Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence

Word counts/General clerk notes

 * TonyBallioni: 197
 * Black Kite: 468
 * Levivich: 329
 * Winged Blades of Godric:
 * SoWhy:  (Exempted: See below)
 * Deryck C.: 362
 * Iffy: 246


 * Please reduce your word count to around the 500 word mark, or let me know if you are requesting an extension. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 12:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the committee further about Rama's evidence, and we'll go from there, but your points have been noticed.
 * You need to support your evidence with some diffs, or remove it, since you are casting aspersions.
 * I'm not sure what your concerns are about the clerking, but please bring it to the talkpage in your own section instead of presenting it in evidence.
 * Thanks, please remember to reply in your own sections, and not up here. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 22:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You come in at 1150 words. The limit is 500 words for non-parties without requesting an extension. Please request one or shorten your evidence. I will also note you could place some of it in the Workshop Analysis of evidence section if you see it fit there. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Buffs
I totally may be out of line here and I'm unaware of any interaction I've ever had with Rama, but I think that it's worth noting that the proximate cause of this case (the restoration and subsequent redeletion of of Clarice_Phelps) has not gone unnoticed in media: link to article. This is not to persuade or dissuade anyone, per se, but to warn that there may be some related media blowback. Likewise, it doesn't excuse/support/oppose Rama's actions either. It's just an FYI. I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled ArbCom hearing. Buffs (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved your comment to the talkpage as it is not a presentation of evidence. Additionally, I'll let you know the Committee is aware of this. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by WBG
wrote:--many of my detractors arguably fall under WP:LW for invoking petty considerations to hinder diversity. WP:LW is a historical page that states :- Wikipedia is a free international encyclopedia which is not censored for the benefit of minors. From time to time, users may be warned that using Wikipedia itself or reusing material on Wikipedia may have legal consequences.

That I am not able to parse the connection; can you kindly be more explicit about what you wished to convey? &#x222F; WBG converse 08:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Agree that WL was meant; reversing LW did not strike my mind:-( &#x222F; WBG converse 09:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * --This is a gold-standard example of wasting bytes (and edits) w/o any conceivable benefits, while hampering accessibility. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You will need to take that up with the Committee then, they were specific that all talkpage discussion needs to be sectioned. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 12:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting
clerk action. Rama's evidence talks a whole lot about content, which is out of the scope of the case notwithstanding the cherry-picking of data. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, David Eppstein is not a RS for asserting scrutiny levels on white male bios (IIRC has mentioned the exact reverse scenario to happen with her creations and Eppstein was already pre-conceived) and neither does the Arxiv piece say anything to the effect. (There's a difference between studying the differential (male-female) rates of bios being existent as compared to nominated for deletion as compared to actually deleted .)
 * I strongly believe that these and other assertions (about content) have no place in the evidence, per the pre-defined case-ambit but if arbitrators deem to the contrary, I am inclined to rebut some of his points (and other statistical anomalies). &#x222F; WBG converse 15:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the graph about number of users commenting at the case; I can neither locate this accept, which had nearly the same count as this one (42, as compared to 45) nor this decline, which had 50. (And, I have not even performed a cursory search apart from three random clicks; I suspected the Portal-decline to have more participants but was wrong.)
 * Where's the data-set of the graph? I propose that it be removed, unless he brings the data-set, (which shall serve as the diffs). But, in light of my above evidence (42 and 50), I am seeing a distinct challenge to his inferences. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The verses about Poisson-Distribution are gold standard rubbish and a good example of how not to play with data. (I thought of more gracious ways to frame this but, this's the best). &#x222F; WBG converse 15:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, what led him to infer that comments on Wikipedia discussion pages normally occur in a Poisson distribution. ? &#x222F; WBG converse 16:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed some of the more overtly statistical material as it is not germane to the scope of the case. GoldenRing (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the removals. At any case, am requesting for a word-limit extension to 1000. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the removals. At any case, am requesting for a word-limit extension to 1000. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Fae:-I second Sitush's rational request. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by SoWhy

 * Pretty sure that they meant WP:WL. Regards So  Why  09:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please remember that talkpage discussion is sectioned. Thanks. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thanks. As for word count, most of the evidence I presented is merely quotes and links to other parts. If possible I would like to leave it that way for improved readability. Regards So  Why  12:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping for word count extension request. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 13:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, as long as you're not planning to add more. It's concise enough and only a little over. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅.  AGK  &#9632;  16:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding your evidence, the 2nd DRV was not advertised and Rama not explicitly notified but it was mentioned at Draft talk:Clarice Phelps on 1 May 2019, so anyone interested in the subject had sufficient notification. Regards So  Why  07:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that having a personal connection makes it harder to see things objectively but I don't think "unjust set-up" is a fair characterization. Refer to the timeline posted by Levivich: Rama knew - as they admitted - that they were not allowed to act this way. They were given a chance to reverse their action when Sitush posted on their talk page but Rama decided against it, instead trying to justify the undeletion both on the talk page and on ANI. Only afterwards this Case was requested. So the assertion that Rama was given no opportunity to consider the circumstances or reverse their actions is not correct given the evidence. Furthermore, Rama had sufficient chances to reverse their decision and apologize even after the Case was requested which he also did not do. It was another two hours before the article was moved to draftspace by another admin. Regards So  Why  20:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The restoration happened at 07:38 (UTC!). Sitush's post to Rama's talk page dates "08:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)" to which Rama replied at "08:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)". Iffy's request at ArbCom dates "09:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)", two hours after the restoration. I think you might have a local timezone enabled which would explain the confusion as log entries and dates will be displayed in your timezone and UTC-dates are only shown as part of signatures. Regards So  Why  08:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

BU Rob13's section
Moved from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. Please submit your response in your own section. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify whether you knew of the deletion at Clarice E. Phelps when you completed you admin action? If you had known about it, would that have changed anything? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Fram
The "evidence" by Rama:
 * "To decide that my action was unjustifiable, one must prove that I could not have reasonably suspected something unusual and contrary to the interests of Wikipedia was happening. I will prove that there was in fact good reason to suspect so.

The deletion of Phelps' biography turned out not to be an isolated event, but the first in a string of incidents involving the same group of editors: this Arbitration; several Deletion Requests — Nia Imara (DR), Leslie Kolodziejski (DR), Ana Achúcarro (DR) and Sarah Tuttle (DR), all created by Dr. Wade; and a section on the Administrators' noticeboard [7]."

So, the evidence why IAR was needed and warranted consists of a number of events happening after the IAR action by Rama. It would perhaps be less prescient and more realistic to describe all these events as direct results of Rama's undeletion, an unwarranted and ill-thought out IAR action causing unwarranted and ill-thought other deletion attempts.


 * "Phelps' biography counted 28 references when I found it deleted for lack of notability — not only unusual, but unprecedented in my 16-year experience."

Let's make that 6-year experience, considering the near-total lack of real admin actions in the last 10 years. A cursory look through deletions I was involved ith gives me e.g. Articles for deletion/Coloma Swaan (22 references), Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Milburn (a BLP which had 23 refs before I removed most of them), Articles for deletion/Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards had 25 refs, Articles for deletion/Girther movement had 18 refs... Looking at recent AfDs, we have Articles for deletion/TCOLondon (46 refs!), Articles for deletion/Rachel Galvin (51 refs!), Articles for deletion/Richard Ludlow (31 refs), Articles for deletion/Dee Workman Benedict (20 refs), Articles for deletion/Caleb Postlewait (20 refs), Articles for deletion/EverlyWell (29 refs), ... Such a number of refs for a deleted article is really nothing exceptional, but that Rama got that impression may be due to his lack of adminning experience.

1) interest in the preliminary proceedings of the present case is unusually high (Fig1) — in fact record-high among the /case/ subspace."
 * "Statistical analysis of the events also highlights patterns that are either exceptional, or inconsistent with the natural functioning of Wikipedia.

Not true, one has only to go back to April 2019 to find an example of a case request with more participants, here, with 50 participants, beating the 49 of this case. Whether it would have been a good defense otherwise is debatable: WP:IAR is mainly intended for things which don't fit (or even contradict) a rule, but will be recognised by most editors as beneficial ("improving Wikipedia", the reason to IAR). If your IAR turns out to be highly controversial, then it wasn't a good use of IAR at all.

The remainder of the defense is basically claiming that whoever is arguing against Rama and/or for deletion of the article is part of some right-wing conspiracy, and the statistical "evidence" for this is all post-factum, i.e. invalid to explain why Rama felt the need or justification to perform an IAR undeletion at that time.

All in all, their response may look impressive but is at closer look utterly meaningless, as it mixes some manifest errors with loads of events which happened after the action that caused this Case in the first place. Fram (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "the time between the undelete and the arbcom escalation decision being less than 15 minutes,": the undeletion was at 07:38, the case request was started at 09:46, so 128 minutes, not "less than 15 minutes". Fram (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You still haven't corrected your claim about the timeline. About Rama being active on Commons and Wikidata: this may be true, I haven't checked, but these are separate projects, with separate policies and standards, so being up-to-date there has no bearing on being an out-of-touch admin here. Fram (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * one editor saying that this was ArbCom material is not the same as actually bringing it to ArbCom. And even then there were 27 minutes between the undeletion and that first comment about ArbCom, not less than 15 (not that there is some magic line where such comments are better or worse, but if you are giving something factual in your statements, it is best to get it right). And no, whether something is a featured picture on Commons or not has no relevance for the creation or deletion of an article on enwiki. Commons has many pictures about persons or things not notable enough for enwiki to have articles about (just like Wikidata has many items where we will never have an article because it wouldn't meet our policies and guidelines). Finally, believing that something was an error is not sufficient as reason to use your admin tools and override community consensus. If you believe a community discussion came to the wrong conclusion, you either start a new discussion or escalate it to higher authorities, or you simply accept it. Thousand of editors every day have to live with content discussions they don't like and think are wrong; it is not because as an admin you have some tools which give you more power to go against such a consensus decision, that you have the right to do so. Fram (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Fram: I'm glad you agree there was communications between interested parties about the arbcom before Rama was notified." WHAT? "Communication between interested parties" is one person stating that an action by Rama was the kind of thing that should go to ArbCom. That's not "communication between interested parties", that's standard ANI discussion. Furthermore, Sitush posted at Rama's page at 08:13, and then went to ANI 10 minutes later. The Arbcom comment came even later. Please don't put words in my mouth, and please don't continue to make incorrect claims about this case. Fram (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Evidence section by Alanscottwalker
Some great meaty allegations:
 * Rama is simply not telling the truth
 * content dictator
 * proves Rama abjectly did not fulfill their duties as an Admin
 * Rama is casting aspersions
 * Rama's comment is either filled with their own racism and misogyny ... or their excuses are simply false
 * and something they made-up after the fact, demonstrating their bad faith against others

But for an Arbcom Evidence page, the one problem with all these allegations is that there is no "evidence" supplied to support any of the rhetoric. --Fæ (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

rather than picking the bones over which exact form of words imply meat puppetry (like every single allegation of canvassing does in practice), I am absolutely certain that you 100% agree that direct unsourced and clearly false allegations of racism and misogyny made against Rama, should be a top priority to get removed or sourced so that everyone can read the evidence. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You appear in my notices 5 times in the last 11 hours. Here's my plan, I will read no more than ONE message from you in each 24 hour period and ignore all other notices from your account, to do otherwise makes it feel like I am being stalked, sorry that is how it feels to me and it is upsetting, even if you do not see your actions that way. As the target of recent death threats, I hope you will understand why I do not want to continually feel stalked. You have already used up your quota for the day. So go away now, find someone else to follow. --Fæ (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Evidence closes 10 May 2019". I have real life stuff to do. --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"bluster and squirming" = ABF. I do not see sufficient merit in your continued act of being professionally offended to spend more time on it. Excuse me, I have last minute admin and need to pack my case. --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Mr rnddude
Sorry Amanda, I noted 1000 words 100 diffs but not 500 words 50 diffs for non parties. I'll have it considerably shortened by 00:00 UTC. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm down to 627 words. I am 127 words over the limit. I think around 200 of the words I've used comes from quotes, and I think these are necessary for context. I am making and rebuking quite serious allegations here. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response, for extension. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amanda. Fine for my part.  ?   AGK  &#9632;  13:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've no problem with it being a little over. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by FlyingAce
CyrilleDunant's reply to SoWhy needs to be moved to a separate section. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didn't notice that. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CyrilleDunant
Moved from SoWhy's section. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the logs being what they are, and the time between the undelete and the arbcom escalation decision being less than 15 minutes, I cannot accept this explanation. This sadly stretches my belief in good faith as per the record no cooling period occurred in the process... It is unreasonable to expect anyone acting calmly after circa 30 users decide to bring you in front of a court-equivalent, without prior discussion within a time period so short this cannot have happened without coordination.CyrilleDunant (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please remember to comment in your own section. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A request to : to modify the timeline presented by Sitush: the evidence I presented talks about putting Rama in front of the Arbcom 10 minutes before Rama is talked to. This should be added to the timeline.CyrilleDunant (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Declined. We do not modify other people's evidence, just determine admissibility. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A request to : reestablish the statistical evidence presented by Rama. User:Winged Blades of Godric is of course fully entitled to his opinion on the value of the evidence, but when the question is whether Rama has acted against the community consensus, it seems highly relevant to show that Rama might in fact have only acted against consensus in a tightly knit part of the community. , I'm curious to know what the generative process behind these data is, according to you, if it's not a Poisson process (to a very good first approximation).
 * Declined. It's not WBoG's opinion that got this removed, it was a clerk action. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A request to : Correct the record on Rama's activity. Rama is a very active contributor to Commons and Data (as well as also being an admin there). It is therefore simply false to imply that they have stopped being active and is out of touch. They simply focus their effort in a different part of the project.
 * Declined. We do not modify other people's evidence, just determine admissibility. And to point out what others of said, we only deal with behavior on English Wikipedia, that is as far as the committee's scope goes. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I am confused about what your problem is: I have provided a timestamped diff proving that Rama was to be arbcomed 10 minutes before being notified they had possibly erred. This stands in the record of facts. I am further uncertain how the subject of the article appearing as a featured picture in Commons (where Rama is admin, and active) would not have been a very strong basis for Rama thinking, in good faith that the deletion (and salting!) of the article was possibly in error. I am finally confused as to what you think the purpose of Commons is if not to serve as a source of material for the encyclopaedias, and thus part of the same large community.

I'm glad you agree there was communications between interested parties about the arbcom before Rama was notified. It's good: we are moving forward. You'll note that the discussion that follows indicates approval of the idea, which is in the context a possible proof that this arbcom was not put forth in good faith, which is germane to the case. I also find concerning you think is so very important an example be made. That is not the attitude of someone trying to establish what it true or fair, and seems to go quite against the decorum one might expect. I should add that this is casting aspersion on the impartiality, fairness and dedication to establishing facts of the arbcom. I will ask you thus to remove your comment.


 * If you have evidence that there was some sort of conspiracy to bring this case, please enter it as evidence. If you want to enter Rama's record on commons as evidence, please do so on the evidence page.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would not dare suggest there is a conspiracy, that would be a grave accusation, surely worthy of its own arbcom case. No, I am merely pointing out that the evidence presented is incomplete in ways that may shed a different light to the case. I also note with regret that the manifest error in the timeline cannot be corrected, and that this faulty evidence can stand.

A request to : a clarification of the scope. The case seems to hinge on whether Rama was acting in good faith. Surely, character is an important aspect in determining that. Character surely can be demonstrated by demonstrating good behaviour across sister projects. For example, it seems relevant that Rama is Oversight on commons, which means they meet a high standard of commitment and standing there.
 * The scope is posted clearly posted at the top of the evidence page. The Arbitration Committee only has jurisdiction on the English Wikipedia, and therefore only evidence can be presented about here, unless it directly correlates with an action taken here. (Like a blocked user posts to commons instead of here because they can't edit here.) -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologise, but then how is good faith demonstrated? More importantly how is the scope of jurisdiction related to the character of the users?

A request to : move 's response to its own section.
 * GoldenRing is a clerk on the case like me as the top of this page says, so they are able to comment like this. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment did not seem to me of a clerical nature. Surely, as I have already posted evidence on the main page, I am aware this is possible. Therefore it is unclear to me why I should be reminded of such. Standards of good faith would seem to require that I at least have a brief discussion before submitting evidence, as I am doing here. Importantly, GoldenRing is suggesting that I have made an accusation I have not in fact made. CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
I think you're getting rather confused about things, including timing and who said or did what. For example, you might want to read this and check my interactions with before suggesting some sort of conspiracy or whatever the allegation is that you are trying to make. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

please can we see a diff for your statement that It has also been alleged that in some peculiar way, Rama became a meat puppet, because they follow people on twitter. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

no, I would like to see diffs, please. It is, after all, the Evidence page and as you say in your own section above the one problem with all these allegations is that there is no "evidence" supplied to support any of the rhetoric. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

actually, although I haven't followed every twist and turn of this farrago, I don't recall Rama even mentioning that they saw it on Twitter prior to presenting evidence in this case, which is what I linked in my own evidence. If I am right but someone called them out for it then that was prescient. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

, your change, which you seem not to have mentioned in a response here, doesn't really advance things. You now say It has also been implied that in some peculiar way, suffered from bias because they follow people on twitter, and Rama mentioned it was an embarrassment for Wikipedia recognizing the "real world" impact but who implied it? And the diff you give of Rama's comment makes no mention of Twitter. I'm not even sure if it would be relevant but, hey, let's at least get the facts straight. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not following anyone. I have this page watchlisted, along with about 4500 others. I would like a genuine answer, please, at some time of your choosing. Not another hissy fit about being worried about stalkers/safe spaces or whatever. I do sympathise about the recent death threat situation, which is something I have had in the past here, but you've been making misrepresentative statements about this sort of issue (Twitter etc) for a good while now. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

any update on this issue? Or would you prefer to retract? - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's why you have been working on Commons etc. I'm not having it, Fæ. I'm feed up of the bluster and squirming - just ask the clerks to retract it. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

GerardM's submission
First, I repeat the notice at the Evidence page-top:

I have removed an evidence submission by, originally submitted at "Evidence" presented by GerardM. I understand that the critical context of Rama's actions is complicated. It may also be relevant: no administrator acts in a vacuum, and the context may have influenced Rama's decision during the incident being examined by the committee.

Nevertheless, it is outside of scope to conduct a general discussion in Evidence of how the internet typically reacts, in any case, to the writings of an author. While we can accept mention of these factors in passing, debate concerning how far these factors exist or do not exist should be avoided. I have removed the submission from these pages of the arbitration process on that basis.

AGK &#9632;  12:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. This whole situation cannot be seen in isolation. It is part and parcel of a situation where the current posturing of some, wielding the rules of engagement as a sword prevent reflection on the people I see as harassers. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

cmts by Hodgdon's secret garden
If this prosecution is initiated mostly toward exemplifying basic principles, I argue to make those principles about protecting certain minority rights concerning what WP should be / become. About what minority do I speak? Well, outside WP there's an observation become truism: "The deletionists have won." What's being referenced is that a majority of editors showing up in AfD threads that interprets guidelines conservatively w rgd e.g. blp notability. Is these editors' way the only conceivable interpretation of the guidelines? No. A minority w/in AfDs interpret these same guidelines more liberally. Big deal? Yes this is a big deal as witness that the majority is so concerned about political posturings by the minority that the former goes quite far out of its way to police its beloved status quo. A voice technically outside of WP, in the case of the WPedia foundation's Katherine Maher, philiosophically also tends to side with this minority, her having tweeted "we need more nuanced understanding of reliable sources, a more inclusive and flexible application of notability, more diverse contributors, and a more welcoming and inclusive editing culture”. Indeed, it appears such "outside-WP" opinions as Maher's are those with which user:Rama resonates / upon which he based his initial resort to wp:IAR. Meanwhile, user:TonyBallioni characterizes a piece of the relevant timeline as so. "27 April: Amakuru deleted the Clarice E. Phelps article as it had been tagged as db-repost by Tataral and the conditions for that seemed to be met."  That the article at namespace Clarice E. Phelps (with blp subject's middle initial included's) fate gets relatively short shrift w/in wikiprosecution timelines is not doing Rama any favors. Quite the contrary. A famous "saw" among Wikipedians (apparently; I myself had never heard of it until the other day) is that the middle ground between deletionist and inclusionist camps on Wikipedia is populated by so-called "delusionists". User:DGG was one such admin, DGG's accepting a draft, via sidestep to the very salting at namespace Clarice Phelps thru which Rama subsequently wielded the WP admins' fancy tools kit to ingress. The wikiprosecution makes out delusionist [sic and with apologies] admin DGG's "draft acceptance's"-being-immediately-countered-by-another-admin as reasonable yet User:Amakuru had not discussed such countering prior its undertaking. On my junior high's playground, if one "pushee" him- or herself came to "shove" back, the teacher on playground duty would march both assailants, an ear of each partisan firmly within both of said teacher's clenched-thumbs-with-forefingers, to the principal's office. And, these assailants usually wouldn't argue that they don't deserve going. This should happen here. Further, and separately: Let's reform WP so that only a select cadre of "delusionist" admins close AfDs!--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Great news! Somebody cleverly "way backed" user:DGG's draft - hooray!--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Hydronium Hydroxide: I am talking about an ongoing tension or dynamic in general terms. (See here (diff).) Ur specifics seem enlightening. (Still they're flawed in u equate AfDs' ultimately being closed Delete or Otherwise-than-delete with their participants' having "correctly" !voted in them.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Serial Number 54129
I wonder if 's remarks are wholly focussed on the matters at hand, or whether WP:RGW applies. They certainly present a bold manifesto which I'm sure we can all support, even if this is clearly neither the time nor the place for it. IMHO as ever, of course. Cheers, ——  SerialNumber  54129  05:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Hydronium Hydroxide
The original AFD was not a case of inclusionists vs deletionists if you actually look at voting records (last 500 votes). Not counting the five voters with fewer than 10 AFD votes (2 deletes, 2 keeps and 1 draftify) and the 1 merge vote, here's some rubbery statistics: ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 9 originally voted keep (1 changed to redirect then delete) and 18 (including the closing admin) originally voted delete.
 * 5/9 of the keep voters have voted delete 80%+ of the time (only counting deletes and keeps)
 * 10/18 of the delete voters have voted delete 80%+ of the time
 * 1 of the keep voters has no delete votes. Of the other keep voters, 5/8 were more than 10% inaccurate in their delete votes (ie: where they voted delete and the result was keep or other red cell using the AFD tool; non-consensus is considered a "correct" vote)
 * Of the delete voters 9/18 were more than 10% inaccurate in their delete votes
 * 8/9 of the keep voters were more than 10% inaccurate in their keep votes
 * 8/18 of the delete voters were more than 10% inaccurate in their keep votes. 7/18 of the delete voters had no keep errors
 * 4/9 (!!) of the keep voters were more than 10% inaccurate for both keeps and deletes. 4/18 of the delete voters were more than 10% inaccurate for both keeps and deletes.
 * Of those who were 95%+ accurate in their delete votes, all voted delete
 * Of those who were 95%+ accurate in their keep votes, all voted delete
 * 7/9 of the keeps were in the first 10 votes

Comments by DGG
I do not know why HSG keeps linking to me and even putting my username in edit summaries--I attempted a compromise, and my attmept failed, as perhaps I should have known it probably would. What I tried had no other meaning or significance.  DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)