in using someone's conduct to reflect on a genuine issue and condemning said conduct at the same time. Conduct might not occur in a vacuum but when judging how to sanction it, one has to remember that because there is no universal agreement on what are worthwhile causes and which are not, the sanctions should always be the same, regardless of why an editor acted. Especially, if the editor was fully aware that the community has agreed on not doing something. If, for example, I forced a writer at gunpoint to write Wikipedia articles about notable women in STEM, it would improve Wikipedia but I would still be prosecuted and sentenced for holding someone at gunpoint. And if I then expressed dubious regret for holding someone hostage while proclaiming that holding people hostage for my cause is the right thing to do and insulting everyone who is against holding people hostage, of course I should not be trusted with a gun license anymore. Even if my crime helped increase the amount of articles that should exist and would otherwise not exist. That is the same principle behind WP:BMB: It does not matter whether the contributions are good or bad, if you are not supposed to edit, you will be sanctioned for it. This should not be treated differently. Regards SoWhy 09:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad

Just FYI for those arbitrators and others who disagree with the proposed "IAR" principle, no sitting arbitrator should be blamed for the proposal or its wording. It is taken verbatim from a principle I drafted last year in the Fred Bauder case, which was passed unanimously in that case without any disagreement or discussion. Interestingly, this isn't the first time that a principle that was uncontroversial in one case was then questioned or even rejected a few months later in another.

For what it's worth, I generally agree with Opabinia regalis's views on the merits of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm I noticed that about another principle borrowed from the same case, and still overlooked the IAR one... Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by CyrilleDunant

Things we've learnt

• It's official policy in wikipedia that pile-ups are fine: if an editor finds themselves threatened and insulted at once by a large number of other editors, it's their damn fault for not immediately falling in line.

• It's official policy of the arbcom that scope is a flexible thing, to be used only to indict: whether Rama or not was right is outside the scope, but that they did not (of course, they did, but who's counting) say they were wrong is good enough to vote for a desysop.

• Comments of the form 'do x or else I(and/or my friends) will do y to hurt you' are not threats, they are advice.

• That a contributor (not Rama) can declare that their behaviour would be construed as stalking/vandalism but that they're doing it for the good (they think) of the encyclopedia, and no-one flags that up: it's also, apparently, perfectly normal. It is, to be fair, Out of scope...

• That it's official policy that if the right people complain, an arbcom can be convened in two hours, with no other attempts at mediation. And then, based on only the accused being stressed and angry during the arbcom, you can get a conviction. (remember that the contentious page was restored, and no edit warring occurred, no vandalism, nothing).

I'm disappointed. CyrilleDunant (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mkdw: I'm not too sure how asking Rama whether they still believe in hindsight that undeleting the page should not have been done can be construed to not be a leading question to begin with. Rama's linked statement is pretty unambiguous that way. Maybe you could try asking them plainly what you want to know? Maybe you could tell us what you think the statement means, and then you and Rama can establish what they wanted to say in the first place.CyrilleDunant (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@CyrilleDunant: I did ask Rama plainly and directly what I wanted to know. A lot can change during an arbitration case and I personally wanted to know if Rama still stands by their original statement or if their opinion has changed over the course of the case. There is no ambiguity about whether my question relates directly to the decision I am being asked to make with respect to the proposed decisions posted. The statement was said before the case and during the case request process which serves a very difference purpose. If you are implying I was disingenuously leading Rama along a line of questioning to trap them into a specific response, you are very mistaken. Mkdw ^talk 20:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Asked and answered

I'm sorry you think I am implying anything. I am saying that the question you asked was leading. The question was leading because Rama is getting desysopped for having undeleted a page. They stated they would not have done so in hindsight. You therefore plainly asked 'you said you regretted doing the action which is getting you punished, do you still regret it?' What I'm not saying, however, is that you meant it that way. I cannot know that. I know I don't know what you want to know, and I also know Rama doesn't know what you want to know. According to the current vote tally, Rama is getting desysopped anyway, so you're asking a leading question in a situation where Rama cannot in any case benefit, no matter their answer. CyrilleDunant (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC) I did not ask my question based upon the assumption desysop is a foregone conclusion. I have to proceed and conduct myself during this case based upon my own line of thinking and reach my own conclusions. If this were simply the case, voting would cease once each proposed remedy reached a majority. We do not run cases this way and it is incumbent on each member of the committee to vote their conscious regardless of the likelihood of any outcome. It is expressly one of the main reasons we have the number of members of the committee to hopefully provide a diverse range of views and in this case Rama's statement made a difference to me. As one of the few dissenting opinions against desysop, I think my comments are more important than ever to indicate the decision was not unanimous based upon a first-past-the-post voting system. So again, if you think my question was leading in an attempt to rub in the reality of a pending outcome, I strongly disagree your categorization and implication. In fact, I think it implies a significant amount of bad faith on my part. Mkdw talk 00:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC) I did not imply bad faith. I quite clearly stated that the question was leading. I also recognise, accept, believe, that you asked the question in good faith. these things are not at odds: they merely mean that the formulation was unclear. We are at the end of a shambolic process where dodgy behaviour was not flagged (cross wiki stalking for example, holding of decade-long grudges on arcana, actual admission that Wade is being stalked). The arbcom is voting on a principle that was expressly deemed out of scope (how is biographies of living persons not about the content dispute?). The only content not moved to its own section by the clerks, but outright deleted was Wade's testimony. My belief in the fairness of the arbcom (collectively) is being strained, I think understandably. CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC) "Maybe you could try asking them plainly what you want to know?" implying dishonesty in my question and "You therefore plainly asked 'you said you regretted doing the action which is getting you punished, do you still regret it?' implies bad faith ulterior meaning and motive. Mkdw talk 16:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC) "Maybe you could try asking them plainly what you want to know?" meaning "your question is ambiguous and poorly phrased", and then I indicated how it could be read. This meaning I proposed does not imply bad faith and ulterior motive but can only result from bad faith and ulterior motive. I'm at loss to understand how this could be understood otherwise: that's why a reformulation/clarification would have been kind to Rama. At this point, FYI, you've insisted multiple times you acted in good faith (which I did not doubt), but never offered any clarification to your question, indicating you will not extend to me the assumption of good faith you demand for yourself.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: You can add to your list of oddities that apparently whether Rama was in fact justified or not in thinking that this deletion was part of a pattern of harassment is apparently completely irrelevant. (FYI, people, you don't need to be wanting to harass, or even being aware of doing it, merely that you not notice that you are making the same point as a very large number of people at once, overwhelming your victim. That doesn't make you a harasser, but should make you stop and think). And in fact, this whole sad arbcom started with DeltaQuad accidentally canvassing support against Rama [2]. (I insist on accidentally, I sincerely don't think that was their intention, but it's a very good example of how you can participate in pile-ups accidentally).

@Sitush: And so this [3] never happened. It's clearly an accident, but I'm quite certain it's not unlike what you say, following the procedure. The key point here, of course, is that it takes very large amounts of self-delusion to refuse to see that having 20 people at once shouting at you is a very unpleasant thing which does not, in fact, lead to people to have calm, rational discussions. CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Ah, yes, nothing wrong happened, and if it did, it's their fault. The philosophical position that an action that had no consequences should be punished because its author did not, under threat, declare it to be wrong immediately is so monstrous, that even before the Enlightenment people would have felt queasy about it. CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: What norm? The norm that the demands of some editors be acceded to immediately? The norm that bullying should be encouraged? The norm that we prefer pages deleted to pages added perhaps? Of course punctual, consequence-free violation of whatever norm you (or anyone) believe exists should be let go, let alone be arbcomed. That's the very spirit of IAR! More importantly, this is an obvious recipe for unequal justice. CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pldx1: I imagine that if one exclusively browses wikipedia using the user contribution tool, your position could make some kind of sense. CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I think that the way this case developed should in fact have changed your outlook on it. The arbcom has decided now, and made it precedent, that to use the words of @Sitush: 'community norms' should be enforced first and everything else comes second. In fact, 'community norms' should be enforced with a severity outside of all proportion (no consequences, no subsequent risk, single error in 10 years, desysop! ). This is a truly terrible outcome as the community norms are systematically biased -- an no one denies it here (but apparently, it's irrelevant)! We've had this as an example of what our 'community norms' apparently are [4]... The systematic scrutiny of a particular contributor is right because they make occasionally errors. On wikipedia. The clear, unambiguous decision of the arbcom is that this is right and should continue.

Systematic and harsh scrutiny will cause a number of false negatives, furthering the bias we've been assured we all want to combat (never mind the fact that a real human being is being quasi-harassed). But these are the 'community norms' which need to be enforced because they are norms.

Much hay also has been made from the need to retain the 'trust' of the community. What about the trust of the readers of the encyclopedia who discover that some contributions are less valued than the comfort of some users! I know as a reader that WP has mistakes, and that they largely self correct. What cannot be corrected is information that is not there.CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: I had not forgotten this. I simply thought it unkind to point out that that you are in effect harrassing for the greater good. The contentious articles may not all meet the threshold for notability, and this is the only relevant bit of BLP with respect to inclusion in the encyclopedia. This does not warrant systematic scrutiny by you or anyone, and should be left to occur organically. The policy does not say anything as stupid as 'if you find x dodgy sources, the article may be deleted'. Rather, the sources/claims can and should be deleted speedily.

Whilst we're on the topic of bias, I note for example that the article on the preeminent world specialist on concrete microstructure (who happens to be a woman) is held in draft by @DGG: on the grounds that it's too complimentary. That article was not even Wade's work! CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Your exact words are Sooner or later, as happens with socks and copyright violators, someone will say "we need to go through this lot". It's predictable because it happens time and again, and it is exempt from the usual accusations of stalking. This means the scrutiny she's subject to, were Wade not guilty of (apparently) egregious and systematic errors in her articles, be stalking. Your own words Sitush. If the problem is so large, and the errors so unfixable, then perhaps Wade should be banned from the encyclopedia? CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Mkdw

@Rama: Do you still believe and stand behind this statement? In hindsight, would you have done things differently? Mkdw ^talk 15:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Rama

@Mkdw: If I had known at the time of the incident what I know now, I would not have restored the article. I hope this answers your question. Rama (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rama: At risk of being disagreeable, I must say that your answer seems evasive. Would you explain what specific knowledge about this matter do you now possess, and why would it have changed your judgement to undelete the page unilaterally? AGK ■ 19:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As I have stated before a number of times, I believed that my action would be widely understood and accepted. I now know that a number of editors vehemently oppose it and have construed it as some sort of power-grab. I see not that my action did not have the intended healing and pacifying effect that I intended. In fact I deeply regret the additional unpleasantness that Dr. Wade has had to sustain in these proceedings and that she would probably not have had to endure without my action. Rama (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For general information, I received this interesting message [5] on my talk page. Change from the usual barrage of borderline statements, this one I think everybody will agree is obviously reprehensible. But of course since this is an IP it is nobody in particular and not indicative of a tendency, since we do not have a harassment problem on Wikipedia. And it is certainly my own fault or whatever. Rama (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I see it was immediately reverted by someone else, and they've now been blocked - what more do you want? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry :( It is, unfortunately, not uncommon for drive-by trolls to show up during arb cases to needle the participants. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)