Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama

Statement from SN 54129
Suggest this is resolved by motion; the facts are clear enough, and the only theoretically debatable issue, ironically, is the content itself, and the community has shown three times how it is dealing with it. Thus the only matter that requires Arbcom examination is Rama's conduct. A motion would also avoid relitigating the previous deletion discussions. Cheers, ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Re. Fae: Arbcom is not a hammer to smash community discussion; and neither is an administrator... ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Fae: There had already been myriad discussion for them to have tajen part in had they so chosen; to join a discussion that only starts as a result of one's own unilateral action is not in accordance with community expectations.
 * @GBfan: Personally, I think ADMINCOND and AD'ACCT are the relevant policies: Mara's conduct, in unilaterlaly overruling community decisions—WP:SUPERVOTE-writ large, as it were—was clearly conduct unbecoming. The'r subsequent actions, while appearing to be engaged in discussion, also doubled down on their position. And per ACCT, a breach of basic policies is reason enough for the case. ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In fact, puts it better than me: There are some errors of judgement, and confidence in this admin is now very low, so a case is appropriate...  ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * DGG is no on the cttee. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: 's point about polarisation: yes, it's called victim blaming, and it's an oddly out-of-place defence at most times, let alone here and now. ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: handwaves to the "real world"; it is a commonplace that, of course, every online community is part of the real world—except to metaphysicists?!—as indeed is every organised party, organisation or group; but that does not mean that "real life" dictates the internal processes of said groups. Wikipedia is built, fundamentally, on communication and consensus, and Rama'a actions overrode both those fundaments—they neither discussed beforehand nor respected consensus. Isolated incident or not, they showed—and, in their subsequent statements, continue to show—an absolute disconnection with what the Wikipedia of 2018 is is doing, and—even more imporantly—how it is doing it. ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement from Nosebagbear
As SN 54129 says - it's a simple issue for the article/draft/salting - the greater consideration is needed is Rama's actions. The whole discussion is cited as evidence, so I just want to highlight one line by Rama: "My undeletion of Clarice Phelps's biography is an emergency measure to answer criticism in the press and show Wikipedia to be responsive, responsible, and capable of correcting mistakes quickly."'.

This isn't even a justifiable claim of IAR - AfD had a chance to use that argument and chose not to do so. Admins can't make their own IAR calls that override community decisions made shortly beforehand. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I want to clarify that et al are correct - I don't think this is a case of wheel-warring. It is a case of overriding community consensus and other actions. Assuming no change of mind by the admin in question, I still think it warrants ARBCOM consideration. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GeneralizationsAreBad
I had no involvement in the prior history, but just wanted to point out that there may be further off-wiki ramifications here. Regardless, Arbcom action is clearly warranted. GABgab 10:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fae
This is a hasty request created literally 2 hours after the undeletion action by a requester that has done nothing to engage participants apart from issuing notices. At the time of this request being created, I do not see how the requestor could know what additional material was going to be added by WiR participants or others (therefore the issue would be moot), nor had the procedural based discussion at ANI precisely focused on this undeletion been completed, in fact the undeleting admin was actively responding to questions there, and had the opportunity to take further action after discussion.

Launching hasty Arbcom requests, is not the way to engage good faith contributors for a consensus on how to proceed. Arbcom is not a hammer to smash community discussion. --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Rather than "double down", Rama is responding with a reasonable amount of detail for their reasoning behind undeletion. This Arbcom request was published exactly 4 minutes after their second statement on ANI, so I find it doubtful you took that into account. I do not read those statements as defensive, and given even 24 hours for discussion, we may have seen a good faith consensus. This Arbcom request disrupts collegiate discussion and is exactly the "doubling down" that you readily see in others. --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

With regard to locus, it may be worth Arbcom taking into account User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, a discussion on an Arbcom member's page that was opened a few hours in advance of undeletion and may have swayed views about whether the article should be openly revisited on Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Rama's actions may actually be in compliance with G4, the procedural discussion at ANI had a chance of resolving that before an Arbcom request. Per G4, it is not wheelwarring if the revised article is going to be reasonably different ("excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"). In this case the prospective difference between meeting one of Wikipedia's definitions of notability for people or not. The conclusion at ANI may have been that Rama made a mistake based on inflated expectations, that's fair enough, misjudging how to meet G4 is not a crime, though Rama would have been better advised to discuss the undeletion with the salting party, as was already part of the ANI discussion. This Arbcom case puts a premature halt to good faith discussion and makes it virtually impossible for Rama to back down and put things right for themselves. I do not see Rama as being the one breaking community discussion, seeing as how engaging in community discussion, answering others questions in good faith, was exactly what they were doing. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Fully endorse the point made by TonyBallioni, that this is an Inside baseball discussion and should be handled that way. Every reasonable step should be taken to reduce the unintentional internet footprint this discussion may have for the BLP subject's name as it has no relevance to their public profile or career. --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's clear what you are, but the words you are using are defamatory. I am not a criminal, I have never threatened to murder anyone nor have I ever threatened damage or injury through any terrorist action. If you or SilkTork have evidence that any contributor to this project is threatening acts of terrorism, you should be writing to WMF Legal or sending your evidence to the police, not making jokes about it. It seems to me that Rama's concern about the systemic bias on this project that drives away contributors who want to do more to improve the representation of minorities in the encyclopaedia is easy to demonstrate at every level. Comments like yours make that evidence easy to find. --Fæ (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

With respect to your use of "diversity terrorist", please reconsider those words. It should be obvious why an Arbcom member using those words in an request to describe a party is objectionable. --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking the words, even if with obvious reluctance, i.e. because it was unpopular not because it was simply wrong to call or heavily imply someone is a "diversity terrorist". In the light of a sitting Arbcom member believing it is fine or fair to deride the central party to a request as a "diversity terrorist" for their views about hosting a BLP of a woman and though striking the comment neither properly retracts or apologizes for it, the comment "Someone who presents as not understanding the role of admin, and appears to be so at odds with both Wikipedia and the community, is likely to be a poor fit for admin. It is possible that Rama is simply not good at communicating." appears to be a two edged sword. It is a pity that there is no fit and proper mechanism for asking for a governance review in these circumstances, especially considering the community has significantly higher expectations of Arbcom members than simple sysops, and how easy it would be for those with potential conflicts of loyalty to recuse from this case, or indeed, from simply refraining from using a case request to publish inappropriate and demeaning attacks on parties to that case.
 * Logically, your responses here are of more concern for the good governance of Wikipedia, than Rama's explanations of their single action ever could be. --Fæ (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
Motion should suffice. It is straightforward wheelwarring. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Or at least abuse of tools (seems to be some debate about the wheelwarring claim but it's potato/po-tah-to in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

your comment referring to enabling the far Right is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see no request from an editor for Rama to restore, serious or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

my revert was while the article was not draftified and when I was myself reverted I left it alone, merely explaining things in the ANI thread - see here.- Sitush (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not in a rush, although increasingly tending to think that a desysop will be required, especially after the long list of diffs just presented here by Mrrnrdude. However, I don't see what people expect to happen regarding the article - it is currently in draft space and likely to stay there for six months unless deleted as a BLP violation (which won't happen because the arguable BLP violation(s) could simply be removed from it). Yes, this is a content issue but ArbCom holding off to await a resolution of the issue will mean delaying probably for months. The chances of it moving out of Draft space seem slim to me, given the number of people who have already crawled all over it and the potential sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude
You know, I have no issue with keeping the article. It's a, as yet, "meh" article with, I guess, adequate referencing. The article is for the community to handle. I take issue solely with Rama and the way they are handling this dispute. The fact is the article was twice speedy deleted and even salted. Rama joined like a bull in a china shop and decided "no, we're doing this my way". Their defence is that this is an emergency measure because doing otherwise would show that "Wikipedia is not for Social Justice" attitude, which would be irresponsible and deeply suspicious. Aside from Wikipedia not being here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, the general disregard for community processes is fundamentally incompatible with adminship. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - There's a Draft:Clarice Phelps. It might be an idea to move your findings across to the draft so that the information can be consolidated. Concerted efforts in one place ought work better than individual efforts spread out. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - You're being That's a tone police terrorism t . Mr rnddude (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I'm a person who cares more about what somebody means than the words they choose to express it. It's obvious that is not referring to literal terrorism, but to [ab]using given authority to override discussion. Your "tut-tutting" their tone enables the exact same behaviour that marginalizes women in debate – Oh you said a naughty word, that makes your point irrelevant. That said, I shouldn't have called you a tone police terrorist that was over-personalizing it. It's clear what you are - My talk page is that-a-way if you want to say it. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not feel personally passionate about the subject - Rama
Moved from WT:A/R - GoldenRing (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Tell me again, Rama, how you are not personally passionate about the subject, in a dispute in which you've questioned everybody's good faith (calling the deletions "deeply suspicious"), repeatedly referred to the embarrassment to Wikipedia this has caused, and all the rest of the hyperbole? And if you really don't feel passionate about the subject, then what kind of a reaction should I expect on the day you do feel personally passionate about a subject?
 * This is an embarassment for Wikipedia - 07:41 29 April 2019 <- this was 1 minute prior to 3 minutes post undeletion, before this became a dispute
 * Notability is ridiculously obvious - 07:42 29 April 2019
 * [T]he deletion of the article is a source of embarasment for Wikipedia, and an emergency restoration of the article seems quite appropriate to me to avoid making Wikipedia look indifferent, incapable of correcting its mistakes, or even militant in its invisibilisation of women and minorities - 08:51 29 April 2019
 * The article in question makes a convincing case that the article is victim of an unfortunately selective enforcement of notability criteria, and is an embarrasment to Wikipedia. - 09:25 29 April 2019
 * Wikipedia is known to have a problematic gender gap, insufficient coverage of minorities, and recently Katie Bouman's case has been indicative of deliberate attempts on the general Internet at minimising the contributions of women in science. - Previous diff (this one is here just to show "passion" on the topic, nothing more)
 * My undeletion of Clarice Phelps's biography is an emergency measure to answer criticism in the press and show Wikipedia to be responsive, responsible, and capable of correcting mistakes quickly. I understand that this disregards the previous Deletion Requests, but doing otherwise would amount to a dismissive and defiant "Wikipedia is not for Social Justice" attitude, which would be irresponsible and deeply suspicious. - Previous diff
 * there are many sources establishing notability, because there is a suspiciously selective enforcement of notability criteria on this case, and because media attention on this article - 09:34 29 April 2019
 * yes you are arguing for deletion, and you are also letting far-Right talking point slip - 12:14 29 April 2019 for my preceding comment striking at Rama's and the Jarvis' politicization of the deletion. Albeit Like you, the only reason the author thinks this article is necessary is because politics and social justice was my engaging in hyperbole. It's not the only reason, but it is the main one given.
 * The nature and intensity of the reactions to the restoration have also surprised me - If the above statements by you don't give you a hint as to why you received such a vicious backlash, then nothing will. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Lectonar
To be resolved by motion; straight-out wheel-warring. Lectonar (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GB fan
I don't believe this actually is a wheel war. That says that once an Admin action is reversed the reinstatement of that or a similar admin action is wheel warring. In this case the article was deleted and protected from recreation. Those two admin actions were reverted. Now if anyone reinstates those actions (deletes the article and create protection) it is a wheel war. We haven't gotten to the third stage yet that makes one.

Statement by Fram
I moved the page to draft space. Keeping it in the mainspace lets one admin (whose admin rights doesn't make them a superior judge of content matters) overrule community decisions, no matter if these were right or wrong. Deleting it would get me too close to wheelwarring as well probably. In draft space, it can be developed and can then be brought to WP:DRV for a standard review if necessary. And it allows non-admins to see what the fuss is about, which a deletion wouldn't do. The recreation of the article was not an emergency, despite the claims by Rama to the contrary, and should lead to a desysop (for wheel-warring or for serious abuse of the admin rights by editing through salting to overturn a community content decision); but the article is not a BLP violation which needs complete deletion asap, and draftifying it works just as well for now (I have no opinion on later redeletion or a post-DRV move to mainspace). Fram (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
I'm sure we all on occasions have disagreed with the consensus at one place or another however that's just how this place works .... In terms of AFD if you don't agree with that consensus then you have DRV - If consensus goes against you there then you simply give up and move on, I personally would say this is wheel warring as an admins action has clearly been reversed, Anyway the only sensible option here is a desysop with the option of retrying through RFA,

Also worth noting Rama was given the mop back in 2005 where things were a lot different. – Davey 2010 Talk 10:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Not the first time I've got Wheelwar wrong and certainly won't be the last!. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Amorymeltzer
I have no comment on what ArbCom should or shouldn't do, but unless I am missing some other action, this is, by definition, not wheel warring. A wheel war, as Arbitrators surely know, is when sysops reverse an already-reversed sysop action; had taken umbrage and reverted 's undeletion, that would have been a wheel war. This was a sysop taking unilateral action to reverse an apparent community consensus: that may warrant action here (in particular to avoid an actual wheel war) or it may not, but this is not a wheel war. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 10:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru
I'll comment more on this in due course when time allows, as I did play a minor role in the saga myself last night with a db-repost deletion of the article when it had been recreated at the slightly different title of Clarice E. Phelps. I will say now though, regarding 's comment above, "[this arbcom case] makes it virtually impossible for Rama to back down and put things right for themselves" - I doubt that's the case. Even though the decision to re-delete the article has been taken out of their hands, I reckon that if were to back down now and apologise for their actions in overriding community consensus and several other admins, then things may not need to be escalated any further and this case can be closed down. The arbs haven't even begun to look at this yet. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some disagreement on whether this constitutes wheel warring or not, so it may be worth explicitly stating the order of events (and correct me if I've missed anything):
 * 31 August: Page created by.
 * 11 Feburary: Deleted by Tony Ballioni following first deletion discussion. Deletion discussion was endorsed on 18 Feb.
 * 3 April: Created again by Jesswade88.
 * 4 April: Deleted again by Tony Ballioni following second deletion discussion.
 * 26 April: Draft:Clarice E. Phelps was created by.
 * 27 April: Draft moved to mainspace Clarice E. Phelps by admin.
 * 27 April: I deleted the Clarice E. Phelps article as it had been tagged as db-repost by and the conditions for that seemed to be met.
 * 29 April: undeleted the original article at Clarice Phelps.
 * 29 April: moved the article to Draft:Clarice Phelps without leaving a redirect, after the opening of this case request.
 * Quite who is reverting whom in all that is hard to say but I don't think the question of whether this is textbook WP:WHEEL or not should really affect whether the case should be heard or not. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally sympathise with the spirit of your comments - people do need to calm down here, certainly. Personally I am not baying for blood and am undecided if a desysopping, admonishment, or a simple WP:TROUT is appropriate. Or maybe even no action at all. But it's clear that Rama's actions and their refusal (thus far) to admit that they made a mistake, and the widespread discontent with that admin action evident on this page, have created a situation that cannot be dealt with by any other mechanism. "The community can deal with this issue" is expressly not the case, because the community has no power to examine administrator conduct, that is the domain of ArbCom. On the substance of the issue itself there seem to be two points being made by Rama and others in defence of the action, namely (1) the situation was an emergency one requiring unilateral WP:IAR action, and there was no time for community consensus to be established before restoring the article to redress that emergency, and (2) that off-wiki articles and "perception of Wikipedia in the press" issues override AFD decisions in scenarios like this. I disagree on both points. There was no emergency, because there were multiple discussions ongoing in different venues since Saturday, and no consensus had been formed that the recent coverage in the press warranted a change of approach. And on the latter point, I know of no policy saying that off-wiki op-eds should influence our processes. For all these reasons I think ArbCom need to look at this. I'm not pre-judging what ArbCom might decide, but this surely sits squarely within their domain of operation. To be clear, if Rama admits they were wrong and promises not to unilaterally override community consensus in this fashion in future, then the case can be closed swiftly as far as I am concerned. But that doesn't seem to have happened. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * fair enough, that makes sense. Thanks for the response. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A number of people are saying this case shouldn't be heard because technically no wheel warring occurred. Although that is correct from a WP:Wikilawyering point of view, I personally disagree with that this means there should be no ArbCom case. It's fairly clear (and even those calling for no further action agree) that what occurred was a clear case of WP:TOOLMISUSE in the sense of editing through protection to impose a personal point of view that is known to lack consensus. What concerns me right now is not so much the incident itself, but the fact that although Rama has said they regard the situation as "exceptional" and therefore unlikely to be repeated, there has been no acknowledgement that what they did was wrong. Or that they would not repeat this action if the identical circumstances happened again. Their record of long service and lack of controversy so far is a strong mitigating factor, and I would stop short of desysopping if I were in charge, but I do think an official admonishment from ArbCom is in order. Just so it's clear that invoking nebulous Foundation "promotion of diversity" policies to overrule a specific endorsed community decision is not a valid use of the tools. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Med
I think this arbcom request should be speedily dismissed. First and foremost, Iffy has made no attempt to engage in any discussion with Rama. The right procedure would have been first to contact Rama and discuss with him if/how the circumstances have changed (and they very obviously have, necessitating rapid action) since the previous vote. If I were a suspicious person, I would say that this procedure looks awfully like someone jumping the gun at the first opportunity in an attempt to instrumentalize the arbcom and silence a voice perceived as dissenting. So until Iffy's attitude becomes respectful and genuinely open to discussion, any arbcom request against Rama is completely unwarranted and abusive. Med (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that the guidelines/rules/etc. are nothing but tools towards the goal of building an encyclopedia. They should never be regarded as anything other than that. So more than anything actions should be regarded not so much as whether they follow the guidelines down to the comma, but whether they improve wikipedia. In addition the context has to be taken into account. There have been long standing patterns of harassment coming from certain groups who are trying to instrumentalize the guidelines (and various hastened decisions by a ridiculously small and non-representative fraction of contributors) and turn them into something absolute in an effort to turn wikipedia into their political platform (e.g., the harassment of Dr. Jess Wade by people focusing on a narrow range of articles in order to push a clear political agenda, negating their claims of being apolitical). Is wikipedia richer by having an article about Clarice Phelps? Certainly. Does having an article about Clarice Phelps hurt in any possible way any aspect of wikipedia? Certainly not. It does not remove anything from any other article, quite the opposite. Wikipedia is rich with articles on far more obscure and niche subjects than Clarice Phelps. So, given the circumstances, internal and external, I believe the actions of Rama, while bold, were warranted. From what I have read, he understands he should have nevertheless been more cautious, which should be enough to close the topic. That this affair is growing to ridiculous proportions for the actual article at stake here, suggests a coordinated pattern mentioned earlier. This sort of systematic procedural attack creates an overall toxic environment around the documentation of scientists, deterring good-faith contributors from enriching the encyclopedia we love. Kisses. Med (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy
One might dispute whether this is wheel-warring or just wheel-warring adjacent but the facts are that an admin implemented community consensus and another admin reverted consensus because they believe they know better. Call it what you want but I think we can all agree to call it unacceptable. Whether the subject in question is notable or not is irrelevant though. It's clear that this was deliberate and not just a simple misunderstanding but rather Rama using their admin tools to fix a perceived "embarasment for Wikipedia". All admins are permitted to consider the outcome of a community discussion "unjust" but it does not mean they are allowed to ignore them. So as many have said above, a motion to desysop Rama for obvious abuse of tools seems to be necessary here.

And with all due respect to just above, there is nothing Iffy could have done more. Rama was aware of the problem because Sitush challenged their action. They defended it without going into details why they had to override clear community consensus. Regards So  Why  11:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone here is arguing that SALTing is some kind of irreversible decision. The problem was not that Rama edited through protection but that they did so without consulting the previous admin (WP:RAAA) and without any pressing need to do so before consulting said admin. And when they did, they restored an article without making any changes to it, merely asserting that "Notability is ridiculously obvious". The problematic violation of community consensus that ArbCom needs to review was restoring an article twice deleted because they thought the consensus was wrong. Regards So  Why  12:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * @ArbCom: I would also strongly urge this case request to be renamed to "Rama" or something along the lines. As Tony rightly points out, the article that caused the behavior is only tangentially relevant to this case request and her name should not be associated with the actions of a lone admin, not the least because BLP requires us to think about the real-life impact it might have if this takes longer and is covered in news outlets. Regards So  Why  12:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * While I am not completely against considering "how it will look if we do this or that", the focus should imho always be on what will happen if we let outside considerations dictate our internal processes. After all, administrators have to make 1001 unpopular decisions before breakfast and if they had to consider their actions from a PR standpoint as well, I don't think many would still be willing to do it. Wikipedia is a truly one of a kind project with people from all around the world participating. That requires that some rules are followed by all, especially those tasked by WP:ADMIN to lead by example. If we start to consider whether an action was made with the "subjective intent of benefitting the project", the whole system will sooner or later come crashing down. Yes, Rama acted because they felt Wikipedia were better off with this article than without it. But they also clearly and explicitly ignored consensus to the contrary without any need to do so. Declining to review this obvious abuse - compounded by later refusal to acknowledge that such behavior was problematic - because it might be received incorrectly by off-wiki media sends the wrong message. Whether at the end of such a review Rama is desysopped or merely admonished is for the Committee to decide. Regards So  Why  14:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Rob asked Rama if they understand why people are upset of them using tools to interfere in a content dispute. Rama replied (ignoring the large "Kindly read before editing this page" edit notice telling them to keep in their own section (which is also troubling for an admin)) talking about a "culture of ostensibly apolitical adherence to select rules" and "official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation such as the promotion of diversity" without addressing the question asked. With all due respect to and, do you really think there is nothing to investigate when an admin is not even able to reflect on their own actions in the face of criticism? Regards  So  Why  08:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * One last thought (hopefully): has helpfully pointed out that Rama has in the past already be sanctioned for edit-warring against consensus and a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude (I apologize for forgetting to remember and mention my involvement back then). If this moves to a full case, which I think it should and it looks like it will, the Committee should especially take a look this latest comment by Rama (which also reminds us how helpful the preview button is). This comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of consensus (which apparently only exists if an AFD is snow closed in favor of their position) and that Rama did explicitly want to use their tools to change the outcome of a content dispute because they felt the outcome was enforced unilaterally by one [side] on the other. Calling those of us (including myself) who are (rightly) critical of any admin using their tools to enforce their will on any discussion very much undisturbed that Wikipedia would be shown to the general population as insensitive to women and minorities betrays a mindset of "us vs. them" that is unbecoming of any admin. As  has so eloquently said, Respecting consensus isn't a procedural minutia, it's the core principle that allows us to collaborate. Apparently, Rama does not understand that. Regards  So  Why  07:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric
The arbs are yet to start voting and I strongly concur with Amakuru. A case over here will be an invitation to an even bigger mess in light of the recent rise in long-inactive accounts, popping out of nowhere and casting random aspersions at those involved with the deletion.

But, shall Rama not apologise for a blatant misuse of tools (and then standing by his misuse), I believe that a desysop is in short order. &#x222F; WBG converse 11:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The political overtones evident in Rama's handling of the issue is also deeply concerning. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that Rama has been active over Wikimedia-sites since the initiation of the case (from adding material at Phelps' page to accusing others of being in a right-wing conspiracy to uploading photos over Commons and deleting her other photos) but is yet to respond over here. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * --Err....Where from shall DGG recuse? He ain't an arbitrator, anymore. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
Unilateral restoration of a deleted and salted article in this manner is a blatent example of tool abuse. Pull tools of Rama by motion, invite a new RFA, move along to more important matters. Carrite (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am a little puzzled why has not recused from this case within the first six minutes of this request being launched. He is virtually — and arguably should be — a party. Carrite (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my bad. Thanks for the clarification. Carrite (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For the record, DGG opined Delete and I opined Keep in the original AfD debate. This should not be a content discussion or a political discussion, but a discussion about process. Tool abuse to supervote is not a valid instance of IAR. Carrite (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
First of all, this isn't wheel-warring, as it isn't a reversal of an already-reversed admin action. But it's fairly flagrant tool misuse. Not only has Rama unilaterally - without any discussion with the deleting admin or anyone else - restored an article that's been deleted through AfD (and DRV), but it was also salted, so they've edited through protection as well. And when asked in two venues to reverse their action, they've refused. This can be dealt with via motion. Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd just point out that Rama has been editing since this case was launched, but has not answered here; they have added material to the Phelps Draft article, and to say this on the Draft talkpage, to another editor who thinks the article should not be kept. Is this really what we expect from an admnistrator? (Not to mention that it probably makes Rama WP:INVOLVED as well as everything else). Black Kite (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nick
Desysop Rama by motion. Nick (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Wnt
GB Fan is right: this is not a wheel war, because it one admin undoing the first admin's action. Undoing the "salting" of the article is also not a violation of community consensus, because there was no community consensus to salt. Yes, there were three in the second AfD who said to salt, but another said not to, and some of the other comments that didn't lean either way could be inferred to be against salting (if someone says 'delete because there is no substantial change', that would seem to suggest a changed article would be acceptable). Not being able to view the text, I don't know if there was an attempt to substantially change its content from the AfD'd version or not - if there was, it may not be a violation of community consensus, otherwise it might be.

My main concern is that I don't want a minority of participants in an unannounced poll (it's not "Articles for Salting") plus one admin's more or less arbitrary action to become an irrevocable ban on covering a topic area. Nor should it be necessary to have a special RfC to undo a restriction when there was no special RfC to enact it. Wikipedia's primary purpose is supposed to be about sharing information, not concealing it. So admins should have and retain broad powers to un-salt articles based on any serious request from an editor. Wnt (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The responses by SoWhy and TonyBalloni are pretty persuasive. So long as this is phrased as a matter of ignoring the consensus on the AfD and/or not giving notification per WP:RAAA, rather than saying that an admin can't de-salt an article without 'wheel warring', my concern is satisfied.  I do mean giving notification rather than getting consent -- if one admin salts and another disagrees after a discussion, then the second should be free to cancel the first and leave it unsalted, at least unless some larger consensus is brought in. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
Less than 12 hours ago I created User:Levivich/Clarice Phelps (which is different from the draft that was undeleted) and asked Tony if it was enough to unsalt. He said no, which I expected, and my intent was (and still is) to appeal that to DRV to seek recreation to be allowed.
 * The second AfD–the one that resulted in the salting–was only open for 8 hours, and several people (I was one of them) were against salting. I don't see how anyone can claim that this was salted as a result of "consensus" in such circumstances. Also, when approved Clarice E. Phelps through AfC,  deleted and salted it. How is that not wheel warring, but undeleting what Tony deleted/salted is wheel warring? (I don't think it's wheel warring in either case.) Leviv&thinsp;ich  13:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and normally I'd do what you're suggesting, but there are already editors removing sourced content from the draftspace draft, including wholesale removing the new sources calling it "myth" (, here). #1 I don't want to touch that draft with a ten foot pole in the middle of an arbcom case request, #2 I don't want to edit war and there is going to be zero chance of coming to consensus on that talk page of that draft (note that editors like  are already editing on that draft with edit summaries like "learn how to write better", so that will give you an indication of how well a talk page discussion would go), and #3 I don't want to take a "mangled" draft to DRV. As I understand it, the procedure (or one procedure) for seeking restoration of a salted article is to create a draft in userspace that you think is sufficiently different from the prior version, and take it to DRV requesting "allow recreation" (if the salting admin won't agree to unsalt). That's my intent. I'd like to have a (calm) discussion about the new sources and whether they sufficiently establish notability (I think they do). Of course, anyone else is welcome to take any part of my userspace content and incorporate it into the draftspace content if they want to. I just don't think that's going to a useful expenditure of time, given that editors are deleting sourced content already. Leviv&thinsp;ich 13:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) I also think the committee should decline this–not with an admonishment, but a straight decline. "No firm rules" is a pillar, IAR is a policy. IAR says, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It doesn't say, "go ask for permission first." It doesn't say "except for admin." It would be an entirely different story if it was repeated IAR, but it was a one-time thing.
 * 2) It can't be that when someone IARs, the consequence is that they must promise never to IAR again. It can't be that when someone IARs and in retrospect it's considered a mistake, they must promise never to IAR again. Either one would vitiate the IAR policy and 5th pillar. If you punish editors in any way for a one-time IAR, they will never IAR again. And that's not Wikipedia.
 * 3) It's not accurate that this move was "against consensus". There is not the consensus that some claim there to be. The new sources came out after the second AfD, so whether they change anything has not yet been discussed by editors (that discussion is happening now at the Draft talkpage and RSN). This was a bold move, in the absence of any consensus one way or the other. It does not merit an arbcom case or motion, or any action. The best thing here would be to decline the case and for the community to move on from conduct disputes surrounding this article, and focus on the ongoing content discussion. Leviv&thinsp;ich  14:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
Yes. Open a case, and Rama's actions seem wrong to me on multiple levels, but the committee is going to have to deal with admin actions and WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record I don't think I have participated in any discussion concerning the article, and I have not commented in any discussion concerning Rama, before this. (I am certain this can be handled without deciding the article's fate). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You used a BLP as a football, not only is that egregious, it is unethical and possibly cruel. Do you not know that in the real world having a Wikipedia article is not always a plaudit but an invasion. Having read everything you have written on this (here, ANI, the draft article talk page), it is apparent how little judgement you had, here. That you are surprised is practically impossible for anyone who is demonstrating good judgement. And if we are to believe, not only did you disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but you did it over the most banal of ideas, that you could not stop to talk to other pedians.  Analogizing this to civil disobedience, not only suggests a very low opinion of civil disobedience, but a disconnect with why civil disobedience has some power -- it's the willingness to risk involved -- you risked nothing, real or imagined.  The idea that this was an emergency is plainly preposterous. 'It's too much an emergency to talk to other Wikipedians' is your defense, which is nothing but bringing the project into disrepute, since this is a project of communication.  Not only were your actions arrogant, you damaged the very idea of collegiality, respect, and communication, here, and most reprehensible used someone's bio to do so. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The topic of the article? A living person, not a polemic. It is required, we not forget. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Well, Rama, thanks, I still don't know what "subject is polemic", in fact that phrase makes even less sense to me, now, thanks for responding, though. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? You are getting in the territory of what we call aspersion.  Some of us have actually written Wikipedia articles about women and minorities, and given topic ideas and sources to a project that writes articles on women.  So, not only could you be more wrong in your baseless suggestions about what disturbs other editors, here, but it suggests further negligence for you as an administrator.  Your tools are the community's tools, they are not given to you to dictate content, whatever your shallow understanding and assumptions of others is.  Nor are content decisions made to punish an alleged harasser -- a functioning administrator knows the effective and useful ways of how to and where to address harassment.  If there is harassment, let us welcome the opening of this inquiry, so you can bring your evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree
Desysop by motion. It is simply unacceptable for an administrator to edit through protection to restore an article that has been deleted twice by community discussion, without even notifying the deleting admin, or reversing their action when challenged. If the case is accepted it should focus only on Rama's admin actions, not on whether Clarice Phelps deserves a Wikipedia article, as this is out of Arbcom's scope. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reversing an admin action is not wheel-warring. Wheel-warring is re-instating an admin action that had been reversed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
Contrary to the majority opinion so far, I think this should be declined at this time. First, I have always disfavored desysopping for a single administrator action taken with the subjective intent of benefitting the project, except perhaps in truly extraordinary circumstances. Rama has been an administrator since 2005 and I do not recall encountering him before on the noticeboards or the arbitration pages. While high-profile, especially in the short-term, this appears to be an isolated incident.

Second, without getting into the merits of the underlying notability/deletion dispute, it is undeniable that rightly or wrongly, for better or worse, this situation has received and will continue to receive significant publicity off-wiki. While Wikipedia's decision-making should not be dependent on off-wiki descriptions or discussions of our policies and actions, neither should we be entirely tone-deaf to them. Those of us who are familiar with our processes and procedures can evaluate this matter based on notability and deletion and administrator-accountability policies, but others off-wiki lack that background. Inevitably, a desysopping here would be described off-wiki as "next, English Wikipedia's highest authority removed an administrator as punishment for seeking to rescue this article." There can be little doubt that such an addition to the narrative would, unhelpfully, further compound the notoriety that this matter has already incurred. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Rama's comments above, including that this was an exceptional action that he has no intention of repeating, further militate against any perceived need for a case or even a motion. Beyond that, I hope it is becoming clear that this single action was not so untenable or destabilizing as it might have seemed yesterday at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ad Orientem
I recommend this case be declined. There is no need for Arbcom to become involved here. The article is now in draft space and a discussion (yet another) regarding its suitability can now take place. Further, as pointed out by others, this was not wheel-warring. All of which said, Rama's actions were clearly a serious lapse in judgement. A strongly worded variant of "Don't do that again..." coupled with a large serving of Trout should suffice. The bottom line from my perspective is that while this was a bad judgement call, it was not a malicious misuse of the tools. Unless there is evidence of a serious pattern of poor judgement, opening a case to deal with this would be a serious overreaction and an unnecessary time sink. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cryptic
Even if this wasn't wheel-warring, use of one's extra buttons to gain advantage in a content dispute, against pre-existing consensus, is surely as bright a line. —Cryptic 15:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Hodgdon's secret garden
Point of order. Inasmuch as after the 2nd deletion at the Clarice Phelps article space another draft at Clarice E. Phelps was accepted by the admin user:DGG, an action that was summarily reverted by [edited: user:Amakuru ], Why is user:DGG [/User:Amakuru ] not also a party here? Must one initiate/ cajole heaven forbid that a parallel one be opened?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So if I follow u correctly - Admin A reads consensus to salt Clarice E. Phelps née Salone with diacritic therefore it's entirely proper for any editor including Admin B to accept a draft at Clarice E. Phelps née Salone, in that it's without one? How so (w/o failing the if-it-hops-like-a-bunny-has-ears-like-a-bunny-and-hides-eggs-at-Eastertime-it's-a-bunny test)?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Natureium
Whether or not this is technically wheel-warring, using sysop tools to say "Screw all of you and the multiple discussions that have taken place, I'm going to do what I want." is a big problem. He has made this whole mess worse. Not to mention the fact that we have Wikipedia editors using the press to write opinion articles to try to create notability for someone whose article has been deleted. This is a real person's name that they are using for political reasons, and it should be clear that this is morally unacceptable. Natureium (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
I think that many of the statements being made are not really about whether ArbCom should take this case, but are efforts to decide whether User:Rama engaged in wheel-warring. ArbCom should decide whether there has been wheel-warring. Those who say that this is a clear case of wheel-warring that should be decided by motion are making a good-faith mistake, and those who say that this case should be declined are making a good-faith mistake. This case is not open-and-shut, and that is precisely why ArbCom should accept it and consider it deliberately. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A Thought
The essay User:Robert McClenon/Administrator Abuse Cases explains that it should not be necessary to decide that Rama engaged in wheel-warring or other administrator abuse in order to accept the case. It is only necessary to decide that the case is worth deciding. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jayron32
Let's not pillory a good admin for a debatable position. Rama has been an admin with a spotless record for 14 years, and acted in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Process wonks and overly officious editors are now clamoring for his head over a minor dispute. I urge the committee to either a) outright decline this case or b) if they accept it for the purpose of making a motion, to at worst admonish or censure Rama without otherwise removing his tools. There's nothing to see here; it isn't even wheel-warring by definition, and it isn't the sort of thing we should be taking people's heads off of for. I'm not even sure I disagree or agree with either the deletion or the restoration. I was not involved in either debate, nor with the follow on discussions after Rama restored the article, but for real, this is not worth all this drama. -- Jayron 32 16:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by DGG
I accepted from what I thought an acceptable brief version, hoping that people would think it a compromise. When another admin deleted it I considered that I might ask him to revert himself and bring another AfD, or that I could go to DelRev. Even if I had reverted it myself I don't think it would have been wheel warring, though it's not something I would have ever considered. From subsequent comments made to me, I realized that my compromise probably did not have the clear consensus I thought it did, so I decided to let the matter rest. I don't think Rama's action was judicious in the circumstances, but I don't see how it was wheel warring. Nor would the reversal of his action be wheel-warring. A subsequent insertion by him would have been. As for acting against consensus, it's not acting against consensus to make another try, especially as the consensus on this was not very clear, and still is not very clear. It can, of course, sometimes not be a good idea. What will establish consensus on this will be an eventual well   attended  DelRev. It occurs to me that nobody has asked the subject if she wants an article. It's part of BLP policy that when notability is uncertain, we take a living subject's opinion about this into account.  DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
I agree with Black Kite that this isn't wheel warring (not administrative reverts of reverts). I have no strong opinion about whether the Committee should accept this case. But in case it does, I'd like to skip to the end and say that this warrants an admonishment rather than desysoping. El_C 21:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49
There is a reason that DGG was not brought to ArbCom when he attempted to make an article on this topic - he did not use his sysop toolset in these actions and responded appropriately when concerns were expressed. That was WP:BOLD editing. Rama chose a different path by explaining process in their response to concern (which was admittedly accompanied by a threat). This would make sense if they had chosen to follow process themselves when attempting to improve encyclopedic content. They did not. While consensus can change, the fact that the most recent AfD - a log of which they had in front of them at multiple points in this process - was less than a month old clearly suggests this is a complex controversial subject and thus according to the guideline itself BOLD editing is/was not the right path. No part of the response to their decision, including the possibility of an arbitration case arising should have been a surprise. Sysops should be using the toolset to protect consensus based decisions and not themselves attempting to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone who reads a criticism of Wikipedia and acts on it is doing so in the good faith belief that they are improving Wikipedia. Sometimes this is helpful, sometimes it is not. A sysop, as opposed to Never-Edited-Wikipedia should be able to tell the difference. Regardless of whether it was wheel warring or not (I don't think it was which is why when I first read this request I thought it should be declined) Rama took actions available to them only because of their possession of the sysop toolset - they viewed deleted content and restored content over a full protection. No full case is required for ArbCom to pass a reminder, a warning, a caution, a whatever word of admonishment ArbCom chooses, to act in an area where it has domain that the community does not.
 * I would, however, strongly agree that "Diversity terrorist" is an awful chose of label to apply to Rama and suggest SilkTork strike it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pldx1
Admin Rama has stated that Rama's actions were motivated by an [undark.org] article. This is a first failure. A WP's admin is supposed to act on behalf of WP, not on behalf of any external lobbying group. Moreover, before using Draft:Clarice Phelps as an hill to die, it would have been expected to consolidate the said hill. This has not been done, another failure. When looking at Draft:Clarice Phelps, we have:
 * After graduating from Tennessee State University, Phelps joined the United States Navy, where she served in the Nuclear Power Program. And then we are told why Navy uses Nuclear Power. Not a single word to describe the place Phelps occupied there. Serving as seaman is not the same as serving as admiral, but only weasel words can be found here.
 * Phelps was involved in the discovery of the second-heaviest known element, tennessine (Element 117), serving as part of the team that purified berkelium used to confirm the discovery of tennessine [1][11][12][13]. Yet another bunch of weasel words.
 * Discover is not the same as confirm the discovery. Moreover part of a team says nothing about the position in the team, from leader to auxiliary technician.
 * [12] is a book, to be published Jun 13, 2019 (source: google books). [13] is a 3 min youtube video, Phelps is never there. [11] is written by some mediacontact and centered about outreach activities.
 * The only source given for involved in discovery is [1], a rewrite of an YMCA article by some PubRel. Seems to be the source of what appears to be an hoax.

In summary, user Rama relaunched, without any thought, a process that harms both Wikipedia and the person under the projector. In any case, Clarice Phelps is not guilty of this fake news campaign launched by political warriors. It is a shame that Rama used Rama's admin position to commit such an act. What confidence can remain after that ? A case is in order. Pldx1 (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let us assume that the following statement was issued in Good Faith by User:Rama: especially if I had known how polarised the people involved on this article were, which I did not expect. The conclusion is that admin tools can't been left in the hands of someone that don't perceive why the fiat reversal of THREE successive deletion processes could polarize anything... and now is faulting the polarized people. Pldx1 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, the following homework can help understand what happened.

Statement by Sphilbrick
Arbcom should decline this case, not because it is unserious (it is very serious), but because community processes for dispute resolution have not been exhausted. One exception to this general rule is if wheel-warring occurs, because only Arbcom can adjudicate wheel-warring issues. However, many in the community (including many admins) mistakenly think that wheel-warring occurs when an admin reverts another admin action, but that's not true. This case was filed in good faith, on the mistaken belief that it involved wheel-warring, which truncated ANI prematurely. Now that it is understood that this was not wheel-warring, decline the case, reopen ANI or open a new ANI, and let the community attempt to resolve the issue.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck
There was a single out-of-turn admin action, not a wheel-war, and no transgression worthy of desysopping.

Rama restored an article despite the past deletion discussions and salting, but out of good faith. When Rama restored the article at "Clarice Phelps", there was no a priori reason why Rama should have known about any discussion or admin action which occurred after 4th April, because those subsequent discussions and deletion logs were located at other page titles. That gave a time-span of three clear weeks before Rama's undeletion, during which there was significant media attention which could have affected the applicability of Wikipedia's policies to the article subject. Rama was right to attempt a WP:BRD cycle, restoring the article as he saw appropriate, and attempting to defend his position in subsequent discussions. Even if the community decides that Rama's undeletion was wholly inappropriate, this was a single out-of-turn admin action, not wheel-warring, because nobody has redone a sysop action after having been reverted. Rama should be given the benefit of doubt here, which I don't think has been pointed out in the statements above.

ArbCom should decline this case because it has no jurisdiction over content, and it is unduly harsh to desysop for a single out-of-process admin action. As Newyorkbrad elegantly put in his statement, Inevitably, a desysopping here would be described off-wiki as "next, English Wikipedia's highest authority removed an administrator as punishment for seeking to rescue this article." There can be little doubt that such an addition to the narrative would, unhelpfully, further compound the notoriety that this matter has already incurred. Deryck C. 14:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
Admonish by motion and move on. There should be an RFC about our Byzantine notability guideline for academics. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
As far as the action by Rama, it was certainly not optimal. Admins have their tools to implement and enforce the consensus of the community, not to overrule it. But I think that's understood now, and I don't think anything more than perhaps a mild warning is warranted for that; certainly not desysopping for a single good faith mistake. My more substantial concern is the rationale behind the action, which was "Evidently notable, deletion of the article is a major embarassement for Wikipedia : https://undark.org/2019/04/25/wikipedia-diversity-problem/". "What will the newspapers think?" should never be a consideration in any action we take on Wikipedia, but especially not a controversial admin action. This probably isn't the place to resolve it, but perhaps the community should clarify that potential negative press is not a rationale for anything at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
All this shows is how Wikipedia people take themselves way too seriously. Someone restored an article, it was reversed. As someone unacquainted with this little non-issue until just now, do you have any idea how ridiculous this looks? The only motion should be an apology for the mass murder of words and electrons above. Lighten up, the world actually doesn't care about individual Wikipedia editors or their actions even if we all wish it was true. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Feminist
Apologize, resign, wait a few months for the dust to settle, then run for RfA again. In the meantime, create more articles on marginalized figures. Or improve them. feminist (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes
I agree with Jayron32's statement 100%.

Regarding the alleged impossibility that "we [the community] were at fault, and Rama is the one doing the right thing" I will just say that I am reminded of the ridiculousness of the Star Trek Into Darkness capitalization wars, in which the outside world was scratching its head at "the community"'s seemingly dumb decision, a bold administrator agreed that it was dumb and unilaterally overrode it, everyone (myself included) howled at him for acting outside of established procedure, no one got desysopped, the world didn't end, and we all moved onto other things. That's probably a good model to follow here. 28bytes (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding perhaps the community should clarify that potential negative press is not a rationale for anything at all, I have to respectfully disagree with that. If multiple articles are suggesting that we are doing something dumb or harmful, that is a rationale for double-checking that what we're doing is not in fact dumb or harmful. That's not to say we should blindly follow whatever the popular press is suggesting we do, but neither should we stick our fingers in our ears and not even consider that they may have a point. 28bytes (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JFG
In their latest reply to an arbitrator's question, Rama wrote: if I had not been an administrator, I would not have done anything. This statement reinforces the case for a willing misuse of the tools. If I were in Rama's shoes, and genuinely concerned about Wikipedia's reputation while not being an admin, I would have urgently pleaded the case for undeletion to various admins who had been involved in prior decisions. Instead Rama acted unilaterally just because s/he had the tools to do it. This is regrettably disqualifying from admin tenure, at least within today's best practices, although such bold IAR action may have been totally acceptable, or even encouraged, in 2005. — JFG talk 13:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Hydronium Hydroxide
From late 2009 to February 2010 there was Requests_for_comment/Rama and then Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive596. Though these are ancient it does mean that this kind of supervoting behaviour is not a one-off, and since Rama appears to have made very few administrator actions (<40?) in the intervening period, there have been few other opportunities to have gone wrong with the tools. As wrote at the RFC: "Administrators are (supposed to be) vehicles by which Community consensus, be it via discussion or agreed policy or guideline, is enacted and not its interpretors... As an editor, and as an admin, Rama is permitted to hold a minority viewpoint - and sincerely believe that only they are interpreting policy and consensus correctly - but has no authority to substitute their understanding over that of the community...  In short, Rama cannot argue that the agreed consensus is incorrect and then act upon their interpretation. Rama should withdraw from using the tools in pursuance of their own interpretation of policy where it is the minority viewpoint". (!voted delete at AFD1, no previous known interaction with Rama) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 16:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
The latest from Rama - combined diff - shows not only a misunderstanding of consensus but of Notability and WP:V. I quote specifically - "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) and I thought it was a unfortunate incident that needed a little nudge and would solve itself when the editors involved would be informed that they were making Wikipedia look like a haven for Gamergate-style bullying and misogny". Never mind that an employer (Oak Ridge) is not independent - I want to focus on the US Navy (which is also not independent in regard to Phelps' service). There were two refs in the article as recreated by Rama from the navy - Nuclear Power: A Satisfying Career Fulfilling the Navy's Needs, Superior Training and Opportunity: Navy Nuclear Power Program - this is recruitment PR. It doesn't even mention Phelps. These two sources were sourcing the following stmt: "The Nuclear Power Program operates and maintains the nuclear reactors that power the Navy's submarines and aircraft carriers." (not quite supported by the references which describe the Nuclear Power School and not operations) - and do not establish notability of Phelps (or any other nuclear technician employed by the US Navy). This was also clearly stated in the AfD(s). An admin challenging consensus, and asserting optics of "bullying and misogny" based on references that do not even mention the subject ?! Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding that an analysis of the sources was present in - Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination) (on almost the same version Rama restored) - which specifically says in the nomination: "ref7, ref8 - US navy, doesn't mention the subject." (and addresses every other ref than was in the article at the time). As an AfD regular I'll further state that an abundance of low-quality references is generally a sign of Citation overkill - personally, if I see an article with many low-quality references I suspect that higher quality ones are lacking (of course nominating for AfD is time consuming - as on top of the normal WP:BEFORE - one has to go through every single one of these passing mentions (or in Phelps case - even no mentions)). In any case, the sourcing situation here should've been clear had Rama read the AfD discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
I don't think that it is possible to look at the three discussions on the article that is the locus of the current dispute and think that we need to re-run another week long discussion. While consensus can change, it is doubtful that it has in less than a month. Forcing another AfD would be running the process again and again until a desired outcome has been achieved. The fact that motion 1 seems to encourage this behavior is worrying. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  08:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * RE motion 2, having a scope that thin is worthless. You are setting up a fatal accompli where the only outcome that the committee will agree on is a warning or admonishment. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  08:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky Caldron
It is concerning that even in the most blatant of red-line issues Arbcom seems determined to find a way to delay and obfuscate. Arbcom is mandated NOT to involve itself in content disputes. The idea that waiting to see how the content aspect is resolved by the community should not influence the decision required on the Admin. abuse. If it does influence that call, then it is indirectly breaching the "no content involvement" Arbcom tennant.

Workshop Question
If I wish to post analysis of evidence on the Workshop for Rama it appears I cannot do so until 7 May - including via the talk page. Is this because the workshop isn't open (which I don't see noted anywhere unlike with GiantSnowman where it was noted) or because of the vandalism the case has experienced? If the latter how could I post analysis before then? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes, it's only noted in the protection log. In a short bit I'll go to the GiantSnowman case and note it on the actual pages. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Yann
Hi, I came after Rama reported that their files were nominated for deletion on Commons by Fram, who is in the opposite side of the dispute. Fram's nominations on Commons are indeed a clear violation of a conflict of interest. They should not have nominated the files themselves, regardless of the files copyright status. In addition, quite of number of these nominations are baseless.

On the content of the dispute, Rama may have acted out of process, but it seems to me that they acted in good faith for the benefit of Wikipedia. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)