Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Role of the Arbitration Committee
1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is true, though the scope of the case makes clear what the Committee are looking into, and so I'm not sure this principle is needed: "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. " SilkTork (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Taken word for word from WP:ARBGWE. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think the reduced scope is helpful, but given that Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop is basically just a discussion of sourcing and that content had to be removed from the evidence page because it was too close to a content discussion, it is worth repeating. But I was on the right side of a content dispute isn't justification for using the tools to win said content dispute, and ArbCom can't factor that into whether or not there is a behavioural issue in play. Stating it explicitly wouldn't harm anything and would make it clear both for parties involved and parties external to Wikipedia what the role of the committee was here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ignore all rules and consensus
2) Ignore all rules and governance by consensus are both central principles of Wikipedia. Ignore all rules allows users to improve Wikipedia in circumstances that established community policy has not foreseen and actions taken under its justification are subject to community consensus. Administrators and editors should not appeal to the ignore all rules policy as a way of imposing their view on a situation once a community consensus has been established.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Changed my mind on only proposing one thing. This is a more general principle that I think gets to the heart of this case, and in all likelihood, defining this relationship formally in a principle will probably be the most significant thing to come from this case. I don't particularly care one way or another on the wordsmithing, but I think this captures what the unspoken agreement is on the relationship between these two key principles is. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is a good one.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a reference on-hand, but I'm fairly certain there have been past IAR-related principles that make the point that IAR is critical but is expected to be invoked in balance. Exceptional acts require exceptional claims, etc. etc. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 00:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is on target. Administrative supervoting to alter consensus-built outcomes is not a valid instance of IAR. The outcome may be right, it may be wrong — these things work themselves out over time — but the "solution" here was definitely wrong. Carrite (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tool use in emergencies
1) Only if they have reason to believe there exists a present and very serious emergency (i.e., reasonable possibility of actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a person if not acted upon with administrative tools) that needs to be dealt with immediately, administrators are permitted to use their tools to overturn a community decision without prior discussion. If an administrator invokes an emergency, they are required to immediately afterwards describe and address the matter without being prompted to.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * FWIW, since it’s been mentioned below, I never claimed a consensus to salt (or that it was a full weeklong AfD consensus. I closed it under G4 as it was substantially the same, though, I think someone else closing as SNOW or similar would likely have been justified in the circumstances.) Salting was due to the fact that at that point, we’d had an AfD and a DRV, a correctly tagged and if were honest, incorrectly removed G4 that forced opening an AfD and an admin (me) to close it again after people had already commented, and it appeared likely to me that this article was likely to be recreated arguing improvement until people grew tired of AfDing it. Since there was some support in the 2nd AfD and there was both a DRV and a full length AfD behind it, I felt salting was justified as it wouldn’t allow one person to overrule the apparent consensus of the community on multiple occasions. Going off of my proposed principle above, IAR is supposed to be used in conjunction with consensus in circumstances that policy does not foresee and where if put to a discussion would likely be endorsed or at least found reasonable in the circumstances, such as in emergencies. It should never be used as a justification to go against the community’s will. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My other comment here is that even if an admin thinks the situation has changed, they shouldn’t be making a content decision non-admins can’t make. Any admin is free to reverse protection (regardless of what RAAA says, tweaking protection levels without much discussion isn’t unusual as it isn’t usually contentious. This case was different though, as the article Rama cited should have made clear.) One of the concerns here is that an admin made a content call over consensus in two discussions rather than removing protection as an uninvolved party to let someone else create. There is a distinction, and I think it’s why a lot of people are concerned here (also worth noting that I care more about the principles in this case than I do about any FoF or remedy.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you then saying that this article could never be recreated, no matter the amount of improvement? Is that not an extreme position?CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Taken from Administrators. So  Why  12:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see recreating an article or changing an article's protection level as "overturning a community decision", especially when there was no explicit community consensus about whether salting was appropriate. Also, the words "overturn" and "community decision" are not present in WP:ADMIN. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the community decided to delete an article and an admin undoes the deletion saying "I don't agree with that", how would you call that? Notably, there is no evidence of a recreation in this case, i.e. a new creation of an article on a deleted subject with new or different content. Instead, there was a reversal of a deletion without any changes to the article itself. As for the last part, you are correct, that part I extrapolated from the policy. WP:ADMIN does not spell it out explicitly but in the spirit of IAR that is the basis for the "Exceptional circumstances" section, any action - including overturning a community decision - can be an appropriate use of tools if the other requirements are fulfilled as well. For example, if a discussion on a talk page leads to consensus to include a certain personal detail in a BLP and an admin is made credibly aware that the living person that is subject of the article would experience imminent and serious harm if that detail is further publicized, we would expect the admin to remove the detail from the article even if it means overturning said consensus (but we would also expect them to explain why they did it without being prompted). Regards So  Why  18:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the second deletion was a G4 deletion, not an AfD deletion. G4 is a CSD criteria. So it's a CSD+salt as an ordinary admin action (well within the admin's discretion to do), but not a deletion following a full AfD. In that case, WP:UDP and WP:SALT allow another admin to unsalt and undelete in appropriate circumstances, e.g., when new sources are published, but not limited to emergency circumstances as described in WP:ADMIN. The only community-consensus deletion was the first one, way back in February (and that one was weak consensus, not strong consensus), and there were a significant number of new sources available by April 29 that would have allowed recreation without violating G4. Leviv&thinsp;ich 19:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * G4 allows deletion if the article is recreated without addressing the issues raised that led to the deletion. Yes, other reasons exist to recreate an article but they require an actual change to be made, something that was not the case here. Community consensus was to delete a page on a subject based on and despite the "sources" in the article. The admin action was to restore this article by claiming that the consensus was "wrong", not that circumstances had changed. If Rama had asked Tony whether he'd be okay with them restoring the article to add new sources that would require the prior consensus to be reassessed, we wouldn't have this conversation. We have it because Rama declared an emergency and overturned the decision to delete because they believed the consensus was mistaken. Or, to put it another way: If you can reasonably be expected to first discuss what you want to do, especially if there is an established process (DRV) to handle exactly this kind of request, it's not an emergency. Regards So  Why  19:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I read Rama's log entry, talk page, and ANI comments as saying that circumstances had changed (as well as pointing out the original deletion decision was "questionable", i.e., weak consensus, not strong consensus). The deletion decision was from Feb; the G4 was early April; half a dozen new publications had come out since then (explicitly referenced by Rama) and they were coming out like almost every day in the week leading up to Rama's undeletion. That Rama didn't add sources to the article after undeletion may have been due to him being busy responding to the near-instant ANI thread (45 minutes after undeletion) and Arbcom case (2 hours). While Rama has said he was acting in an emergency situation, and I think that perception is reasonable, I'm not sure that we want to say that the only time an admin can reverse a G4 or unsalt is in an emergency situation. That does not seem in keeping with the policies as laid out at UDP and SALT. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The log entry reads "Evidently notable, deletion of the article is a major embarassement for Wikipedia: [...]". Their second edit to the draft reads "Notability is ridiculously obvious.". As you pointed out yourself, between restoration and Sitush challenging said restoration, 35 minutes passed, which was more than enough time to add more sources if Rama had undeleted the article because they believed that new sources warranted said undeletion. That this was not the reason for the restoration is confirmed by Rama's own statement that they thought "that the deletion process was mistaken" and that the article had "such solid references". Regards So  Why  07:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At the time of the re-creation; there was a supposed consensus in favor of the salting which he did not care for.
 * That a subsequent DRV, (post-dating the re-creation) finds no consensus as to the issue of salting hardly entitles some degree of legitimacy to the recreation. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That a subsequent DRV, (post-dating the re-creation) finds no consensus as to the issue of salting hardly entitles some degree of legitimacy to the recreation. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Reversing another administrator's action
2) Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Word-for-word from WP:RAAA. So  Why  12:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Real world and Wikipedia
3) Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources to write articles but cannot avoid being the subject of coverage in such sources itself. While critical coverage of Wikipedia can be a useful catalyst for initiating changes, the project's decision-making cannot be dependent on off-wiki descriptions or discussions of its policies and actions. Off-wiki criticism of a perceived problem on Wikipedia is never in itself a reason to act, especially not against previously established consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I couldn't find any previous template to copy from so I wrote my own but if someone knows a case where this was already established, that wording should probably be used instead. I think it's important to make it clear to everyone, on- and off-wiki, that someone's off-wiki opinion on how Wikipedia should work can only be a valid reason to act if it's in accordance to our policies and guidelines as well. So  Why  12:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This language suggests that Wikipedia should be written for editors and not for readers. All on-wiki criticism and opinions would be coming from editors, whereas "off-wiki criticism" is also known as reader feedback. We should not ignore off-wiki criticism; rather, the opposite: Wikipedia's decision-making should take into account off-wiki discussions. The encyclopedia is for readers, not for editors. Leviv&thinsp;ich 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure why you think so. Off-wiki criticism can be a useful catalyst for initiating changes as I noted. It just is not a reason in itself to make changes. I'd be happy to clarify that proposal if you can elaborate where exactly you see a problem with the proposed wording. Regards So  Why  14:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think off-wiki criticism is reason in and of itself to make changes. If our readers hate what we're doing, we should change. If editors like something, but readers don't, the readers' opinion should prevail over the editors' opinion. Off-wiki criticism is more important than on-wiki criticism, because reader feedback is more important than editor feedback, because readers are more important than editors. That said, I don't see a "problem" with your proposal in the sense that it requires changing, just that we have two different (and maybe diametrically opposed) opinions on the subject. For whom is Wikipedia? I say it's for the readers. So what the media says is more important to me than what editors say at an AfD, because the media reflects popular opinion (our readers), whereas AfDs and DRVs reflect only editor opinion. That doesn't mean we slavishly follow what the media says, but it does mean that we don't think of the media as irrelevant, or characterize responding to the media as being a "soldier of a foreign army" as suggested by other editors on the evidence page. Leviv&thinsp;ich 15:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree in principle that Wikipedia should serve the readers, I disagree that just because the media says we should do something, we should do it. Most of the credibility an encyclopedia has comes from the fact that it has clear rules and requirements on scope and verifiability. Consequently, if the media says we should ignore these rules and requirements for a certain subject, that might be a reason to reflect whether they are still valid in principle but not to actually ignore them for the desired subject while upholding them for other subjects. Doing so would remove any neutrality from the project, another cornerstone of credibility. So if the media criticizes something, we should indeed reflect whether something went wrong and if it did, fix it because then the reason to do so comes from within as well. On a side note, I think the statement the media reflects popular opinion (our readers) needs a tag because more often than not, the media will only reflect a very tiny part of the public opinion and the majority of readers might actually disagree with it. And that brings us to another problem with this line of thinking: If we listen to what the media says, which media do we trust to accurately portray what (a majority of) readers think? Regards  So  Why  15:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Clear rules" but also no firm rules. Maybe we're not as diametrically opposed as I first thought. I agree we shouldn't slavishly follow the media–i.e., do something just because they say we should–but neither should we ignore the media or consider it out-of-policy to take the media into consideration. "The media shapes public opinion" is a statement with which no one would disagree. You bring up a good point about which media to listen to, etc., and that of course has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. So I'm of the opinion that both on-wiki and off-wiki criticism and feedback should be taken into account, and weighed on a case-by-case basis. That means it's not fair to say that an admin is violating policy by doing something in response to something written in the popular press, and it is possible for an admin to reasonably perceive a public relations crisis that requires emergency action. Whether such a perception is reasonable would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis, which means that in this case, Arbcom should look at whether Rama's perception was reasonable or not. (Which means looking at the press sources, which is why they are not out of scope. But I digress.) Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would write the principle to say something like, "We write for our readers, and responding to reader feedback is important." Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The key issue is that the real world uses people with subject matter expertise to determine if a subject should be covered, and so that's what it expects an encyclopedia to do. Wikipedia has chosen not to rely on subject matter experts, though, substituting a system of criteria to evaluate subjects based on what external sources say. Sure, it might be better in the long run to align with real-world expectations, but there is no appetite in the subset of the English Wikipedia community who engage in these types of discussions to move in this direction. isaacl (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious if something similar to this has been expressed by the Committee before. I can think of one exceptionally long-term editor for whom [o]ff-wiki criticism of a perceived problem on Wikipedia is never in itself a reason to act might be worth hearing. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 00:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps should reformulate and rather says "If our good thinking readers hate what we're doing, we should change". Otherwise, Levivich will be required to obey the injunction: "If our bad thinking readers hate what we're doing, we should change". But this wouldn't be politically correct,  would it ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I find this statement very interesting. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on your point?CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama failed to follow the administrator policy
1) has restored the article Clarice Phelps without previously or afterwards consulting the deleting and protecting administrator,, and without any present emergency that would have required them to act immediately without prior discussion. Rama has also not initiated a discussion about their restoration, only explaining their reasons after being challenged on their talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Follows logically from principles #1 and #2 and the evidence, especially the fact that the news coverage a) was already a couple of days old by the time they acted and b) was never able to do serious harm to the project anyway considering that it merely restated what was already known. So  Why  12:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama is unable to understand the problem with their actions
2) Throughout all discussions about their behavior, Rama has not shown the necessary ability to understand why the way (and not why) they acted was problematic. Especially, Rama has not displayed any understanding that they were acting against the rules without a good reason and that the community objects to administrators acting this way on principle, not because of the subject of the article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Based on their own comments, especially at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. So  Why  13:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This recent diff (from last hour) is further confirmation of this FoF, especially the part in which Rama contends that "Undoing [their] action and apologising for it would have amounted to admitting that [Wikipedians], actually, do not care at all" about looking "like a sexist and racist community". Regards So  Why  15:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama engaged in personal attacks and casting aspersions
3) Throughout all most discussions about their behavior, Rama has resorted to personally attacking editors criticizing their actions and casting aspersions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not sure about "all", but there is much in this statement that I would agree with, and is, for me, a more central concern than the single incident of undeleting the article. I can understand, and would defend Rama's undeletion action, but I don't understand the antagonistic attitude toward others. SilkTork (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Based on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. So  Why  07:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded - I wrote the same thing 07:50 and comitted a minute after SoWhy at 07:49. I want to note this was also done on the recreated article's talk page (contesting speedy deletion), prior to the arbitration request being opened as well as subsequently - outside of a forum for discussing editor conduct.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I struck the "all" and replaced it with "most" per 's correct objection. Also, I would add this comment by Rama, especially #3 and #4, to the list of reasons why this FoF is correct. Regards So  Why  07:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama has a flawed understanding of basic requirements regarding notability
4) Rama has demonstrated that they are either not familiar or not willing to accept that notability can only be established by reliable sources independent of the subject or by meeting the requirements of a subject-specific notability guideline . They also fail to understand or accept that the numerical amount of sources in an article does not automatically translate into notability.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * As evidenced by their own proposed FoF. Regards So  Why  08:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have an objection to the FOF.
 * Independence of the source is not an objective binary concept and NACADEMIC accepts non-independent sources to some extent. There's a related community discussion around this locus and it's not appropriate for the Committee to create policy in disputed areas. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct of course, my proposal was too broad and did not take into account specialized guidelines. I amended it accordingly. Regards So  Why  11:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The second line is very appropriate but am not certain about the former. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 10:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The second line is very appropriate but am not certain about the former. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Rama desysopped
1) is desysopped for misuse of administrative tools, inadequate communication, and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. They may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * While, for me, desysopping as a possible sanction in this case has not been ruled out or ruled in, I do think that I would be very unlikely to support a desysop based on the undeletion that prompted this case. That the undeletion can reasonably be argued to fall under IAR, and was done with the interests of the project as a whole, would likely prevent me from supporting a desysop based on that act. But the other aspects of Rama's behaviour have given me cause for concern. And with the details of Rama's past controversy, and the minimal use of the admin tools given to them, it could be argued that the project may well be better off if they didn't have the tools. If there was to be a desysop, that is the argument that I would be looking at. SilkTork (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What weighs most heavily in this direction is the conduct of Rama since the undeletion. I do think the undeletion was egregiously bad, in that it unilaterally overruled a recent consensus in favor of the admin's own strongly-held convictions about the content, but that could possibly have been written off as a one-time extreme error in judgement. I am much more concerned that Rama has responded to very legitimate criticism of their undeletion by doubling down and throwing around veiled aspersions about racism/sexism. It's very unclear to me that Rama understands why their original action drew criticism, and if they don't understand what went wrong, I think we have to consider the possibility that this problem could crop up again. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Based on the pure lack of understanding of community behavioural expectations of an administrator on the English Wikipedia that can be found in Rama's "Bullying" proposal on this page, I think a desysop is the only option at this time. The actual reversal without talking to me wasn't that big of a deal. The way Rama has acted after it is. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * I know this is a controversial proposal but after reviewing all the evidence, I think it's also the only possible reaction. I know that I proposed desysopping already when this case was requested but during the comment phase, I was actually inclined to be convinced that Rama's actions, rule-breaking as though they were, were a momentary lapse of judgment made with the best interest of the project at heart. And on the surface, one might still believe it. However, as the case progressed and especially Rama commented on it, it became painfully obvious that the problem is not said momentary lapse in judgment but a general inability and/or unwillingness to understand why their actions have led to this case. As pointed out by multiple editors, Rama, when confronted for their actions, did not acknowledge that they made a mistake but rather maintained and maintain that they had to right a great wrong using their tools to do so despite knowing that there was a community consensus against doing so. Also, instead of calmly discussing the problem with their actions as expected from an admin per WP:ADMINACCT, Rama instead cast aspersions and accused those involved in both the deletion of the article and this Case of wikilawyering etc. Considering all these factors, I see no way that the community can still have faith in Rama to meet their expectations of how an admin should act. I have also considered the risks Newyorkbrad outlined in his statement, especially that such a move might be conceived as punishment for trying to increase the coverage of certain topics. And while this might well happen, not acting when an admin breaches the rules in this manner would set a far more dangerous precedent for other admins using their tools to win content disputes which in turn might also lead to negative reporting, e.g. "Wikipedia tolerates admin deleting material critical of [insert unfavorable world leader]" (or, in the words of Sir Terry Pratchett's Sam Vimes, "Once you had a good excuse, you opened the door to bad excuses."). In the end, potential unfavorable publicity, something Wikipedia deals with all the time anyway, cannot be a reason to act differently in this case just as it cannot be a reason to treat one subject different from others. Regards  So  Why  09:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Any editor who believes this Case to be "an attempt by a small group of editors to instrumentalise the Arbcom to consolidate their hold on a turf" obviously lacks the necessary skills of self-reflection that the community expects to see in their admins. Regards  So  Why  07:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Desysop seems the only logical conclusion. Not just for the rash undeletion, but just as much for the extremely dubious justifications afterwards (which consisted mainly of casting evidence-free aspersions on everyone else), the behaviour during this case (very little participation, and what they offered was way below par: hamf has been removed, the start of the other half I analysed at the evidence talk page and turned out to be rather factfree), and also taking into consideration that they don't do other useful admin stuff anyway. Note also that their regular edits can use some scrutiny: I wondered if they had reacted to this case the last few days, and noticed that they had edited Middle-earth weapons and armour instead. I have had to undo their three edits there, as they had inserted copyright violating images here. I have nominated their 19 copyvio uploads for deletion at Commons (where they are an admin as well...). Fram (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad's statement, and I think that desysoping Rama will do far, far more damage to the project than any precedent this case might set. For me, this goes back to: is Wikipedia inward- or outward-facing, is it for the editors or the readers, do we care more about our internal procedures or our reputation? To remove a bit for a single undeletion risks a PR nightmare in this case, and it would be grossly disproportionate. I can hardly imagine any scenario where undeleting a page (or deleting a page), once, should result in removal of the tools. It would also be grossly disproportionate to prior precedent, such as the GS and Enigmaman cases, both of which involved multiple tools/actions and repeated conduct. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain, this proposal was not made because of "a single undeletion" but because of the action (which was more than just a single undeletion, see FoF above) combined with Rama's conduct afterwards. I am also doubtful that the "PR nightmare" will really happen unless someone from this project actively encourages it. In fact, I doubt that it will even be noticed. Also, you are positing a false dichotomy. It's not a question of caring more about "internal procedures or our reputation". Our reputation is built on the fact that we don't let outside forces influence our procedures. If we allow it in this case, how credible are we the next time we want to reject what someone outside the project thinks we should change? Regards So  Why  16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You will then have to demonstrate how this fits with the criteria for notability, which depend entirely on what you call 'external forces'.CyrilleDunant (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, a desysop is the correct outcome: the weight to grant any "offence" is the (admittedly hypothetical and somewhat subjective) impact it would have at a RfA. In this case, the hypothetical and subjective nature of the said RfA is completely irrelevant, as Rama's stated approach (not even the actions themselves) and understanding of policy are so egregiously at odds with what the comunity expects from its administrators that it would tank the RfA in an hour. The division between how admins are expected to behave—both in acting and discussing—and how Rama behaved—in both their actions and subsequent discussions is too great to expect any possible behavioural change in the near future. This view is only encouraged by the fact that of the few admin actions they have previously made, similar issues have been demonstrated. This suggests that this was not a one-off error on their part but a consistent problem: however rarely they use the tools, they should be expected to use them correctly, and it is certainly a curious defence to suggest that it's less of a problem because it doesn't happen very often.Pace those who advocate caution in the face of "real world" implications, I would advise the committee to take this with a large grain of salt. It's at least scaremongering; Wikipedia is not going to be brought down because a poor admin lost their bit, and I doubt anyone is suggesting the Alexa ranking will collapse...WP:READERs come here for the encyclopaedia, not the community. I'm not actually particularly convinced that the PR is such a problem: the MSM stopped discussing the original story some time ago, and it is now effectively the preserve of advocacy blogs. ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what Levivich asserts, we are not for removing the bit in sole light of the picemeal event of his un-deleting Phelps. That's a quarter-valid cause, at best. What is more important is the existence of sufficient long-term evidence of Rama failing to recognize any consensus which goes against his personal views and the feeling that he always knows what's best for the project. Throughout his decade-prior file-deletion saga and this particular case, we have seen consistently similar attempts to project his detractors (who are in a majority) as part of a nefarious CABAL-conspiracy . Such an attitude is fundamentally incompatible with admin-ship and as such will easily snow-sink a RFA. The other points of the justification are extremely dubious if not blatantly wrong (pointing to other white male bios which are apparently non-scrutinized, other articles of Wade which were subsequently nominated only to be kept) and primarily seeks to derive a post-factum explanation. He has also not bothered to rebut the numerous discrepancies in his evidence, that has been since pointed by me, Fram and others. Rama had his chances and I, despite all these, were unsure about choosing between a de-sysop and a strong admonishment for a long time. But this proposal of his' shows an extremely blatant lack of situational awareness. "an attempt by a small group of editors to instrumentalise the Arbcom to consolidate their hold on a turf" is one of the many gems present over there. Hence, far from being a disproportionate remedy, it's the sole viable choice. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrator conduct
1) Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Something like this would be appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied from the Enigmaman case. Iffy★Chat -- 13:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Administrator accountability
2) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the arbitration committee. Administrators should be reasonably aware of community standards and expectations when using administrative tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied from the Enigmaman case. Iffy★Chat -- 13:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied from the Fred Bauder case. Iffy★Chat -- 13:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied from the Fred Bauder case. Iffy★Chat -- 13:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Criticism and casting aspersions
5) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied from the German war effort case. Iffy★Chat -- 20:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Rama desysopped
1) Rama is desysopped for misuse of administrative tools, inadequate communication, and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. Rama may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Based on the Enigmaman case. Iffy★Chat -- 09:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Rama admonished
2) Rama is admonished for misuse of administrative tools, inadequate communication, and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If the committee does not wish to desysop, then they should at least admonish Rama in this case. Iffy★Chat -- 09:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed resolution
(In a recent discussion somewhere, and arb said they'd love to see in general workshop participation to be less continued skirmishing between parties, and less about wordsmithing principles, FoFs, and remedies and more about the community opining overall how the problem could be resolved. Giving it a try...)

This case is about the how two fundamental pillars of Wikipedia, IAR and consensus, need to coexist. It's not really about administrator misconduct, but rather about dropping the stick where these two pillars mash up to each other.

I'd love to see Arbcom reaffirm that passionately trying to improve Wikipedia and protecting it from (perceived) reputational damage is good, and IAR can and should be used as appropriate. But, as Ton Ballioni writes more eloquently above (principle 2), absent real and truly grievous emergencies, the IAR stick needs to be dropped when there is strong community pushback. And that admins in particular responding to concern about their use of IAR with a battleground mentality is unhelpful.

As to remedies, I'd love to see Rama acknowledge that in retrospect his approach was disruptive, and undertake to not act in this way again. I'd then have solid faith in him continuing to wield the mop, with some sort of pro forma reminder or mild admonishment from Arbcom sufficient as formal resolution. Unfortunately, his current evidence/comment isn't there yet, it's more defensive and explanatory (not wrong per se given how such conflicts go, just insufficient to provide confidence this problem won't repeat). If he remains unwilling to acknowledge something like this, then the admonishment needs to be stronger (for the future health of the community), and possibly accompanied by some sort of "IAR ban" (a topic ban from sidestepping process given his IAR-suitability meter is a bit off...), possibly temporary, for him.

Desysopping seems quite excessive. We do and should desysop admins who are abusive, e.g. wield or threaten the banhammer, or otherwise berate users while waving their mop around; or are hopelessly clueless about mopping responsibilities, or uncommunicative about their admin actions; all especially if there is a pattern rather than one-off suboptimal judgment. That's not the case here. Rama's explanations have been cogent, timely, and well-thought out. It's just his finger has been a bit too jumpy on the IAR trigger, and reluctant to let go.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Some interesting thoughts here. I think there is room for the community as a whole to have more discussion on IAR. Though personally I would not like to see IAR limited by defining examples of when or where it can and can't be used, because it serves as a very useful tool just as it is. Part of IAR is that at times it may be misused, but we shouldn't ever punish someone for a one off good faith use of IAR in which they honestly felt it was for the benefit of the project, even if later the community decide the action was not appropriate. I feel comments that IAR shouldn't be used when there has been some form of consensus or process, are in the sphere of limiting the function of IAR. I feel such comments are reacting to this situation, rather than the bigger picture. I don't think we should put a chilling effect on using IAR; certainly we should not be desysopping admins for using it in what is clear was a well intentioned manner. Indeed, I hope that part of the outcome of this case should be a clear statement that admins need not be afraid to use IAR for the greater good of the project and/or the real world outside our project. Remember that our processes are part of the Rules that we should at times Ignore, and the notion that we can pick and choose which of those Rules that IAR doesn't apply to is perhaps missing the point of IAR.
 * But, of course, using IAR carries with it a certain expectation that the person applying IAR will explain themselves, and will indeed reverse their action if their explanation is found to lack consensus. IAR cannot be used without rationale and appropriate justification and the willingness of the person applying IAR to answer all relevant questions in a timely and polite manner. And that is the area which this case should be looking at, for that is where I feel Rama has let themselves, the community and IAR down. The responses have been less than adequate. Indeed, they have been so inappropriate as to question if Rama should continue to carry the toolbox. I said yes to this case not because of the use of IAR, but because of Rama's response to the reaction to it, particularly the battleground mentality Rama displayed.
 * So, yes, on the whole I agree that ArbCom should defend IAR. And I agree that focus in this case should be on Rama's highly irregular and inappropriate responses to questions and concerns about the use of IAR. SilkTork (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Alanscottwalker. I think we're saying the same thing. You may not have read as far as the second paragraph in which I say that communication is important. To condense my comment: I support admins using IAR in good faith provided they are prepared to communicate in an appropriate manner about their actions. SilkTork (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - where appropriate there should be discussions before an action, but the project can get bogged down with bureaucracy if there is a requirement to get consensus before performing every act. Be bold encourages editors to be active. Bold and IAR together encourage editors to act if they see something they feel is wrong - I would be very hesitant to start eroding those principles. Of course if people use either Bold or IAR inappropriately they need to be made aware of that, and if they do it repeatedly they need to be sanctioned. I do not see that Bold or IAR was used inappropriately in this instance: an editor saw concern in the media that an article had been deleted and so undeleted it in order to protect Wikipedia's reputation. The article was not in violation of our policies - it was not a BLP violation or a copyvio. The only problem with the article was that there was concern about notability and sourcing. To put that into context (not as an argument for keeping the article, but just to put the undeletion of the article into its context), we have over 2,000 BLP articles that are totally unsourced: Category:Unreferenced BLPs, and over 100,000 BLP articles that are inadequately sourced: Category:BLP articles lacking sources. Now, we do get criticised for those, but not as much as we get criticised for deleting articles on female scientists. So, on balance, I see the argument and justification for undeleting the article as valid. As such I would not be supporting a sanction for that action. But I may well consider supporting one for the inappropriate response afterwards, particularly the battlefield mentality, especially in light of Rama's previous dispute with the community. It appears to me that, regardless of the deletion, they may be unsuited to being an admin. SilkTork (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you intend to ping me? I've read your comment, and it doesn't appear to relate to what I've written. SilkTork (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the relationship between what you are saying and my comments. If you wish to talk further on this matter it would be less distracting for others to do it on my talkpage until we reach an understanding, and then I can reply here as appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think it's even more than that, you can't seriously expect people to let go of the trigger when you are threatening them. And It's not really relevant that you believe or not you are doing any threatening: having half a dozen people jumping on you at once is threatening.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Such a thing is no "threat", and claiming it is so is preposterous or almost slanderous. Any administrator who would possibly imagine otherwise is singularly unfit to be an administrator. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently you believe being ganged up upon is normal. May I suggest that accusing people of what is actual criminal behaviour because they suggest different sides may have different perspectives may be the reason for that (apparently) common occurrence (to you)? I should add that your public statement does in fact fall under criminal law under certain jurisdictions.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's possible you do not understand the words "threat" and "preposterous or almost slanderous" but nothing you have said describes a threat or anything criminal. It remains any administrator that would imagine otherwise is unfit to be an administrator. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain how you not knowing the finer points of libel law across the world is germane to this case.CyrilleDunant (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope what does not come out of this is it is encouraged for administrators not to communicate when they obviously should. Indeed, there would be nothing more damaging to the project, as well as for the world, saying communication is easily dispensed with before action by those with power. Discussion is a 5P principle too, and IAR, does not create a rule that discussion cannot happen before use of tools. Let's remember, that it is probable we would not even be here, and nothing of your concerns would have arisen without an administrator who deliberately did not model communication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I read you second paragraph before I wrote my previous comment, it appeared to suggest communication is only needed after tool use. But why only after?  If an administrator edits a protected article to their personal preferred version against a demonstrated policy compliant consensus, we call that involved, they don't get off by claiming they said nothing before their edit against consensus. Where there is a content consensus, an administrator should discuss a change of consensus before any tool use. A consensus can be hard to achieve, through the sustained dedication and work in discussion of multiple editors, and the careful thought and work of the closer.  A single admin that just junks it, claiming personal privilege not to discuss before they act, disrupts the project and demoralizes everyone. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "an editor saw concern . . . and so undeleted it." But that is false. An editor could not undelete that article, only an administrator had the power, but not the authority. Administrators are not super-users concerning content, and all those other articles you mention are open for discussion at any-time, as was this article before the tool use. As you acknowledge it would be appropriate to discuss here before tool use, your 'bogged down with bureaucracy' is not a slam against bureaucracy, it is a slam against discussion and finding consensus - without which Wikipedia cannot work. Such discussion is not pro forma either, it serves the substance of the pedia and the so-called "reputation of the pedia", if the User in this matter would have come to others and made an argument, 'this article should be re-created because of x,y,z,' and it was in modicum persuasive, there is every likelihood the article would be recreated in short-order, and without long afterward of Rama's baseless recriminations entirely aimed at dragging down the 'reputation of the pedia', and thier accusations against others.  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason there are admins in the first place, is that vandalism is a thing. Vandalism can be many things, from deleting content to subtly changing articles to suit one's politics. The latter being more pernicious, harder to fight, and more damaging. Similarly vandalism can be the action of an individual or of a group. When an admin suspects vandalism may be occurring, it's not unreasonable from them to decide whether it really was vandalism or a good faith error based on the reaction of the possible vandals. A very virulent response to what is after all adding content to the encyclopedia, in a context where similar content was targeted for deletion following a similar pattern (and was indeed unquestionably vandalism) should cause the admin to feel alarmed! Otherwise, what we are saying is that it's OK to vandalise the encyclopedia provided you do it with ten of your friends. If admins behaved more like Rama, the worse that would happen would be that we might have a few more articles in otherwise under-covered topics.

Rather, the error from Rama's part was to not seek the assistance/opinion of a couple more admins before acting. We cannot know how they would have behaved under 'normal circumstances', they were simply not given the time.

A separate point concerns the activity of Rama. The statistics given correspond to about 2 edits a day, and an admin action every month or so. Clearly, this is not inactivity, and in fact Rama is otherwise extremely active in the wider project, work which find its way back here, from wikidata to commons. It's unfair to characterise Rama as a user/sysop who suddenly decided to do something out of the blue.CyrilleDunant (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did! Your comment seems to leave little scope for admins to combat a whole class of vandalism that they exist in the first place to combat. It seems to me that your generous concerns could be exploited very easily, and as a user/reader (and rare contributor) would diminish considerably my trust in the encyclopedia.CyrilleDunant (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think what Martin wrote in the Proposed resolution above makes a lot of sense, but I fear it hasn't been heard yet. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 21:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators are a necessary element of wikipedia's editorial process
Administrators are given an number of tools which allow them to prevent intentional or accidental degradation of the encyclopedia. Administrators thus are expected to enforce rules evenly, prevent abuse, and be somewhat persistent. It's a sad fact of life that this will anger users. It seems an extraordinary thing that Rama could have been compelled to reverse themself just because a couple of angry users had expressed their displeasure.

If that were the case, then the usefulness of admins to combat vandalism would become nil. Rather, a suitably long discussion in the admin board, including Rama, could, perhaps, if Rama's behaviour had been found egregious throughout by his fellow admins, lead to an arbcom.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators should strive to keep the peace
It is important that administrators de-escalate tensions and be sensitive to heat building up. Administrators can disagree, but should even more than other users, attempt at negotiation before using nuclear options.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

In particular, the arbcom should remind everyone that petty harassment campaigns are not fine.CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * "Petty harassment campaign"? An admin (here and at Commons) uploads more than a dozen copyright violations onto Commons, and then inserts some of them into articles here, during an Arbcom case about them, and as one of the only edits they make (and the most recent ones), so immediately visible for anyone wondering what the ArbCom subject is up to. So what should we do then? Not remove the copyvio's here, and not nominate them for deletion there? Fram (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting line of defense. Ingenious, one might say. Risky, too, when one is attempting to prove they are acting in good faith.CyrilleDunant (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, Fram's good faith is not in doubt. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start an ANI discussion about my "petty harassment campaign" and my "risky" defense of it. Fram (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you've been warned by Commons admins, I see little reason for that. We all believe in sharing knowledge, and today you learnt something about an obscure aspect of copyright law.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, but a "warning" from Yann on Commons, in many people's eyes, counts as little warning at all... ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, at least one õf his closures has already been overturned anyway. (Well, the item has been renominated for the same reason) File:Malcolm Reynolds blaster-P5120252.JPG. And a number of other nominations are still open. Fram (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Assume good faith
Written conversation lacks the subtle cues of verbal communication. It is always difficult to discern the intent and mood of the people you are talking to. It is therefore extremely important in a project like this one that all users strive to assume the best intentions in others. This must be demonstrated, amongst other things by communicating over threads which would be long enough that every participant can be reasonably certain of the other's position and motivations. This sorely lacked in the escalation to this case.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Collegiality and consensus-buildings
Standards of basic kindness, assuming good faith and trying to see the other people's perspective are expected of all administrators and users. It is unreasonable to expect Rama, subject to a barrage of aggression, to behave calmly -- and yet he did, unlike his accusers. It looks, from the outside like a minor accident on the road where one of the party, instead of establishing the facts, starts the conversation with 'I'll see you in court' and then is angry that they did not get an instant apology.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Symmetry
The issue at hand is urgent or it is not. If it is urgent, then this arbcom is justified, but then Rama is also justified in having acted quickly. If it is not urgent, then this arbcom is certainly unjustified at this stage, as there has been no significant discussion between Rama and his detractors. I seems like there is a consensus on urgency.

Admin cannot drive consensus using their tools, or they can. If they cannot, then it is equally wrong to plot keeping the article salted for very long period as it is to undelete it arbitrarily. As consensus is a shifting thing, and new items can and do shift it, this would weigh in Rama's favour.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * There is a sleight of hand here. Two different matters are being conflated into one. Rama's matter: that the article was unfairly subjected to deletion and needed to be reinstated. The Arbitration matter: that Rama misused their tools to override consensus without an acceptable justification. Either or neither matter could be determined to be urgent, but they are not the same matter.
 * ... then it is equally wrong to plot keeping the article salted for very long period ... (emphasis added) - You speak a great deal about assuming good faith, but don't appear to hold yourself to the same expectation. The article was salted to put an end to the cycle of creation and deletion. Hardly a "plot". A consensus to recreate the article at DRV would lift the creation-protection. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

1-Sleeping Admins
Sleeping Admins are supposed to sleep peacefully, not to break china when awakening from an hibernation period


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What is absolute urgency? how does one determine it is or isn't one? answered below


 * This is an excellent principle, from which we may try to deduce who acted ponderously. I would suggest no one in this case. In particular, when Rama was repeatedly threatened, none of the other administrators tried to de-escalate. CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I think this and the other workshop suggestions in this specific section are a red herring on multiple levels. First, taking Pldx1's own evidence at face value, Rama has actually been at least somehwat active throughout, with several hundred or more edits per year, as well as some number of apparently noncontroversial admin actions each year. While they are far from our most active users or admins, they are also far from the level of sustained inactivity to make them a "sleeping admin" under any reasonable definition of the term. Second, the gist of concern -- which by the way is far from reaching consensus agreement -- about inactive admins tends to be some mixture of account security plus concern they "break china" by re-engaging without understanding or awareness of changing norms. In this case, it has been clear Rama acted as he did in full awareness that it ran counter to established processes; Rama was not stumbling due to rusty knowledge but acting out of conviction, which he felt was more important. Martinp (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already given the following table, adding: the figures for 2011-2019 seem so low that I have perhaps missed something. Did I ? Pldx1 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Martinp, I have the impression that your comment and my answer would be in a better place at FoF/1-Sleeping Admins than here. If you agree, don't hesitate to move also my comment. Pldx1 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

2-ADMINACT

 * Without absolute emergency, explaining first, acting after is good practice for an admin
 * In case of emergency, acting first explaining after is a necessity
 * Once the emergency addressed, explaining and facing the critics is a requirement. Acting otherwise only gives the impression that emergency was only an undue allegation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What is absolute urgency? how does one determine it is or isn't one?, question asked just above
 * How do we recognize an emergency from a not-emergency ? This is a great question, but is not the one I am asking for. I am addressing: "how do we recognize perceiving_a_real_emergency from using_alleged_emergency_as_a_trump_card. When perceiving a real emergency, we would have: my duty of explaining was delayed, so that I only explains now. When using emergency as a trump card, we have: nothing to explain, since I have uttered emergency as the magic spell that explains everything, haven't I ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we suggesting we give up on assuming good faith? Surely no matter what a genuine discussion is needed to decide either way.CyrilleDunant (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Assume Good Faith is a policy. Discussing if there was really an emergency, would lead to the question if Rama was really thinking there was an emergency. I don't see any mean to prove anything about this question... and I have not the slightest clue about the answer. There are two reasons why Assume Good Faith is a policy: (1) with a very high frequency, this is the case ; (2) trying to prove the contrary would surely be highly divisive... and quite surely be inconclusive. Thus I am only saying: from the moment Rama stated there was an emergency, Rama became bound by the emergency rule, i.e. by explain later, and all the more in details than the action was in question.  Pldx1 (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

3- WP-rules, not external opinions, are the bounds of a WP-admin action
It should be obvious that Wp-admin actions should be done along the WP-rules and community decisions, and should not be done as dictated by any opinion/lobbying from whatever external entity. Moreover an admin should not present an external entity as an independent external entity when obvious COI are present.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

4-Care and judgement
The following principles are reasserted as general principles, and not only as specific to this case:
 * 1) New administrators are strongly encouraged to start slowly and build up experience in areas they are used to, and to ask others if unsure (from [| WP:admins]).
 * 2) Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) (from: WP:Verifiability).
 * 3) Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable (from WP:BLPSOURCES)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Pldx1 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

5-Good Faith versus Duty of Diligence
Nobody is required to prove her (generic gender pronoun) Good Faith. (1) At a cynical level, Bad Faith is so difficult to prove, that you better don't try ; (2) At a political level, Good Faith is granted by policy ; (3) At a philosophical level, Good Faith is a better basis for humankind. On the contrary, proofs of fulfilling a Duty of Diligence can be required. Pldx1 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

6-Claims and Proofs
Ordinary claims only require ordinary justifications, while extraordinary claims require extraordinary justifications.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * this is only WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Pldx1 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

1-Sleeping Admins
Admin Rama was a Sleeping Admin (see Evidences). Existence of Sleeping Admins is a failure of the community, not of any individual SA, as proven by Administrators/2019_request_for_comment_on_inactivity_standards.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

2-ADMINACT
Admin Rama used his tools to revert other admin actions (deletions after 2 AfD and 1 DRV), arguing emergency. But, after saving the world, has never addressed the concerns underlined in these 3 discussions. None of the Navy alleged source, none of the scientific Te-related ORNL alleged source ever names the subject of the article, were we told in these 3 AFD/DRV. Most of the alleged other sources were PR pieces written by PR people in a PR context, were we told in these 3 AFD/DRV. Admin Rama never paid even a lip service to these assertions. On the contrary Admin Rama described these alleged sources as [nearly 30 references by solid institutions, US Navy, ONRL...].


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

3- WP-rules, not external opinions, are the bounds of any WP-admin action
At [ANI], Admin Rama explained his actions as an answer to the [undark] article. The [undark] article makes a convincing case that the [Phelps'] article is victim of an unfortunately selective enforcement of notability criteria, and is an embarrasment to Wikipedia. And referred to press articles about [this] deletion. When saving the world, admin Rama was not perceiving his action as coming from WP-rules, but as fulfilling the demands of external groups.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

4-Care and judgement
At [nearly 30 references by solid institutions, US Navy, ONRL...], admin Rama stated I have never seen this before as a proof of something. Reported to being here since 2004, this seems impressive. Reported to the fact he hadn't actually restored any page since 2009, hadn't deleted one (apart from G6 maintenance and obvious R3 errors) since 2012 (Evidences by Black Kite), and only took part to [4 AfD] since 2008, this looks deceptive. Endorsing a bibliography where NONE of the nearly 30 alleged references was specifying page, section, timing, or any such divisions that are REQUIRED by policy not only denotes a lack of care, but also a lack of learning the policies by experience building.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed by Pldx1 (talk) at 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

5-Good Faith versus Duty of Diligence
At [Good Faith], Rama stated that Since Rama had not followed the debates on Phelps' article from the start, he was unaware of.... This proves beyond any doubt an extraordinary Lack of Diligence. It would have sufficed to read the [undark] article ---exactly the one supposed to have triggered Rama's action--- to see that:


 * ''(139/160) In the fall of 2011, Phelps was part of a small team at ORNL
 * ''charged with purifying samples of berkelium-249... Phelps and her coworkers Rose
 * ''Boll and Shelley Van Cleve... removed any specks of impurity...
 * ''(149/160) The ultrapure berkelium-249 was... bombarded with calcium ions...
 * ''That experiment — a repeat of one conducted two years earlier — gave
 * ''scientists the data they needed to confirm tennessine’s existence.

The excuse of emergency doesn't cover the period of time from "saving the world" till now. Instead of using this period to simply read the 160 lines undark's article, Rama has preferred to cast aspersions, i.e. trying to cover his tracks rather than admitting any factual error (confusing 2009-2010 with 2011-2012).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by Pldx1 (talk) at 17:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC).

6-Claims and Proofs

 * The following proofs were refuted during the 3 AfD/DRV:
 * (a) - not being named and not being on the group picture proves the participation to the 2009-2010 campaign ;
 * (b) - being named as participant to the 2011-2012 campaign proves the participation to the discovery (2009-2010) ;
 * And now, at [Rama, Bullying section], we have:
 * (c) - Selectively enforcing the rules in a particularly stringent manner, i.e. not having accepted (a) and (b), is dysfunctional.... and has obvious racist and sexist connotations. This can be considered as an extraordinary proof that Rama has not admitted being wrong.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by Pldx1 (talk) at 17:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

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

1-Sleeping Admins
Community is trouted for her laziness/unability/failure to remedy the question of Sleeping Admins. This only creates undue work to the Arbitration Commitee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

2-ADMINACT
For not even paying a lip service to the concerns underlined in the AfD/DRV he was acting against, for not accepting any critics and for asserting he will reiterate his actions, Admin Rama is discharged from his admin tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for "... asserting he will reiterate his actions"? Rama stated in his statement in this case that he will not do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When but doing otherwise would amount to a dismissive and defiant "Wikipedia is not for Social Justice" attitude, which would be irresponsible and deeply suspicious (29 April 2019) turns into instead, I seem to have upset a hornet nest of people very much undisturbed that Wikipedia would be shown to the general population as insensitive to women and minorities, and the article on Phelps now appears to be part of a more general pattern of harassment against User:Jesswade88. As I have repeatedly said, I do realise that what I did was not ideal and turned out to be counterproductive, and if I never intended it to be a regular occurrence, seeing the outcome I am very much determined not to reiterate (02 May 2019), there is a basis. How do you parse hornet nest, general pattern of harassment, counterproductive as an acknowledgment of some wrong doing ? This declaration is only reasserting a pattern of we, the rightful ones against the hornets' army.
 * An admin is not supposed to create collateral damages to WP:verifiability when fighting his war games. Pldx1 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

3-WP-rules, not external opinions, are the bounds of any WP-admin action
For not accepting that WP-rules, not external opinions, have to be the motivations of any WP-admin action, Admin Rama is discharged from his admin tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

4-Care and judgement
Learning by gathering experiment is NOT COMPULSORY by itself. Having chosen to hibernate as an admin since 2011, only paying a lip service to "inactivity standards" is one thing. But not learning BEFORE pretending to save the world is another one. The result is such a breach of confidence that admin tools cannot be kept.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed by Pldx1 (talk) at 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

5-Next proposed remedy

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editors expected to evaluate prior discussions
1) Editors are expected to seriously evaluate prior consensus forming discussions on Wikipedia before reversing the consensus reached in those discussions. When acting against prior consensus (per IAR, or due to changed circumstances), editors should have firm rebuttal arguments (for IAR) or strong source based evidence of changed circumstances. This is all the more true for administrators utilizing their tools to reverse consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.Icewhiz (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama provided these things. Importantly, it is unclear why the bar for reversing consensus is higher than the bar to lock it into place for very extended periods (see logs). It is further unclear hw administrators planning to block the topic for months is not administrators using their role to drive consensus.CyrilleDunant (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama's comments (in linked evidence in FoF below) - 06:03, 2 May 2019 - "An article with nearly 30 references by solid institutions (US Navy, Oak Ridge) being deleted in such a way is a very unusual occurrence (I have never seen this before)" - given that the US Navy PR linked to did not even mention Phelps' name (the WP:REFBOMB nature of the references, including the US Navy, discussed at length at the AfDs and DRVs) - quite clearly show that they did not address prior discussion on the topic.Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a weird, to me, focus on a couple dodgy references when there are over 30. Surely they are not all faulty. And If they were, that would be quite extraordinary, and in fact unreasonable for anyone to start with this assumption. I am uncertain how you are demonstrating any assumption of good faith: having exchanged with Rama essentially twice over an hour, you seem to know quite a lot of their motivation.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying, it would be "quite extraordinary, and in fact unreasonable for anyone to start with this assumption", just underlines the point of this principle, i.e. that one should familiarize themselves with prior evaluations before acting. All the references that were in the article by the time it was deleted were discussed at the AFD discussions. If Rama had read those discussions before acting, they would have known why their reasoning was faulty. Regards So  Why  09:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I noted above that you believe it plenty of time for Rama to have gone through the 30 references in 35 minutes, you believe Rama to be a decidedly very fast reader indeed. Which is it then? There is also a grave flaw in your argument: we cannot know that the conclusion reached in the discussions was no itself faulty, it is therefore wrong to use the existence of previous discussion as anything other than proof that there were discussions.CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One would expect an editor to perhaps spend more time than 35 minutes in reversing a recent and very well discussed discussion. As put forward in - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence - the AfDs, and in particular AfD2 which was the same version Rama restored, addressed at length each and every reference in the article (and quoting from the AfD - "many of the sources don't mention the subject, mention the subject in passing, aren't reliable, aren't independent, or a combination thereof").Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say that. In fact, from all Rama said, we know that they were aware of previous discussions but did not take the time to actually familiarize themselves with what was discussed, instead deciding that the decision must have been faulty and needed reversal. The proposed principle is based on the general idea that those who wish to act against consensus, on whatever topic or subject, should be familiar with previous discussions before acting. Whether the conclusion reached in those multiple deletion discussions was indeed faulty or not is not a relevant factor though. Regards So  Why  10:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Surely in the face of a topic emerging in the news (in and of itself making the topic notable), a previous conclusion based on notability becomes invalid, and a conclusion based on source quality is flawed in the sense that deletion prevents improvement. I therefore fail to see the relevance. Rama simply pointed out that there was a solid basis for an article to be improved on a topic of renewed notability.CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they did not "simply point[..] out", We wouldn't have these discussions if they had opened a DRV discussion (per WP:DRVPURPOSE #3) and argued for restoration based on new evidence of notability. Rama explicitly said that they did not want to start such a discussion and that they only acted because the admin tools allowed them to act this way. Also, not that it really matters, but the quality of old sources does not increase if new sources emerge. Regards So  Why  12:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a misrepresentation, I think. Rama used an admin tool because they are an admin, and had they not been an admin, they would not have used the tool, because it would not have been available to them.CyrilleDunant (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "if I had not been an administrator, I would not have done anything" (emphasis added). Regards So  Why  14:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a normal user could not have done anything.CyrilleDunant (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A normal user could have opened a deletion review. An administrator could have too.  The difference is that an administrator has the technical ability (though not the authority) to act unilaterally. —Cryptic 02:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama did not seriously evaluate prior discussions
1) As exhibited in their comments following their action, Rama did not seriously evaluate the prior first AfD, DRV of the first AfD, nor the second AfD (the version Rama restored).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * See evidence points 3,4,5 in . Icewhiz (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama willfully acted against consensus
2) Rama's action to counter prior consensus was made with full knowledge of the existence of prior deletion discussions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * see evidence in .Icewhiz (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is unclear consensus can be believed to be a fixed thing. As mentioned above, there was no consensus for salting the article, indicating the parties may not be as neutral in the dispute as the argue they are. Further Rama provided as rationale the urgency caused by the emergence of the article's topic in the news. The extreme speed with which this case was escalated to the arbcom demonstrate that his accusers agree that this was an urgent matter. The only thing here that could have been deemed urgent was the risk that consensus might shift.CyrilleDunant (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This FoF is is rather straightforward (per linked evidence) - it should be evident from the linked undark op-ed in the deletion log (as the undark piece discusses the Wikipedia deletion at depth) as well as by Rama's own words - 09:25, 29 April 2019 - " I understand that this disregards the previous Deletion Requests". This FoF doesn't state whether this willful action was correct or not. Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is ascribing meaning to Rama's words that is simply not there. They only stated being aware that there had been previous discussions, and this is a different bar from full knowledge.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per FoF(1) above I am positing Rama did not have full knowledge of the contents of the prior discussions, however per their use of the plural previous Deletion Requests (one could also throw in removal of the 2nd AfD notice from the article), they were fully aware of the prior two AfDs and hence had full knowledge of the existence of the two prior discussions.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain of the meaning of 'full' in this context. The word seems to serve no purpose in the sentence other than emotional emphasis.CyrilleDunant (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how one can 'counter consensus'. Consensus is a state of being, which cannot by definition be countered.CyrilleDunant (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wordsmithing. How about: Rama was aware of the prior deletion discussions and the consensus therein when they decided to undelete the salted article?Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But see, therein lies the issue, we know Rama was aware there were discussions, part of the normal deletion process, and we can surmise that the deletions followed consensus, and thus that Rama assumed the same. We know, from the evidence page, that the consensus was not overwhelming either way (2:1 is arguably a consensus but not a very strong one). Do we know that Rama knew that? I don't think we do. We can't both complain that Rama took insufficient notice of the previous discussion, and that they knew all about it. You need to pick one.
 * It's not a matter of wordsmithing, it's a matter of saying things which are unobjectionably true.
 * I also object to the salting bit, which was not consensus, and in fact arguably a case of an administrator abusing their power in the first place.CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SALT, consensus is not needed to protect a page from creation. Hence doing so without consensus cannot be "a case of an administrator abusing their power". Regards So  Why  13:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Consensus and content
1) The English Wikipedia has no editor-in-chief and no editorial board. Decisions on content, including the formation and keeping of articles, is made through WP:Consensus, built by discussion, where all Users (also called, Editors) have opportunity to stand on equal footing. Individual Administrators (also called, Sysops) do not "decide content issues authoritatively", nor "rule on content".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Effort to explain to the world how it's suppose to work, then the quotes are taken from WP:Consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion and discussion
2) The deletion of articles involves removing articles that do not meet various criteria. A consensus discussion in which all editors have the opportunity to stand on equal footing to voice their arguments may occur. In such deletions, discussion is required, discussion is not something any Administrator may dispense with nor obstruct. If any User, including an Administrator, believes "a page was wrongly deleted, . . . or a deletion discussion was improperly closed, [they] should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, [they] can request review of the closure at Deletion review."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Derived from Deletion Policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Content, articles, and non-emergency
3)  Pursuant to the English Wikipedia's content policies, topical information, such as information about a person, may appear in multiple articles. For information about a person to appear in Wikipedia, there is no requirement that there also be a single topical article, such as a single biography.  There are multiple articles on Wikipedia, the process of deletion of a single article requiring discussion means such deletion of a single article is never an emergency.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Point. With the usual exceptions, of course. ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that was addressed with the limitation of when deletion happens with required discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion to change consensus
4) Consensus that is arrived at by discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion, requires a new discussion to change consensus, and a new discussion on changed consensus, before an article is undeleted. A User seeking undeletion, after a deletion discussion has occurred, is acting as a content editor, they are not acting as an administrator.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think you meant "Articles for Deletion". While per WP:DRVPURPOSE, DRV can be used to argue for recreation, if circumstances have changed, there is no actual rule that says DRV has to be used in these cases and in the past, uncontroversial recreations that addressed the reason for deletion have been accepted even without prior discussion at DRV (of course, if there has already been a DRV discussion, the recreation can hardly be considered uncontroversial). Also consensus does not necessarily have to be the result of discussion, it can also be the result of WP:SILENCE. Regards So  Why  11:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've corrected AfD. But the principle says nothing about the discussion having to take place in one forum or another. "Addressed the reasons for deletion" is a discussion principle. There is no silence, when people have already discussed. A User seeking undeletion is acting as a content editor, they are not acting as an administrator. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)  I've now added that last part. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Do not Ignore Other Editors
5) WP:IAR is not WP:IOE, it's not a licence to Ignore the decisions Of other Editors, when other editors have discussed a matter to a conclusion.  Rather, seek to persuade through discussion with other editors on Wikipedia.  What improves Wikipedia is a matter of consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrator Rama and unauthorized tool use
1) Administrator Rama, in their action to undelete an article, which prior discussion had deleted, and place it in Wikipedia, attempted by abuse of authority to rule on content.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrator Rama acted without required discussion
2) Administrator Rama in breach of multiple obligations found in Consensus, Deletion, and Administrator policies intentionally did not discuss before they used the community's tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Gatekeeping
1) It is not acceptable to dismiss fellow contributors by calling them "external forces", or discourage valuable contributors by deleting their articles, mass-nominating their articles for deletion, or stalling Draft processes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * User:Rama - it would be worth re-reading what SoWhy is saying in that diff - to get the full context you also need to read Levivich's comment. SoWhy is not attacking you or any other Wikipedia contributor, they are discussing the question of Wikipedia responding to comments by the media, politicians, companies, etc. Wikipedia has frequently been criticised by such "outside forces", and the debate is regarding how much we should pay attention to such criticism. It is quite common to misread what others write - I know I have done it a few times. Up to you what you do, but an apology, and an amendment of what you have written would be appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * OK, I am willing to assume that "outside forces" was not a reference to Wikipedia editors and striking the diff. The general point stands. Rama (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The linked diff does not contain the phrase "external forces" nor does it dismiss any fellow contributors in any way. Regards So  Why  09:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the diff contains the term "outside forces", but you clearly weren't referring to fellow contributors in this way.--Atlan (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Stalling draft processes -- ?? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The principle in content discussions such as deletion discussions is focus on the content, not the editor, which includes the creator. If an administrator or any editor has a concern about alleged 'harassment', the forum to address that is not in content in the main space. Rama, you have been singularly opaque about whom you are accusing -- to my knowledge, you have not even attempted to openly address such alleged conduct where appropriate (try AN or AN/I), nor in a manner that is forthright. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Soapbox
2) Wikipedia in general, and Arbcom proceedings in particular, are not the place for editorialising on divisive political issues such as "politically correct" or "MSM" ("Mainstream Media").


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * At the reference given, sentence if our readers hate what we're doing, we should change was not issued by Rama. I don't know if Rama endorses this sentence or not. Perhaps, since he is criticizing a criticism. It remains that bowing at good thinking people is a good recipe for tyranny. There is no shortage of bad people, governments among them, that will come and ask: why not bowing once more, and again and again. Rules of independence and verifiability are not to be twisted. And if some reader hate these rules, there are so many other things to read... at least as long as reading remains allowed. Pldx1 (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. And administrator-only tools even more particularly than either of those. —Cryptic 03:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Phelps' biography being deleted was an anomalous state of affairs
1) Since references are apparently in scope again: the version I restored had several references from Oak Ridge Laboratories that mention Phelps, I will cite only a few of them:
 * STEM Magazine, a publication from ORNL (p.22)
 * Clarice Phelps: Dedicated service to science and community, also ORNL
 * This reference, page xi (p.13 of the PDF), a technical report of ORNL, documents Phelps implication in the Plutonium-238 Supply Program: "Experimentation and analysis for process development was performed by members of the Nuclear Security and Isotope Technology Division, including Jonathan Burns, Kevin Felker, Chris Jensen, Catherine Mattus, Kristian Myhre, Joanna McFarlane, Clarice Phelps, and Joseph Spahr. Inventory management support was provided by Jon Garrison, Laura Harvey, Riley Hunley, Tom Hylton, Robin Taylor, and Gary West." (emphasis added)
 * Phelps' page at ORNL: "She has previously contributed to several notable research efforts to include the purification of the Bk-249 used to help discover Z=117, spectroscopic analysis of Pu-238/ Np-237 and their valance states for the Pu-238/ NASA project, and electrodeposition work with Cf-252 for the CARIBU (Californium Rare Isotope Breeder Upgrade) Project." (emphasis added)

ORNL is obviously a serious source of information. The sources are also numerous enough to establish notability by usual Wikipedia standards. The entire argumental edifice that Phelps is not notable rests on the foundations that even though solid ORNL references exist, we should do as if it was not the case because the ONRL employed Phelps; as I said in my evidence, when this argument was presented to a larger sample of Wikipedia editors in other Deletion Requests launched against articles written by Dr. Wade, User:GerardM and User:Andrew Davidson refuted it. The articles in question have attracted massive votes for keeping, and three of the DRs were closed not only as "Keep", but as "speedy Keep due to WP:SNOW".

The biography of Phelps being deleted in the state it was in is a very unusual state of things on Wikipedia, is inconsistent with community consensus as illustrated in three DRs that followed immediately after my action, and is grounded in arguments that have since been refuted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Out or scope. Icewhiz and Pldx1 don't decide what the scope of the case is. We do. We're looking at your actions, Rama, not the quality of the references. Katietalk 11:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Moved from comment by others. GoldenRing (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Apparently they are . If you think it is not the case, you should take it to Icewhiz and to Pldx1 . I cannot, however, be expected to sustain criticism on this subject while being prevented to answer it as out of topic. Rama (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * KrakatoaKatie, my action was based on my impression of the article, which was based on my impression of the references, which turned out to be correct, so it would make sense to consider this in scope. I understand that you do not, and who am I to argue, but them I request that the comments of my detractors be removed. It would be unfair to allow me to be addressed critics that I am to allowed to answer. Rama (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of scope, and also irrelevant since the deletion Rama overturned was endorsed after this case started. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * The article and the subject's notability are still not in the scope of this Case. However, as an admin, Identifying and using independent sources (which expands on WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC) should definitely be something you should know about. Regards So  Why  08:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite what non-parties say on the talk page, referencing of articles is not in scope. Please amend this proposal or it may be removed as a clerk action.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The deletion of this article was upheld at DRV. You give links to arguments made in other discussions as if they somehow magically make this deletion "anomalous". Worse, these arguments were made after your undeletion, so can hardly be used as justification for your action (i.e. it is not as if you saw these discussions and thought these arguments applied to the Phelps discussion as well). You also argued on the evidence page that you had never seen in all your years a page with this many sources being deleted. While this may literally be true, it only shows that you are rather out of touch with what regularly happens here. I refuted your argument at the evidence talk page already. Fram (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not deny that I have an opinion about this list of 28 references. But nor this opinion nor even the references themselves are the topic of what Rama is referencing. I was pointing the fact that THREE deletions related discussion have told something about this whole list of references ... were we told in these 3 AFD/DRV ... and that Rama hasn't paid even a lip service to what was said there. If Rama has argued something, his argumentation would have been outside the scope, OK with that. But Rama hasn't. And my opinion is that this absolute lack of answer is inside the scope, by ADMINACCT. At least, that is what I am submitting. Pldx1 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This FoF isn't supported by evidence. It isn't supportable by evidence either, because it's obviously, transparently false, and anyone with even a modicum of familiarity with the English Wikipedia's deletion process is aware of it. —Cryptic 02:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with The biography of Phelps being deleted ... is grounded in arguments that have since been refuted being followed by a diff about a full professor. Could you be more explicit ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Good faith
2) Since Rama had not followed the debates on Phelps' article from the start, he was unaware of the somewhat idiosyncratic and ill-fated argument against employers' sources, and thought Phelps' biography sourced well beyond what is necessary to establish notability. Regarding Community consensus, Rama's restoration of Phelps' biography is consistent with the Community decision to (speedy) Keep the other articles authored by Dr. Wade that were subsequently proposed for deletion, and is therefore not outlandishly at odds with the mood of the Community. Rama's bad faith is thus not established, and his good faith must therefore be assumed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Moved from "comment by others". Please comment in the correct section.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am gratified to hear hat you believe in my good faith; I do not believe that all editors here share your confidence in me. Good faith is important since WP:IAR gives a formal framework for my action — however misguided it might have been in practice. If there is consensus that my action was grounded both in good faith and in regulations, I fail to see how I could deserve punishment.
 * I do not think my action was right: it did not have the effect I intended and in the same circumstances I would now act differently. I have stated so before.
 * I do not think that the case of Clarice Phelps is exempt from usual community process, I think it was already outside usual community process (e.g. ). My action was an attempt at bringing things back to normal. To some extent it did have this effect — for instance with the restoration of the Draft: it had been deleted, my intervention restored it, and has been worked upon since, hinting that it is a good thing that it is available. Rama (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Would Alanscottwalker be kind enough to point to a diff indicating that I "pointedly and deliberately refused all discussion, including in draft form, before [I] abused the community's tools"? Rama (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker I never discussed the article before because I was not aware of its existence, and I did not discuss my restoration because I believed I needed to act immediately to prevent a media storm. I was not defying process and trying to "seize power" (how would that even work?), I was acting in a rush and I thought the editors involved would understand and accept my reasons. Rama (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Fram, your "prescience" point is moot. Seeing subsequent DRs with the same editors involved using the same arguments are indicative of how the process usually works. Or, then, all the people trying to characterise my restoration by citing my subsequent explanations suffer from the same chronological issue and their arguments should be removed. Rama (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, I find Fram's "ill-thought actions taken in response to your rash undeletion" very interesting. What "ill-thought actions" exactly is he referring to? Rama (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, "you made me do it"? But I was not involved in any of these DRs or articles, they have nothing to do with me. They have to do with User:Jesswade88, and with the editors who exhibit certain patterns: stalking and harassing her, and piling up in debates in a way high suggestive of coordination and susceptible to alter the sincerity of debates. You can see this behaviour as soon as with the first DR of Phelps' biography — exactly the sort of behaviour susceptible of producing aberrant outcomes that I had the impression of seeing when I restored the article. Rama (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fram, the three timeline graphs I have provided all show that editors siding with User:Jesswade88 exhibit the Poisson distribution that one would naturally expect from a discussion on Wikipedia, while her opponents always exhibit a 1) rapid burst of votes, 2) followed by a plateau, 3) followed by a slight increase; this is highly suggestive of orchestrated coordination designed to unduly skew discussions, and can be seen in the first Deletion Request of Phelps' biography, in the discussions that led to this Arbcom, and on the Administrators' Noticeboard about sanctioning the burst of Deletion Requests for other articles by Jesswade88. These are not speculation, these are statistics.
 * Incidentally, while I still do not understand the rationale you ascribe behind these "ill-thought actions" and the connection you see between the burst of DRs and my restoration, I find it very interesting that you would feel that certain users would be susceptible to nominate articles for deletion in retaliation for my restoration. I do not think it is the case, but you are of course entitle to your opinion on the matter and I respect that — and in any case, the very fact you would feel this way is indicative of a deeply problematic pattern of behaviour which, again, would be susceptible of creating the aberrant situation I felt I found and that yielded my action. Rama (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker: I did not "assume[] the worst of them, and abused [my] power": I assumed the best of them. I though that if I quickly restored the article (WP:IAR, WP:BOLD, etc.) to signal the outside world that we are not indifferent to looking like a bunch of misogynistic White supremacists while telling editors that the state of things made us look like asses, the editors would understand and support impression. Instead, found several people, shall we say, militantly indifferent to the problematic. I performed this one administrative action, I did not insist when I saw that it was not accepted (I did not block the people who threatened me, I did not undo the move to Draft,...). Now, I agree that I erred and that assuming the best of the group of editors involved here was sorely mistaken. Rama (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sitush, I find is very interesting that you would in one paragraph admit that User:Jesswade88 feels harassed, and mention matter-of-factly "she ain't seen nothing yet - when people really start digging through that stuff". Rama (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Amakuru (in answer to ): my restoration of the article was meant as a signal, notably to outsiders, that Wikipedia as a whole would not be indifferent to aberrant occurrences where we look like a sexist and racist community. Undoing my action and apologising for it would have amounted to admitting that we, actually, do not care at all. I am not prepared to send that signal, not as something I would endorse. Furthermore, certain people tried to coerce me into undoing my action with threats, which admittedly did not put me in a receptive mood. I did not undo or oppose the subsequent move to Draft, I will not re-use my administrative tools in this way, so on from practical point the incident has been solved for days. I have the impression that certain people here are after a symbolic victory — that I must either humiliate myself, or be humiliated for having had the audacity of defying the status quo, so to speak. It would be interesting to see why this symbol has taken such an importance — given the insistence that the article be salted, the proposal "Topic Ban the entire community"  (???), the orchestrated coordinations, one could wonder whether certain people are quite as certain that they incarnate a "community consensus" as they claim they do. Rama (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't think many people believe that you were not acting in good faith, Rama. However, you can't really expect the arbcom to "find fact" in assertions like "the somewhat idiosyncratic and ill-fated argument against employers' sources". Your actions were done with the best of intentions, I believe that, but your continued insistence that the action was right, and that the case of Clarice Phelps is somehow unique and exempt from usual community process, is disappointing to say the least. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Rama thanks for your response to my comment yesterday. Just to respond to the point, I can't speak for anyone else in whether they assume good faith on the initial undeletion. But I think you could have avoided this visit to ArbCom if you'd simply backed out of the position at the time. At the ANI thread you were advised not to "fall on your sword", which I interpreted as meaning an apology for reversing the prior actions of your fellow admin TonyBallioni, without discussion, and not doubling down on insisting your action was correct. Also, just to be clear, I have no objection to you holding a private opinion that the topic is notable, but it was incorrect to use admin powers to override the results of previous discussions on that matter. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama, You did not create a draft article, and should be very appreciative that someone else moved your effort to assume power to draft space. In fact, you pointedly and deliberately refused all discussion, including in draft form, before you abused the community's tools. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama: In your case statements, you admitted you deliberately did not to discuss before your tool use. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama, why do you think that you did not follow the Phelps' debates absolves you of anything? It's actually worse for you as an administrator, regardless of whether you followed them, if you did not try to find those debates, read them, try to understand them (also called listening), and the discuss them on English Wikipedia. We expect administrators to be able to do do such "careful" research, and to communicate with others on the project because this is a communication project.  Instead of what an administrator is suppose to be capable of doing do, and doing it, you assumed bad faith. (And then you asserted post facto rationales that did not exist). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama, I suppose I should not be surprised that you don't understand your permissions. Your permissions give you the the ability to do things other content editors cannot do, like any grant of power they can be abused. That's how abuse of power works.  It has to be false that you did not know the article existed by the time you undeleted it. It's also false that you did not have the opportunity to discuss it before you undeleted it, this is an open wiki, you could have discussed it at any time before you undeleted it. And instead of doing the careful research of a competent administrator and competently discussing it with others on the project, you assumed the worst of them, and abused your power. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama, Responding to . Since you only took issue with the last few words of the coda in my last comment, at least we seem past your denials of facts. As for the rest, it has to be further evidence of your bad faith.  To do something for the "look", as you now claim is straight forward bad faith, because the action of publication required is one of substance, not "look".  Publishing articles as I have on women and African Americans is one of substance, not "look" or public relations flim-flam (and to suggest it is, as you have, is to be disrespecting of the substance not to mention the writers).  Moreover, if you are accusing others of whatever bad things you are accusing them of (not just that they "look" that way), that is also bad faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I believed in a good faith action initially, but the subsequent comments by Rama, which basically boil down to the deletion being caused by some vast conspiracy. E.g. here "victim of an unfortunately selective enforcement of notability criteria", "embarassment", "deliberate attempts on the general Internet at minimising the contributions of women in science.", "correcting mistakes". Keeping the article deleted would be "irresponsible and deeply suspicious." (emphasis mine). Rama alleges right from the start that this is not a) some innocent mistake or b) only a response to changing circumstances, but that instead the deletion was caused by "selective enforcement", evidence of "deliberate attempts", and keeping it deleted would be "highly suspicious". Similar statements in his next comment, e.g. " It would be interesting to compare the threshold for male and white third-rated sportsmen.", "militant in its invisibilisation of women and minorities." And again: "a suspiciously selective enforcement of notability criteria on this case" (emphsis again mine). And it gets worse: "you are also letting far-Right talking point slip".
 * Basically, Rama undeleted the article because he assumed bad faith of the people involved in the deletion discussions (and of Wikipedia in general): the deletion for them was a suspicious, militant, far-right decision, and they had to counter this. That's a rather worrying position to take, and coupled with the almost total absence of admin actions to balance this view of them, I see no reason to let them keep the admin bit. Fram (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's very interesting that you equate having a far right views and bad faith. That's clearly not Rama's position, they rather believe that far right arguments are bad arguments and this is found again and again in previous deletion controversies as being the community's view. That arguments which generally fail prevailed this time is indeed a flag for concern, and is in fact a reason to act. To take an absurd example, If a group of users voted for deletion of a group of articles on the grounds of 'the conspiracy of the green marmoset' and failed most of the time, but occasionally, because no one else was there, they got through, it would be perfectly fine for an admin to act unilaterally as this would be as Rama said, 'deeply suspicious'.CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not equated "having a far right views and bad faith". I have said that Rama's claim was that people wanting to delete the article showed suspicious behaviour, and that they equated the civil, neutral opinion of someone who opposes his action with "letting far-right talking point slip". Having far right views is not "bad faith" (it is bad taste though), but accusing people of having far right views just because they support the deletion of some article, but without exprsssing any actual far-right opinions, is showing bad faith. Anyway, you are wrong here. The article, after it got lots of attention on enwiki (ani, this arbcom case), was again discussed at DRV. If the previous 2 AfDs would have been plagued by far-right people using invalid arguments, it would have been long overturned. The AfD had been seen by other admins before, it (and the DRV) had been posted to the Women in Red page: I hope you don't believe these are all part of this far-right conspiracy? Fram (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If one uses an argument more commonly found in the far-right, that does not make one part of the far right nor does that make that argument not be a far right talking point. I think this is more a symptom of the abnormally high feelings around this article, that this is taken as a personal insult rather than as a 'that's a terrible argument' retort. We all believe our opinions to be civil. None of us who are not delusional believe our opinions to be neutral, that's after all what opinions are...CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then you can explain what in that argument was a "far right talking point" or a far right argument? Arguing that wikipedia shouldn't be used to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is hardly a far right position. Fram (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * On a point of logic, you very much equated far right views and bad faith behaviour, and I don't see what's wrong with this view, nor why you would want to distance yourself from it: I absolutely agree with you on that point.CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For the (hopefully) last time; Rama acted in bad faith by accusing Mr rnddude of far right views. Clear? Using ad hominem remarks (like labeling opposition as "suspicious") is starting from a position of bad faith. Rama probably believed in good faith that he was improving enwiki, but he did this because he didn't WP:AGF. Fram (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The remainder of his argument I already refuted on the evidence talk page. Basically, you can't justify undeleting a page against consensus by pointing to ill-thought actions taken in response to your rash undeletion unless you claim to be prescient. Furthermore, pointing out that other articles have afterwards been speedily kept is hardly relevant when the article you restored is deletion-endorsed afterwards at DRV. Fram (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The arguments which prevailed in the discussion are not irrelevant to determine the quality and certainty of the consensus!CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a response to what I actually wrote? Fram (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My response is that your logic seems faulty. You are in essence arguing that Rama cannot possibly disagree in good faith with the conclusion of the previous discussions purely based on a majoritarian argument. Surely one can read a discussion and decide, in good faith, that it reached its conclusion in error.CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, anyone can decide that. But no one is allowed to decide that it reached its conclusion in error and then use admin tools to implement the opposite. Just like you are allowed to decide that the wrong person was elected but you are not allowed to use force to install the "right" person. Regards So  Why  14:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well, your "seems" may be the problem. I have not argued for the position you read in my comment, and this is the case with nearly every comment you read and answer to. He can perfectly disagree in good faith, but that's not what he did. He disagreed by assuming bad faith from those who argued for deletion, accusing them of suspicious and militant behaviour and so on. He is blaming the "wrong" result on bad faith motives, and the bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the result was wrong. Circular logic of course. Fram (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why does Rama feel that all those articles, authored by Jess Wade were of equivalent circumstances (and that their fate can be invoked as a explanation for his actions)? Also, as I noted over my evidence, there does  exist any strong co-relation between the voting trends of the !voters across the Phelps AfD, when contrasted with those four.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @:- Seeing subsequent DRs with the same editors involved using the same arguments -- Please establish the stuff, that you allude to.
 * Over your evidence, you linked 4 AfDs of which Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle was closed as No Consensus, rather than (Speedy) Keep -- so, obviously you ain't counting that over this proposal (which mentions .... is consistent with the Community decision to (speedy) Keep the other articles....
 * That leaves us with three. Netoholic, the   advocate (nominator) over two of the four linked AfDs (this and  this) did  get any support from the editorial community. Now, Netoholic was  involved in either of the two AfDs or the DRV about Phelps. Interestingly, I had opposed restoring Phelps but had reverted Netoholic's tagging of suspected notability over one of those two articles.
 * As to Articles for deletion/Nia Imara, which was nominated by me, the sole folks who concurred with me were Netoholic and Johnbod, both of whom were involved with Phelps.
 * I assume your entire data-set comprises of a single editor - Winged Blades of Godric, when you make the above proposal? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the circumstances of the above 3 AfDs were wildly different from that of Phelps. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let us evaluate Good Faith. As of today, has User:Rama read the 160 lines of the [undark] article? Pldx1 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Rama, I referred to the nomination for deletion of other articles written by Jess Wade. I thought that was clear from the context, as it was a direct reply to your comment about "the other articles authored by Dr. Wade that were subsequently proposed for deletion". Fram (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Rama, as so often your links don't provide evidence for your personal attacks. You are very fond of claiming e.g. "coordination", but your links are all about the behaviour of one editor, so it's a bit hard to see that as evidence (or even the slightest indication) of coordination. Your image claims some "standard" AFD behaviour of which this DR is supposedly a suspiciously divergent example. First of all, I presume that you labeled your image DR and call it "DR" here, but you actually mean "AFD"? Since your dots don't match the voting pattern at the DRV... Second, the AfD was tweeted to a group of interested editors very soon after it started, and it looks like part of the early Keep influx is caused by this. Afterwards, when people actually took the time to digest the article and nomination more slowly, and to actually look at the sourcing and claims, most people voted to delete. So there is some evidence of "coordination" on the keep side, there is "no" evidence of coordination among the deletes. The subsequent deletion debates on other articles involved mainly other editors (see the comments by WBG about this), but the timing of these suggests that they were created in the aftermath of the Phelps undeletion. But all in all, your comment again shows the bad fath you continue to show towards editors disagreeing with you, and the conspiracy theory you continue to promote without any actual evidence that there was such coordination, and that the debates were not "sincere". Fram (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rama, although you claim to have seen "stalking and harassing" of Jesswade88, there was scant evidence of it at the time you restored the article, and I doubt there is much evidence of it even now despite the fact that it is entirely legitimate to go through the history of someone who is displaying evidence of poor contributions. If anything, she has been allowed to commit a large number of BLP violations, of varying degrees of significance, over a prolonged period in part, I think, because people are afraid of being accused of exactly the stalking and harassment that you say was already ongoing but which, as Fram says, was just one concerned person. There actually needs to be more scrutiny of what she has done.These poor edits are still happening - see comments in the thread to which one of my posts was this. She is still making significant misrepresentations of sources and she thinks she may be being targeted. And those who have questioned her contributions include people who self-identify on-wiki as women, eg:, and .You seem to be using post facto events to justify your action and spraying around unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy. You could have avoided this entire case if you had shown good faith by reverting yourself, instead of putting yourself in a hole and then digging deeper. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (This gets hard to follow: for clarity, this is a reply to this post by Rama). Rama, for starters it is very unclear where you get the idea that discussions on enwiki always follow a standard distribution of votes: in my experience, this is rarely the case. That a number of "keep" voters found the discussion so rapidly is not a 'natural" situaton, but one more easily explained by the more one-sided audience reached by the tweet(s) about the AfD. The normal distribution of !voters came afterwards, representing a more unbiased cross-section of the editing community. That the result has been confirmed at the second AfD and at the DRV, despite attracting many different editors, and (in the case of the DRV) at a time this was fully in the spotlight on enwiki, shows that this is not some aberrant, coordinated "bunch of misogynistic White supremacists" (sic!). I also have trouble understanding why a sudden influx of early keeps, and then only later the delete voters is suspicious in AfD1; but a sudden influx of delete votes in AfD2; with only later some keep votes, is apparently evidence again that the deletes have done some evil coordination? Just looking at the voters in AfD2 not involved in AfD1 again gives a consensus for deletion.
 * Rama, it would also help if you stopped calling AfDs "DRs", it is very confusing. You state "I find it very interesting that you would feel that certain users would be susceptible to nominate articles for deletion in retaliation for my restoration. I do not think it is the case, but you are of course entitle to your opinion on the matter and I respect that — and in any case, the very fact you would feel this way is indicative of a deeply problematic pattern of behaviour which, again, would be susceptible of creating the aberrant situation I felt I found and that yielded my action." You fail to understand though that these post-Rama AfDs actually contradict your position rather strongly: while there may have been one or two editors who wanted to retaliate (or who first saw these articles due to the ANI case and Arbcom case, and decided in good faith to AfD them), the community was perfectly capable to see the difference between those articles and the Phelps one, and rapidly decided to keep those. Not becaues they suddenly changed from a conspiracy of white supremacists to a loose collection of civilized 21st century people, but because the merits of the articles (the notability of the subjects as evidenced by sources) was completely different. Most people (in general, and also specifically those involved in these debates) don't try to delete articles based on the gender or religion or skin colour of the subject, and continuing to peddle this untruth (or believing this claim based on some misguided news reports) is not becoming. There may always be one or two of those of course, just like there are sometimes people doing the exact opposite, lowering our standards for certain groups (which is rather insulting to those groups). If you have actual evidence (not some fancy graph) of people showing such problematic behaviour, then please raise it at AN so we can topic ban or block them. Fram (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama, I have no idea if Jesswade feels harassed or not at present - she doesn't actually say that in the edit summary I diff'd and I don't hang on to her every word. But, yes, I can understand that she may certainly become so if the necessary scrutiny is done. Regardless, your response to me does not address my main point, which is that you are making what appear to be false claims of justification for your actions - you are using things that happened after your restoration to justify doing that restoration, which prescience might make you some money in a fortune-telling booth on North Pier, Blackpool but isn't a valid explanation from an admin perspective. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Bullying
I have explained why I performed my restoration. My action was grounded in regulations of Wikipedia and I performed it in good faith upon an incorrect assessment of the situation. I want to say a few word on what happened AFTER my action.

1) On a matter of principle: hypothetically if somebody nominated an article for deletion with the argument "She's a Black person so let's kick the article off the wiki", and if 20 people approved, deleting the article would not be legitimate. If a single person intervened in the article saying "wait, what?", they would be right against the crowd.

2) Selectively enforcing the rules in a particularly stringent manner towards certain articles or certain people is dysfunctional. It deprives Wikipedia readers of articles no worse than others, and turns away many potential editors. Many contributors will feel harassed if exposed to such unequal standards. Furthermore, the present case has obvious racist and sexist connotations.

3) this Arbcom started not after I restored the article, but after I refused to undo my restoration . I did not oppose the restoration be undone by somebody else. I deplore that it was done, but I did nothing to obstruct it such as reverting the move to Draft, blocking my opponents or anything of the sort. I am unaware of any rule giving anybody the power to force me to be the one to undo my actions in such a case and I see no interest for Wikipedia in this. I see nothing else in the insistence that I undo my own action than an attempt to bully me into submission. This is consistent with past and planned harassement of Dr Wade.

4) Somebody tried to coerce me into undoing my restoring by threatening me . This threat amounts to an attempt to twist the arm of an administrator into performing an administrative action that they believe to be illegitimate. Condoning this behaviour would set a precedent that would grant effective use of administrative tools to any bully willing to threaten an administrator.

This proceeding is an attempt by a small group of editors to instrumentalise the Arbcom to consolidate their hold on a turf. Their behaviour has proved statistically abnormal (pile-ups), they twist the letter of the rules to defy their spirit (their idiosyncratic application of sourcing criterias), and they engage in threats, stalking and abuse of various sorts. Vindicating them in this proceeding would encourage further abuse of process, degradation of encycopedic material, and bullying of editors. Rama (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * , per the scope of this case: "the administrative conduct of User:Rama....[not]... the content dispute" I suggest you strike points 1 and 2, which are unfortunately worded such that they could be read as implying that those involved in deleting the article are racist and/or sexist. I'm sure that was not your intention, but such an insinuation could be read into the words. I don't wish to dwell on the article itself as that is out of scope of this case, but the deletion was done on the grounds of notability as per Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. While external media might feel that deletion of the article is suggestive of some form of systemic bias in Wikipedia, such a bias (which we are aware of, and attempting to address: Systemic bias) is about the writing of articles because most of our editors are white males living in developed countries and so the topics of choice are going to be those which white males living in developed countries are more interested in. The bias is not about the deliberate deletion of articles because the topic is non-white or non-male. An article on a non-white non-male subject might be deleted ultimately for sexist and racist reasons, but these will likely be outside of Wikipedia's control. That is, the lack of reliable sources on a non-white non-male subject may be due to a wider societal bias of which Wikipedia itself becomes a victim. It would be highly inappropriate and a complete misunderstanding of how we function to feel we are being sexist or racist because the media have failed to cover the subject appropriately. Without the sources in the media we cannot write the article. We reflect society - we do not make it or influence it. It is a core founding principle of Wikipedia that we remain neutral. See Principles and Five pillars. Have faith in our project that we have thought deeply about these issues, and we are moving forward progressively all the time. SilkTork (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As regards point 3, that "I am unaware of any rule giving anybody the power to force me to be the one to undo my actions in such a case", see WP:ADMINACCT, WP:RAAA, and WP:WHEEL. It is customary, and expected, that someone who disagrees with an admin action should raise the matter with the admin and ask them to reverse themselves (this is a step that you didn't do, and is one of the main points of concern in your use of the admin tool). If an admin reversed you without first consulting you, they could be accused of the same misuse of the admin tool that you are accused of. That you are unaware of this rule is one of the reasons why you are here. SilkTork (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Point 4, the "threat". It would be considered highly likely that an admin performing a very bold IAR undeletion of an article that had gone through a AfD, a DRV, a second AfD, and then salted, and then refused to reverse or adequately explain their action, would appear before the Committee. Indeed, some admins have voluntarily delivered themselves to ArbCom after performing an IAR act. That you see the comment that you might end up before ArbCom as a threat rather than a logical consequence is again one of the reasons why you are here. SilkTork (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , what force or coercion are you talking about? Your diffs lead back to this case. I assumed when you were talking about someone forcing you to reverse yourself, that you were talking about someone asking you to revert yourself, and doing so strongly. There are limited ways to force someone to do something on Wikipedia because we are volunteers online and can simply refuse or log off. If we do an action, such as delete or undelete an article, we are essentially forcing others to respond. Your diff in which you were advised that "Short of you reversing your undeletion, you will be welcome, I suspect, at Arbcom" should be taken in the same vein as a DS Awareness Notice (such alerts are currently being discussed at ARCA). Yes, as is often the case on the internet, choice of words is important, and in an ideal world we would all be very neutral and formal, and ensure that every word we choose is unlikely to cause offence. But at the same time, we can choose to be offended even when someone's good intention is clear, which is why we have Assume Good Faith as one of our core behaviour guidelines. In short, in undeleting that article you were forcing the community to respond. You initiated that action, and should have expected some push back. You have indicated that you have been surprised at the response. I understand that. You are, it is clear, out of touch with community expectations and norms. It is up to you now to reflect on what people are telling you. As much as you were surprised that there was push back to your undeletion, the community was even more surprised that you had undeleted it in the first place. The deletions of the article, regardless of if you (or I) agree with them or not, had followed due process, and were done with the consensus of the community. Your undeletion did not follow due process, and was done under IAR. When IAR is done there is an expectation of a convincing explanation. I have, from the start, accepted your explanation, indeed, expanded on it and given policy based arguments for it. But the community as a whole have felt your justifications to be inadequate, which is why we are here. I hope at some point in this case you will stop arguing with me, and instead consider carefully what I have been saying. I have been trying very hard to assist you. That does not mean I won't join in with a vote to desysop you if that looks to be the appropriate outcome, but it does mean that on the way to making that decision I will be reaching out to you to see if there is some way to get you to accept why there is an ArbCom case about you, and to see if there is some way of you assuring the community and the Committee that you have taken on board everything that people have been saying, and that you will address the concerns raised. That is, not the concerns about the article (this case is not about the article), but the concerns about you, your grasp of due process, your temperament, and your understanding of the community and how the project works as a whole. SilkTork (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * , I see nothing in WP:ADMINACCT, WP:RAAA, and WP:WHEEL hinting that one can coerce an admin into undoing their actions. Accepting their actions to be undone, as I did, yes; forcing them to do that themselves, you will have to provide me with an exact quote.


 * Your point about lack of sources is moot. We have the sources. Some chose not to accept them on this article. Similar articles about white males exist and are left undisturbed. That this article and Dr. Wade's work are the object of particular attention is not only obvious, it has been admitted by my detractors themselves.


 * Also, your passing claim that I refused to explain my action is untrue and unfair . Rama (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Several people have supported my action, or found it benign and unworthy of the fuss it generated. I have more thanks notifications for that action than for any of my usual contributions. Are these people not part of the community? Rama (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * On community:
 * First, by principle, no sample of Wikipedians is "the Community". Some are elected to speak *for* the Community in various capacities and office. A few contributors are not "the comunity", especially not when gathering for a specific event or incident.
 * 46 people have given opinions in the preliminary hearing: 22 opined that I should undergo this formal proceeding or be summarly sanctionned, 22 said no, and 2 were neutral . I believe it fair to say that the first group will have a stronger tendency to engage in the subsequent proceedings than the two others, yielding to an over-reprentation of my detractors. Another effect adds to this one.
 * My detractors are a heterogenous group comprising a core group that behaves as if it was coordinated, and their allies. Among their interesting comments, some have encouraged others to call me a terrorist ., some have opined that their fellows would mass-nominate other articles by Dr. Wade in retaliation for my restoration , and yet another has plainly announced new rounds of harassment against Dr. Wade . Their actions before the restoration show distrust of the Community in general and a will to cement a state of affairs against the wishes of the Community . This is not normal.
 * My detractors deserve to be heard as a party, but implying that they are representative of "The Community", or that my action is met with unanimous reprobation, is a misrepresentation of the facts. Rama (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: Please also consider Sitush's rebutal, where he compares the efforts of Dr. Wade (Wikimedian of the year honourable mention 2018, celebrated e.g. in The Guardian and Nature, and of course by Wikimedia) to such illegitimate practices as Sockpuppets or Copyvios. Rama (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * "hypothetically if somebody nominated an article for deletion with the argument "She's a Black person so let's kick the article off the wiki, and if 20 people approved . . . " No competent closer would close that AfD as "delete".  And the AFD would likely be over-sighted. Moreover, there would be undoubted subsequent and swift AN and AN/I actions against the nominator, et al. who agreed with the nominator (who, might well claim they are being "bullied", but that would just be tough for them).  Rama, this submission seems to be further evidence that you, as an administrator, do not understand Deletion or AfD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I want to say a few word on what happened AFTER my action." and then you proceed with two highly insulting points having nothing to do with what happened after your action, but which explain your reasons to perform the IAR undeletion. The first point is utterly ridiculous, a hypothetical should have some realistic basis in it; the second is a personal attack ("the present case has obvious racist and sexist connotations."). The "bullying" was a gentle way out of the current situation, a way for you to realise "I thought this would be uncontroversial among most other admins, seems I was mistaken, I'll take it to DRV instead". This is not unusual, e.g. some people in the heat of the moment do an action which is technically wheel-warring; they are warned that wheel-warring is an ArbCom-ripe violation, and that they better self-revert instead. That's not "bullying". "Condoning this behaviour would set a precedent that would grant effective use of administrative tools to any bully willing to threaten an administrator." Er, no: any such "bullying" which wasn't based on valid concerns would lead to trouble for the bully instead. But as an admin, you should have a decent grasp of which actions are acceptable, and which may lead to an ANI or Arbcom case instead. Warning you that your action could well lead to an ArbCom case is not bullying but correct, and gave you the chance to reflect on your action and undo it. Fram (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As an argument in favour of desysopping, I'm not sure I could have presented a better one than Rama has: there is obviously clear blue water between their priorities and approach and those of the WP community. The expression that sums it up is, "out of touch": it's not only what they are arguing (20 racists deleting a biography?!) but—fa more importantly—that they think it is OK to say that kind of thing and that they clearly feel that this is an acceptable approach and language. It isn't; not for any editor, let alone one holding advanced permissions. Although it does somewhat explain—although without excusing—the original misuse of those permissions. ——  SerialNumber  54129  05:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Similar articles about white males exist and are left undisturbed -- WP:OSE. At any case, examples ? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Rama had been thanked 8 times over the course of these 18 days and even if I assume that all those thanks stemmed from this particular locus, over thrice that number had asked for his de-sysop, over different stages. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama, your statement that I have plainly announced a mass harrassment effort is actually plain wrong. My point is that there is already scrutiny and there are a lot of problems with some articles, noted both on- and off-wiki. They're BLPs and so that is a big issue. 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. You may find the thread here of interest. That you keep misunderstanding or misrepresenting what people have said is itself a problem. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama, do you understand WP:BLP? Your latest response suggests not. I'm not going into the detail of the specific problems here but there are/have been many tens, probably hundreds, of mis-statements - there are sometimes several in a single article and some of those, notably the claim that Phelps was a PhD holder when in fact she only has a Bachelor's degree, are ones that you should already know of. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "some have opined that their fellows would mass-nominate other articles by Dr. Wade in retaliation for my restoration" links to a statement by me, where I observe that others have nominated other articles shortly after your undeletion, and give my opinion that this may have been some stupid retaliation. You make it sound as if I made some threat that others would start nominating such articles. It then gives a second link (necessary, since you talk about "others"), which is again a statement by me, about the exact same thing, which makes it even clearer that I was talking about articles already nominated (and closed) by then, and has no comment about retaliation.
 * Your comment " some have encouraged others to call me a terrorist" links to a comment where an editor calls someone else (not you) a "tone deaf terrorist" (again, a stupid remark, but not what you are making of it), and then to another comment by the same editor where they say they "shouldn't" have used the word "terrorist". Again, you try to make it look as if different people have called you a terrorist, by linking to two comments by one person who calls someone else a terrorist and then retracts this.
 * Your evidence of coordination still is as feeble as the first five or so times you presented it. Making up stuff to defend your action does not help your case. Fram (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama: It's telling that you now appeal to "votes". The reasons that have been suggested that you are as out-of-touch with the community is not a matter of votes, it is because your statements and actions indicate, you devalue discussion, you don't understand administrators, you don't understand consensus, you don't understand deletion, you don't understand AfD, you don't understand BLP, and you don't understand your obligations.  To paraphrase you, 'hypothetically, if even one person thinks you should be desyssopped they may be right'. And that you don't understand lumping people as 'core group and allies' is plain wrong, the fact is, these are all independent thinkers, they are most definitively not a "party", and it is false that your "detractors", which are many, admitted anything you have suggested, we don't determine what others say.  So now, would you be willing to stand for a new RfA, to test whether you have the community's trust? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is getting really problematic, and I would ask the Arbs or the Clercks to please, please check the preliminary statements and do your own count. Rama above in his reply claims "46 people have given opinions in the preliminary hearing: 22 opined that I should undergo this formal proceeding or be summarly sanctionned, 22 said no, and 2 were neutral". I have done my own count, and while many statements are hard to place clearly in one column or another, I come to 15 people for a case, 9 for a motion, 12 for a decline, and 9 other statements (some leaning decline, some arguing for Rama to give up the tools voluntarily, some purely technical comments). The difference between Rama's "22 for, 22 against" and my "24 for, 12 against" is rather large. So please, can you check and produce some "official" numbers so we don't have to argue over even such basic stuff? Fram (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To my best knowledge, the "scores" are: 9/1/0. Various people have presented various opinions/arguments and they have been sorted and weighted. Pretending that 44 passer-by could be a representative sample of the WP users, is only an absolute lack of understanding of what statistics could be. Side remark: nuclear science is heavily based on probability/statistics. Pldx1 (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Rama, you are repeating "Dr. Wade" and "Dr. Wade" as if this was a silencing argument. It seems that being a Dr. doesn't protect anyone against errors, since Dr. Wade [created the article] by asserting that Clarice Phelps 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 has raised some eyebrows. Explaining why by racism and misogyny is only another avatar of the pattern : "laziness+inventiveness -> scream aloud when caught red handed". An admin, i.e. a non-sleeping admin, would have known better and identified this pattern, instead of amplifying the drama. Pldx1 (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a lot to learn about the official processes of Wikipedia, but I would hate to see someone who is actually committed to improving the encyclopaedia, and increasing the numbers and diversity of the people who contribute to it, be forced off the site because of something I have done. I was incredibly upset to read the comments in the stream of AfDs that appeared on the articles I created since the Phelps' recreation, or the ongoing critique of my ability to write biographies on here. It has honestly made me want to stop editing entirely, and I know I am not alone in that. It certainly felt like the biographies I write suffer from more scrutiny than others, all of which comes from the same small group of editors who appeared to wait to watch what I post on Twitter and then delete sections, or entire pages, without trying to improving them. Whether it is the above discussion or the ongoing commentary over women academic's notability, Wikipedia doesn't come across like the welcome community of collaborative editors you'd hope to be democratising access to knowledge. In short, Rama acted in haste, partly to protect the public image of Wikipedia and part to protect me. Feel free to continue insulting me on whatever forum you find, but don't lose a well meaning Administrator over it. We should be working together to make Wikipedia better, not tearing each other apart. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * : Thanks for your concern over my error Pldx1! Indeed, whilst Phelps is currently completing her PhD, she has not yet completed it. It was not 'inventiveness' on my part, nor a "pattern" that needs identifying, but a silly mistake. I appreciate that the Phelps article was not perfect - and the quality of the referencing was not sufficient, not owing to Phelps' lack of notability, but the lack of sufficient coverage out of her employer. I do not know Rama, but I genuinely do not believe they have acted in bad faith. Instead, they read the media coverage that mentioned Phelps, perhaps the one that mentioned how many editors experienced a bad time on here (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html) and took pity on me.
 * The Committee and most neutral commentators, a group which I think I am included, tried very hard to not make this about any specific article or any specific contributor's edits but only about an admin's breach of policy (however well-meaning) and their subsequent behavior. Unfortunately, Rama and some others are unable to separate behavioral issues from the content that triggered this inquiry despite multiple admonishments. However, the Committee has already declared that they will focus solely on behavioral problems. In that vein, while I'm certain that you did not mean it like this, you might want to avoid language like "who is actually committed to improving the encyclopaedia, and increasing the numbers and diversity of the people who contribute to it" when referring to a party of this Case. It might sound to some as if you believed those criticizing Rama's behavior are not committed to the same goals. Being in favor of improving the encyclopedia and increasing the numbers and diversity of the people who contribute to it is not per definition incompatible with criticizing an admin for misusing their tools or casting aspersions on anyone that does criticize them though. In fact, detached from this specific incident, those goals are imho best achieved if contributors can be certain that admins misusing their tools based on personal preferences have to face consequences for their actions. Regards So  Why  19:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Rama
1) Rama is encourage to excercise caution when using administrative tools in exceptional circumstances


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I agree with User:Martinp. While it is possible that some kind of restriction of the tools might be part of the remedy, a mere "encouragement" would unlikely be sufficient unless there is more evidence shown of Rama understanding the rules and responsibilities of adminship, and of showing a greater understanding of how Wikipedia as a whole operates. Without that evidence of understanding, I can't see how we could trust Rama to know when to exercise caution. SilkTork (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Martinp, I am not making assessments of others' motivations. I am making assessments of the overall effect of their actions. Whatever the motivations of my detractors, the effect of their action is an atypically harsh and unwarranted scrutiny of Dr. Wade's work, idiosyncratic application of the rules, and has a disproportionate effect on women and minorities. Whatever the motivations of the people implicated in this, it has to stop. Rama (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Similarly, when I point to statistical evidence to claim that certain people here are acting in a coordinated manner, I am only caracterising the overall effect. I am not claiming that any one person is the mastermind of a conspiracy, that some people have a paramilitary structure, or anything of the sort. I am pointing to a mob effect that, whatever its mechanism might be, is unnatural to the normal working of Wikipedia. A child can have perfectly good excuses every time they are caught creeping around a cookie jar with a guilty demeanour, but we still see the jar emptying. Rama (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Rama, I think you need to go considerably further than that. While your intervention was with the best of intentions, your judgment was off in this instance, as were your overly broad, battleground-y assessments of others' motivations supporting that judgment. Perhaps if you voluntarily and wholeheartedly recognize that (with the benefit of hindsight, of course), an encouragement or similar mind reminder might be the only necessary remedy concerning you. However, absent such clear introspection, the community (and arbcom) cannot be confident that you merely "exercising caution" will be sufficient to prevent a repeat. In this instance, arbcom will presumably need to at the very least fairly strongly admonish you, and if you are to retain access to the admin toolkit, may be obliged to somehow ringfence you away from acting at all in "exceptional circumstances", i.e. in any other way than in to-the-letter adherence to established processes and policies.... (one editor's pov, of course) Martinp (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama: You skipped a central point in Martinip's comment, your responses do treat WP as factions in a battle. That's not the function of an Admin.  Martinip might be giving you the benefit of an undeserved doubt, here, because the evidence may well show that your initial act, itself, was battle, or at best, you have now shown that to be the case, regardless of your intentions then. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

All
2) All users are encouraged to act in a spirit in inclusion, and reminded that wikilawyering, gatekeeping, stalking and harassment of any sort are not tolerated.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don’t see how this is relevant, and that’s coming from a party who is ambivalent about the outcome of this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Limitations of arbitration
1) Despite superficial similarities, Wikipedia Arbitration is not, and does not purport to be, a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. While the Committee strives for fairness, the system has limitations. Evidence is generally limited to what can be found and presented online. The disclosure of information cannot be compelled and witnesses cannot be cross-examined. Furthermore, only issues directly affecting the English Wikipedia can be considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Directly copied from the 2008 Mantanmoreland case. Principle was also used in the GamerGate case. Considering some users feel this may become a "PR disaster", it may be a good thing to include this disclaimer. --MrClog (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just my 2¢ but I think this more recent formulation explains it better. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative tools
1) Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should always be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:
 * Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins.
 * Communal norms or policies – When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable.
 * Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Verbatim from WP:TOOLMISUSE (WP:Administrators), with two bullet points that aren't relevant here removed.  Should likely be split into multiple principles, and the last bullet point is of course redundant to SoWhy's principle verbatim from WP:RAAA. —Cryptic 03:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC), 04:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Exceptional circumstances (emergency)
2) In certain situations there may arise an emergency that cannot be adjourned for discussion. An administrator should not claim emergency unless there is a reasonable belief of a present and very serious emergency (i.e., reasonable possibility of actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a person if not acted upon with administrative tools), and should immediately seek to describe and address the matter, but in such a case the action should not usually be reverted (and may be reinstated) until appropriate discussion has taken place.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Verbatim excerpt from WP:Administrators, a subsection of #Misuse of administrative tools.  Emphasis in original. —Cryptic 03:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrative competence
3) Administrators aren't expected to be familiar with all aspects of policy, nor with all of their technical abilities. However, they are expected to be familiar with both policy and practice connected to their core tools - blocking, protection, and deletion - and in areas where they plan to take action.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, from standards at WP:RFA over at least the past five or so years. In dire need of wordsmithing.  I'll try to come back with FoFs following from these, but I'm not likely to have any spare time to speak of before the workshop closes. —Cryptic 03:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee
1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. The scope of this case is the administrator conduct of User:Rama. Although this case stems from the undeletion of an article, content issues such as the article subject's notability and the article's sourcing have no bearing on the outcome of this case, and the Arbitration Committee expresses no opinion on such issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Perhaps worth stating explicitly for the potentially wider audience. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Achieving this purpose requires maintaining a collegial atmosphere conducive to collaboration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Perhaps worth emphasizing for the potentially wider audience. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Communication
3) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important. Concerns about an editor's (or administrator's) action should be raised in a civil manner for the purpose of arriving at an amicable resolution, rather than punishing or chastising a colleague. Editors should respond calmly when such concerns are raised, and administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. When circumstances permit, administrators should engage in discussion before reversing another administrator's action. All editors and administrators should give each other sufficient time for discussion and reflection before escalating disputes, including administrator grievances.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Based on Enigmaman#Communication, WP:ADMINACCT, WP:ADMINABUSE, WP:RAAA, and WP:CIVIL. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Battleground conduct
4) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is one team of editors, all working toward the same purpose. Editors should not treat editors with whom they disagree as belonging to another "side" or an opposing group. Bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Gun control#Battleground conduct. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Standards of conduct
5) Editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should not resort to inappropriate conduct of their own. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard, leading by example and behaving in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Fred Bauder#Editor conduct, Fred Bauder#Administrator conduct, Joefromrandb and others#Standards of editor behaviour, and Civility in infobox discussions#Decorum. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Conduct on Arbitration pages
6) Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, and allowance is made for the fact that editors may have strong feelings about the dispute, editors must not be rude or hostile, and are expected to respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Arthur Rubin#Conduct on Arbitration pages and Gun control#Conduct during arbitration cases. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Biographies of living people
7) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Just as it is especially important that content relating to living people adheres to Wikipedia standards for factually accuracy, reliable sourcing, and a neutral point of view, it is equally important that editors maintain a respectful and civil atmosphere on article talk pages and other discussions concerning biographies of living people.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Gun control#Biographies of living people. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances
8) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Verbatim from Conduct of Mister Wiki editors#Sanctions and circumstances. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Conduct of Arbcom members during cases
1) Arbcom members must lead by example. Any Arbcom member that is seen to fail to meet the expectations of civility, appears to have engaged in any personal attack against a party to a case, or fails to meet the same basic standards of conduct that apply to administrators, must either become a party to the case and provide evidence to substantiate their assertions, or recuse from the case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * My entire post was defending Rama's action. I am assuming good faith in thinking that Fae has not read and digested the entirety of what I wrote, and has misunderstood my intent because of the use of thee word "terrorist". My concern when making that post was not that someone would or could conceive that I was attacking Rama, but the reverse: that perhaps I had gone too far in putting words into Rama's mouth. Indeed, if there was a call for me to recuse because I have too much sympathy for Rama's undeletion and the reasons for it, I would understand. But to suggest I recuse because I was attacking them, seems very perverse.  - for absolute clarity: I was not attacking Rama, and I then and I am still now, defending and standing up for their action in undeleting the article. My concerns regarding Rama are entirely to do with their behaviour after the undeletion, and are entirely to do with their possible unsuitability to retain the tools because of their battleground mentality. SilkTork (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * SilkTork, we are here in a formal inquiry about an incident with glaring racist and sexist connotations. You should understand that some of the people such a case will interest are alt-Right trolls and bullies. Dropping words like "terrorist" and "martyr", associated to me, in such a context, is a best extremely clumsy. Theses are very divisive and dangerous terms to apply, and sure enough some of my most violent detractors have repeated your words, claiming that your using them in your Arbitrer's capacity gave them legitimacy, and encouraged others to join in . Your failure to understand the implications of your statement denotes a grave tone-deafness that is especially handicapping in understanding a case such as the present one.
 * For the record, I have indeed been quite irritated at being lectured on accusing other of being racist and sexist, while I was saying that the end result has racist and sexist connotation, by somebody who casually drops terms like "terrorist" on an accused party. Rama (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * For illustration, during this case request, Rama was asked by an Arbcom member to make a statement about being a "diversity champion" or a "diversity terrorist", implicitly requiring a confession to be a "diversity terrorist" (diff). Though the words "diversity terrorist" were later struck, this was on the basis of being "unpopular", not an admission that the words were uncivil, inflammatory, demonstrates unhelpful personal bias against Rama, or if used by others would fail to meet the standards expected to be used by administrators. The Arbcom member has not recused from the Rama case. --Fæ (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'it's good you're for diversity, provided no one hears about it, and no one against it is disturbed'. Because letting some other admin revert them because they haven't been convinced is 'martyring' oneself. I think this intervention would be excuse enough for Rama to be very angry indeed, and if it was meant to calm them down, it was spectacularly misjudged. Certainly if it had been designed to make Rama feel more embattled, it would hardly have been written differently.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In general, the position of 'I'm ok with what you did but not the words used to defend it, so I want to desysop you' (probably also not a threat) is simply not tenable.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You probably should cite the whole sentence here. wrote In short, I think we'd like you to reassure us that you are going to be a diversity champion, not a diversity terrorist. (emphasis added). They explicitly did not call them a "diversity terrorist" nor did they expect Rama to admit that they were. They simply asked them to assure the Committee that going forward Rama will not misuse their tools to disrupt the project in the name of diversity. As such, the proposed principle does not seem to be necessary in this case and seems to be based only on a misunderstanding of a single ArbCom member's comment. Regards  So  Why  10:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * True. Luckily for, good faith is our lode, which is why this post can be described as a "misunderstanding", rather than—say—an attempt at muddying the waters. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * May be a long comment. Sliced to help the reader.
 * This proposed principle is correctly placed here as a "proposed principle". But the comments, from Fae's to mine, would be in a better place in a "finding of fact" subsection. I agree in advance with the displacement of the present comment inside a displacement of the whole set.
 * The Undark article has been repetitively described by Rama as the event that triggered his action. Therefore, one can say that anyone having fulfilled her (generic gender pronoun, targeting the previous 'anyone') duty of diligence before speaking should have read this 160 lines article from top to bottom.
 * Lines 139-150 of this article are stating that sources are implying that Clarice Phelps was part of the second campaign of purification (2011), that conducted to the confirmation (2012) of the X117 --to be named Tennessine-- discovery, a discovery that was done in 2010 from a 2009 ORNL sample.
 * Thus, it appears that several people, Rama among them, have mixed the discovery campaign 2009-2010 with the confirmation campaign 2011-2012, following what they have romanced from PR sources and against what serious sources were saying (remember, at least the Undark source is "inside the remit" since it is described as the trigger of Rama's action, and this is a serious source, at least since Rama described this source as a sufficient reason to act).
 * After what, instead of admitting a factual error, the same several people have cast a lot of aspersions (too often the behavior of people when lost in a discussion about facts). Instead of seeing the obvious pattern, and instead of trying to dampen the situation, Rama has taken side using his admin tools, casting his own series of aspersion (and thereafter persisted in such behavior).
 * It can be argued, with Fae, that User:SilkTork was wrong when explaining Rama's action by something related to Rama's feelings about diversity. One can even try to read minds and pretends that Silktork was loose in his own duty of diligence: a better study of the case should have resulted in explaining the harshness of Rama's behavior by the too often common reaction of people when proven wrong in some discussion about facts (whatever the facts themselves).
 * Pldx1 (talk)
 * This is an indication that you don't understand how the process of discovery works in particle physics (unlike, I should add, Rama who did work in particle physics). The confirmation is as important as the 'discovery'. In fact, it's part of it. These new elements are expected, and their properties are, if not known in advance, well parametrised. 'Discovery' means 'it looks like our setup can produce the element!' and 'Confirmation' means 'yup, a new element was discovered'. It's the combination of both these things that makes the element 'discovered' (and then you write the press release).CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear User:CyrilleDunant. You shouldn't speak so loud, X118 is named from Yuri Oganessian, not from your own name. The press release about X117 is here: [Oganessian et al.], and was published April 2010. Pldx1 (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, we've already established you don't understand the workings of IUPAC, what's your point?CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * SilkTork made a poor choice of words, subsequently clarified. This does not rise to the level of warranting recusal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly the choice of "terrorist" was poor, however the later couple of "clarifications" are not a proper retraction, they are not an apology, and most significantly in no way does the arbcom member make it clear that using the phrase "diversity terrorist" is uncivil anywhere on Wikipedia. These words demean anyone using their volunteer time to address the systemic bias that is known statistically to exist and pervade Wikipedia. The lack of any recognition that the words were damaging and demeaning rather than simply "unpopular", means that the next time someone is looking to create a battlefield of Wikipedia discussion about minority groups like women or transwomen, they need only follow Arbcom's lead and deride others by dismissing their reasoning or objections as "diversity terrorism". SilkTork should recuse from this case, because the facts are that they either fail to understand what they did, or they are deliberately obfuscating the issue by claiming to be supporting Rama, despite using their position to force a bizarre and humiliating choice between "diversity champion" or "diversity terrorist". --Fæ (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: