![]() | Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section. |
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & GoldenRing ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk) & Worm That Turned ( Talk) & SilkTork ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
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.
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)
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".
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 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:
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.
Selectively enforcing the rules in a particularly stringent manner...
is dysfunctional.... and
has obvious racist and sexist connotations.
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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? – Leviv ich 22:31, 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.) – Leviv ich 00:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but this just bothers me so.
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 So Why 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
So
Why
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
So
Why
10:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
Things we've learnt
I'm disappointed. CyrilleDunant ( talk) 08:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Asked and answered
|
---|
|
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
![]() | Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section. |
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & GoldenRing ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk) & Worm That Turned ( Talk) & SilkTork ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
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.
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)
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".
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 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:
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.
Selectively enforcing the rules in a particularly stringent manner...
is dysfunctional.... and
has obvious racist and sexist connotations.
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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? – Leviv ich 22:31, 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.) – Leviv ich 00:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but this just bothers me so.
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 So Why 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
So
Why
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
So
Why
10:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
Things we've learnt
I'm disappointed. CyrilleDunant ( talk) 08:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Asked and answered
|
---|
|
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)