I'm going to keep this short, the article Clarice Phelps has been deleted twice (AFD 1 (Endorsed at DRV), AFD 2), and subsequently salted by TonyBallioni to prevent recreation. Today, admin Rama re-created the article without attempting to discuss the matter with the protecting admin, or at WP:DRV in violaiton of the salting, wheel warring and/or admin accountability policies. This case is being filed to consider whether Rama should be desysopped for wheel warringusing their admin tools against a clear community consensus, Arbcom is the only place that can resolve this dispute.
Extended content
@Fæ: If Rama had not doubled down on their re-creation when challenged, I would not have filed this case request per WP:AGF (but someone else may have done so).
I don't have an opinion on whether the scope should only be about Rama's conduct, or if the scope should be extended to other conduct issues surrounding the Clarice Phelps article, I named the case Clarice Phelps to allow ArbCom to make that decision if they choose to accept.
The matter of whether the article should be deleted or kept is a content dispute and thus not in Arbcom's remit, any conduct issues surrounding the editing of the article may be in scope though.
@Hodgdon's secret garden: I didn't add DGG or Amakuru as a party to this case as accepting an WP:AFC draft to an unsalted title is not an admin action (anyone at WP:WPAFC/P has this ability), and (speculation ahead) Amakuru deleted that page before DGG had a chance to revert his acceptance. Amakuru's deletion was within policy as WP:G4 exists to enforce the consensus of WP:XFD discussions.
Statement by Rama
I discovered the matter today in a press article. I then had a look at the Wikipedia biography, which I found to be far past the stub stage, and to contain almost 30 references. This made me think that the deletion process was mistaken, and, considering the potential for embarrassing press coverage, I decided to restore the article. This is an exceptional measure — I have never before seen an article with such solid references be questioned in such a manner. The nature and intensity of the reactions to the restoration have also surprised me. Rama (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Statement made in response to question by BU Rob13; moved here per guidelines for ArbCom pages]
My understanding is that there exists a culture of ostensibly apolitical adherence to select rules — including when the outcome contradicts official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation such as the promotion of diversity. What can be done about it is such a difficult question that the Wikimedia Foundation has several Strategic Working Groups interested in the issue, notably Diversity [1] and Community Health [2]. Rama (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is widely acknowledged that Wikipedia has diversity problems: that amounts to saying that the usual processes sometimes bring about undesirable results — I do not think that this is controversial. Of course one cannot solve the whole issue with executive decisions such as the one I took in restoring the article, this can only be exceptional. Rama (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"From earlier comments Rama has made I'm assuming they felt an undelete discussion would be wrapped up in wiki-bureaucracy, and likely be drawn out, taking up time and energy, while meanwhile the media were starting to take up this incident with echoes of Donna Strickland, so there was a sense of urgency, and IAR was created for situations like this" → yes.
I believe that I do not really understand BU Rob13's question, because it makes too many unstated assumptions, and I appear to have answered outside the bounds of these assumptions. Please clarify.
vocabulary matters because it frames the debate. As such, I want to say that I am not comfortable with using terms such as "the community" to designate users involved in any specific incident, as they are usually few in numbers and of various opinions. Also, "diversity terrorist" is unfortunate.
In case SilkTork is expecting some sort of declaration that I would not perform another action comparable to the restoration: that is what I meant when I twice said "exceptional" above.
I recognise that my recent action on Clarice Phelps' biography was not ideal, I recognise the error and I will be more careful in the future. Rama (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To answer BU Rob13 here [4]: I do not doubt your sincerity, I just find the question "what went wrong here" to be confusing. I assume that you mean "why my action triggered a backlash of this magnitude"? If that is your question, I would say because my action was unilateral and out of established processes for undeletion, the topic is polemic, and the people bound to oppose my action for the two first reasons were more numerous, organised and motivated than I expected. I hope I am answering your question, please ask further if you are expecting something that the present paragraph does not answer. Rama (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
answering [5]: I said "the topic is polemic, and the people..." because that is part of the causal chain (in the sense that if nobody had minded my action, we would not have this shitstorm; you can interpret this as me recognising the existence of other people with opinions.), and I was uncertain of what it was you wanted to hear. Administrators do not have specific authority, only specific tools. Nobody is entitled to overturn a consensus, although we do have principles and rules to address exceptional cases: WP:BOLD, WP:IAR etc. I think an administrator should clearly separate their administrative and editorial actions, which is obviously easier when one is indifferent to the subject; this being said, subjects on which everybody has an opinion should not go unattended. In this particular instance, I do not feel personally passionate about the subject, I merely acted in what I perceived to be an opportunity to protect Wikipedia from bad press in a case that I though would not prove as divisive as it turned out to be. Rama (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS to immediately above: I also realise that some regard administrative tools as something very serious and harbour some sort of standing suspicious that anything unusual amounts to an attempt at power-grabbing, while I am much more of the "administrator should not be a big deal" school. This was a blind spot on my part and I should have factored this — especially if I had known how polarised the people involved on this article were, which I did not expect. Rama (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
answering [6]: "polemic" is an English adjective meaning "controversial", which you can find in the Wiktionary [7]. Rama (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
answering [8]: if I had not been an administrator, I would not have done anything. The whole point of my action was that it was instantaneous: my intention was to give Wikipedia the image of an entity globally capable of hearing criticism and acting upon it. Launching into an undeletion request process would not have served the purpose. Rama (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
answering [9]: no, that would not have been instantaneous and would not have served the purpose. If I had believed that I had an unexceptional avenue to obtain the desired result, I would have done that, whether admin or not. You have it backwards: going through a process out of lack of administrative tools would indicate that the use of administrative tools would be a mere personal convenience, and would raise my eyebrows. Rama (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
answering [10]: the term "community consensus" suggests a collegially crafted decision that agrees a vast majority of people. The present discussion has revealed two embattled sides, and a state of affairs enforced unilaterally by one on the other; it has shown that one of the sides is composed of people willing to use spurious arguments (that we must delete a biography because we do not know the exact naval rank held by the subject, because our article puts its well-publicised subject at risk...), and encourage others to call their opponents "terrorists" [11]. 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. I though that an immediate restoration of the page was needed to defend the image of Wikipedia in the eyes of the general public and would also act as this signal to editors; instead, I seem to have upset a hornet nest of people very much undisturbed that Wikipedia would be shown to the general population as insensitive to women and minorities, and the article on Phelps now appears to be part of a more general pattern of harassment against User:Jesswade88[12]. As I have repeatedly said, I do realise that what I did was not ideal and turned out to be counterproductive, and if I never intended it to be a regular occurrence, seeing the outcome I am very much determined not to reiterate. Now, this being said, sanctifying the state of affairs with had on Phelps' article with the term "community consensus" is unfair. That is not "community consensus"; this is community consensus. Rama (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
answering noone: I understand that my action caused disruption and in hindsight I would not have done it. This being said, suggesting that administrators must act only to implement a strict interpretation of the rules is flawed. We have many rules that contradict each other; they are meant to be interpreted and give leeway for specific cases. Else, I am clearly and obviously at fault for bypassing the restoration rules, while simultaneously being obviously right because of WP:IAR, and many of my detractors arguably fall under WP:LW for invoking petty considerations to hinder diversity — a core value of the Wikimedia movement (e.g.: compare [13] to [14][15][16]). I acted in what I perceived to be an emergency, without a complete assessment of the situation, while hoping I was acting in the interest of the public image of Wikipedia. Note also that while I now disavow my administrative action, I have received thanks from several people for it: the narrative of a single individual battling the whole of the Wikipedia community does not reflect reality. Rama (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by TonyBallioni
As I have pointed out all tonight: no one here is looking at the impacts this dispute has the potential to have on a real human being who is in the early stages of her career and who it is likely is now most known for the Wikipedia controversy rather than anything else. An ArbCom case over this will only further that problem. A real human being has unfortunately become a political point on Wikipedia, and that is to our shame.
This was not wheel warring: it was an admin taking a particularly dumb step of recreating a salted article because of an op-ed written by someone who is apparently connected to our education program. Cool. DGG also accepted it as a draft yesterday trying to find a compromise, and I wouldn’t consider that to be wheel warring, and in that regard I wouldn’t consider this wheel warring either as it wasn’t the second reversal.
Fram has solved the content issue: it’s in draft now. It can be taken to DRV at this point and the last two AfDs and the call for salting in the second one reviewed by the community. What is not needed is an ArbCom case to document for the next month this political fight over one person who in every likelihood doesn’t want this mess. If Rama were to restore the article against Fram’s draftification that would likely require ArbCom intervention, but we haven’t gotten to that stage yet. I would urge the committee to decline this or if it feels action is warranted, deal with it by motion, but a case would do more harm than good here. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Wnt, for what it’s worth, I actually agree with you. I think the concerns people have here is that there was an apparent taking sides in a content dispute and what looks like using the tools to override three discussions and without talking to the protecting admin (me). Part of the reason I’m slightly less up in arms about this than others is that my response would have been Any admin can reverse the salting if they want, but it may be better to discuss at DRV as this is controversial.TonyBallioni (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to state that I fully endorse Newyorkbrad's statement, who makes it better than I could. The community can deal with this issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Amakuru, I was more referencing the fact that the central content dispute underway seems to be in draft space/headed to DRV and Rama hasn't overruled yet another admin and restored it again. The community has the power to deal with that dispute, and the case for a desysop on something where there appears to be little risk of wheel-warring now that the status quo has been reestablish is low. I agree that there was an issue here with regards to conduct, but I am less concerned about it since they haven't tried to force their will again on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Note that I have renamed this case request to avoid it being named after a living person who is not involved in the dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (9/1/0)
I'm leaning towards acceptance here, but would like to hear from Rama about their view before we go further. Noting that we would need to be careful with the scope which should go no further than the admin action, not whether the article should have been deleted in the first place. WormTT(talk) 12:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept I'm in no rush here and see no benefit to opening the case at this precise moment. Arbitration proceedings are slow by design, so that it comes to the best outcome, rather than a knee-jerk one. I will not complain vociferously if the case is opened immediately, but I support giving the community a week (or even more) to come to any further decision on the article before opening the case. WormTT(talk) 11:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush you may be right, however I have seen editors talking about further DRVs and similar discussions. My concern is that the focus of any Arbcom case should remain on the actions of Rama, rather than the article. Arbcom should not be making content decisions, and if a week allows the focus to be on the case, I don't see a problem with that. WormTT(talk) 11:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept because there is a plausible case for misuse of admin tools and we need to take that seriously. At this point it looks like this is an isolated incident, so if we can reach a quick resolution by motion, I wouldn't be opposed. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this case is about wheel warring or breaking this or that "rule". The problem is that Rama came across a consensus that they personally disagreed with and, instead of joining the debate as an equal participant, used their admins tools to impose their preferred outcome. Respecting consensus isn't a procedural minutia, it's the core principle that allows us to collaborate. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Based upon statements above and Rama's statement at ANI, we should evaluate only whether or not the administrative tools were used to implement a personal editorial position against community consensus and in contravention to WP:TOOLMISUSE. Mkdwtalk 17:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: Misuse of the tools is not always caused by malicious intent. Sometimes it can be accidental or negligent. Administrative conduct should be evaluated when reasonable concerns are brought forward, even in isolation and without seeming malicious intent. Moving to a case is not a forgone conclusion of anything and could result in no action or warnings. It simply means the arbitration process is enacted to further evaluate the situation. Nonetheless, accountability fundamentally requires a check and balance process with the potential for repercussions. Administrators should not be using the tools because they have no fear of accountability; it is a permanent requirement. I agree that not all actions result desysop, but that is something worth a review. Mkdwtalk 18:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are at a majority and most likely looking to move to a full case. Neither proposed motion is currently passing so it will be for the case to define the scope and how things will proceed forward. Mkdwtalk 00:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I think it's OK for people to disagree with each other, including admins, regarding content. I'm not seeing this as seriously malicious, and I understand the rationale given. If wheelwarring was involved, if there was a history of controversial actions by this admin, if the action was detrimental to the project or clearly something harmful or outrageous, then yes, let's look into it. But I'm seeing this as "...an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable." I don't think it was wise to do it without consultation, and if this admin ever did anything like this again, I would support opening a case, but at the moment I accept that this was done with the project in mind. We recently had an admin reverse an AE action, which is a bright line for desysopping, and that admin was (rightly) not brought to Arbitration. Sometimes, we need to allow an admin to do something they feel is in the best interest of the project and IAR without fearing that ArbCom will take away their tools. SilkTork (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While my preference is still for this to be a decline, I'm not averse to dealing with this by motion as I understand the thinking of those who feel that Rama should have communicated first. From earlier comments Rama has made I'm assuming they felt an undelete discussion would be wrapped up in wiki-bureaucracy, and likely be drawn out, taking up time and energy, while meanwhile the media were starting to take up this incident with echoes of Donna Strickland, so there was a sense of urgency, and IAR was created for situations like this; but they are not making that clear. Instead they are taking up a battleground mentality, as if they wish to martyr themselves on the cause of diversity against the biased hordes of Wikipedia. I think it's important to have an admin diversity champion on Wikipedia, but not one who is going to be disruptive. As such I urge User:Rama to reflect more carefully on BU Rob13's question, and to give a more considered response which indicates that while they are standing up for diversity, that they also understand the community's concern, and moving forward they will ensure they are championing diversity in a measured and productive manner. In short, I think we'd like you to reassure us that you are going to be a diversity champion, not a diversity terrorist someone who is going to disrupt Wikipedia to make political points (no matter how valid). SilkTork (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the term "diversity terrorist" as it appears to be unpopular, and is diverting attention from the point I was hoping to make.
Meanwhile, I'm not being reassured by Rama's responses. Indeed, I am growing concerned as it appears there is a lack of understanding of the responsibilities of the admin role, the impact of what they have done, and the very nature of the Wikipedia community. There appears to be a dissonance here, with Rama not understanding our messages, and us not understanding Rama's. I would take "exceptional measures" to mean something that is done rarely, rather than not done ever again. I understand the motivation for the undeletion, and the overlooking of procedures in a strong belief that this was done for the greater benefit (IAR), but we cannot have admins repeatedly (albeit exceptionally) taking the moral high ground and feeling that they know better. The essence of the Wikipedia community is communication and consensus. And we either follow consensus (even when we disagree with it) or we leave the community. I welcome admins who question and challenge. But not when they use their tools disruptively to make a point.
User:Rama, this for me is an important question, so please consider your reply very carefully: What would you have done regarding the Phelps article if you had not been an admin? SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns regarding Rama's responses are growing. My thoughts initially were that Rama made an IAR undeletion in full awareness of what they were doing, but it now turns out this was not the case. I'm still OK with the undeletion and the rationale for it, but it appears that Rama did not understand that this would be a controversial action, and is, even with all the wordage and advice on this page, still acting partly bemused and partly morally defensive, attacking Wikipedia and the community as though we were at fault, and Rama is the one doing the right thing. 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. There is some misunderstanding by Rama of comments and questions asked by ArbCom and the community, and we in turn are struggling to parse what Rama is saying, with a differing understanding of common words such as "exceptional", "polemic", "community", and "topic", etc. This may be because Rama is under stress right now (and understandably so), but it appears to me that we cannot get a clear answer to the situation just by using this format. As such, motions are not going to be appropriate. Desysopping may be appropriate, not for the undeletion itself, but because that action has revealed someone who is possibly not a good fit for an admin in today's Wikipedia. However, it would take a case to discover that, and I think we need to take the time to look more closely at Rama, and give them more space to explain themselves. Accept. SilkTork (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept for the admin issue only. Overturning the consensus of not one but two AFDs is suboptimal. I'd love to hear how this is acceptable under ADMINACCT. Katietalk 18:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept on the basis of Rama's response to the issue as raised on their talk page and at ANI. The statements suggest that Rama believes they have the authority as an administrator to unilaterally override community consensus at AfD. That, if nothing else, warrants attention. ~ Rob13Talk 19:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rama: I think it would be extremely helpful if you could explain your understanding of what's happened here. In particular, do you understand why people are upset? What would you take away from this experience to prevent a similar issue in the future? ~ Rob13Talk 03:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rama: The question isn't intended to have any underlying assumptions or tricks to it. I just wanted to hear your understanding of what went wrong here and how to avoid it in the future. I think that speaks to whether a full case is needed here or we can dispense this by motion. If this was a mistake/misjudgement that has been learned from, that's one thing. If you fundamentally do not understand why this case request was brought and why editors are upset at the actions you took, then that's a deeper issue that warrants a look. ~ Rob13Talk 14:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rama: The first part was what I hoped to see – that you unilaterally overruled consensus based on your own opinion. The second part concerns me, because I don't think the specific topic area had much, if anything, to do with the reaction. This reaction would have likely occurred whatever your reason for ignoring consensus and in whatever topic area it occurred within. To put this bluntly, do you believe you faced the opposition that you did because of a bias on Wikipedia against the coverage of diverse individuals? It sounds like that is your position based on some of the comments you've made, and if it is, I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the criticism here. Further, do you believe an administrator has the authority to unilaterally overturn consensus? Do you believe an administrator should use their tools in a topic area they feel strongly about on a personal level? ~ Rob13Talk 18:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per SilkTork and also TonyBallioni. Rama's action was not so egregious as to require immediate action, and there is no indication that it is part of a pattern of misuse of the tools. Escalating this single action to a full case is unnecessary, and I agree with Tony that it would be a disservice to the BLP subject. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change to accept - I found Rama's statements on the matter concerning rather than reassuring. if I had not been an administrator, I would not have done anything certainly seems like an admission of intentional misuse. Although they say they disavow their action, their argument is that they were obviously right, which is as close to a non-apology as you can get. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. On one level, yes, this is a straightforward case and Rama shouldn't have used admin tools, but on another level that's a bit like saying protesters shouldn't have blocked traffic or yelled rude things at politicians. It's missing the point of the action. I think - I hope! - we all have some boundaries like this, where we'd be willing to stick our necks out if we genuinely believed that not doing so would bring the project into disrepute. We even have a rule about not always following rules, which is surprisingly under-cited on this page. I agree with the above in thinking single instances of apparent admin misbehavior should not generally be met with dramatic sanctions unless they are truly egregious - malicious or destructive, rather than simply ill-advised. In fact, I'd go one further and say that a single instance of apparent misbehavior by a long-standing and otherwise reliable admin is a potential signal of broader and more serious underlying issues [edited to add: by that I mean issues in the community's processes and decision-making]. Yes, sometimes an admin deciding to override their colleagues is arrogance or self-servingness - but sometimes it's also a sign of genuine problems, and I hope we don't let the internal minutia of who broke which WP:ALLCAPS distract from serious community efforts to work through those problems. To inject a dose of reality into this all-too-Wikipedian conversation: I'm a woman in science. I've been the only woman in R&D since I started my current job (but hey, we grew by 100% this month!). I haven't faced half the barriers Ms. Phelps has, and I haven't been on a team that discovered an element, either. I actually thought that the original AfD close was very reasonable. But I also see how non-Wikipedians have been reacting to this controversy and wow, we are not coming off well. That's not going to be improved by spending weeks flinging WP:OMGWTFBBQ at each other. (FWIW, since I just saw this in preview: I don't think the WMF is a relevant factor here. In fact, I'm rather more worried about the idea that someone might have in their head that we should be taking content direction from their "official policy" than I ever would be about community content disputes, which at least have public, transparent feedback mechanisms when someone gets a bad idea in their head.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered the arbitration case request, the committee:
Opens a case to examine the administrator actions of Rama(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA). Accepting the case is a means to review whether Rama reversed a decision of the Wikipedia community without following the established processes. Under current policy, the committee is the only formal vehicle for reviewing administrator conduct. The committee's opening of this case does not constitute its involvement in the article that forms the setting, nor is it a comment on whether this article should be deleted or kept on Wikipedia.
Suspends this case for 1 week, to permit the Wikipedia community time to complete its ordinary editorial processes about this article subject. This period of suspension may be extended by further motion.
InstructsRama not to undertake any logged administrator action – including (un)deleting, (un)blocking, and (un)protecting – until the case pages are marked as unsuspended after 1 week by an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk. Should Rama breach this instruction, the committee may remove their permissions by summary motion.
The case will be named Rama and should have its case pages closed to all non-clerical edits during the period of suspension. At the lifting of suspension, the case will proceed in the ordinary manner with further guidance from a drafting arbitrator to follow.
Support
Proposed. In this request, we have (A) a content dispute that would be overshadowed if an ArbCom case were opened and (B) a case of clear administrator misconduct that we are obliged to hear out. The dilemma is obvious. To deal with one issue, we must open a case. To deal with the other, we should stay away. Dealing with the first issue in normal fashion (as a community) then handling the second issue afterwards (via the committee) seems to prevent either issue from being handled inappropriately. AGK ■ 19:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. The focus for any case, if accepted, is admin actions, not the article itself. The content dispute can be mitigated by the community, then the admin issues can be handled by the committee. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting a week is not a big deal in Arb case terms, but it will give things time to settle further on the content side of things, which will in turn give the case more clarity. WormTT(talk) 11:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I don't see the need for this. There's no ongoing process that would be overshadowed by ArbCom, as far as I'm aware. Everyone agrees that we have no say on the content dispute. If anything, we should be moving to resolve this case faster than the normal proceedings. – Joe (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Joe, and I'll propose an alternate motion in a moment that makes the obvious clear. We don't do content, and this is to resolve issues related to the administrative action only. ~ Rob13Talk 20:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point AGK is making, but as we're to open this case (and I accept the reasons why we should look into the action), I feel we should get on with it rather than drag this affair out. While there may be some overlap in information between the content dispute and the admin action neither is reliant on the other because the focus of each is different. Rama's rationale, for example, is useful information in both cases, but for different reasons - in the content situation, it's an argument for why the content could be undeleted; in the admin action, it's an explanation for that action. If the community decide to undelete the article, that should have little bearing for us regarding if Rama's action was acceptable or not as the community have long upheld that the end does not justify the means. SilkTork (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Alternative motion: Rama
Extended content
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
After considering the current case request, the Arbitration Committee resolves that:
A case will be opened to examine the administrative actions of Rama(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA). The scope of the case shall be initially restricted to the actions of Rama in restoring the Clarice Phelps article and related community discussions. Requests to expand this scope may be made either by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or directly to the drafting arbitrators once announced. Generally, requests to expand this scope will be considered as they relate to any potential pattern of unilaterally overriding community consensus, but are unlikely to be considered for actions entirely unrelated to the initial scope of this case or a related pattern of administrative actions.
The Arbitration Committee does not have jurisdiction over content or conventional deletion processes. The Arbitration Committee notes that the typical venue to overturn or review the consensus at an Articles for deletion discussion is Deletion review.
Current arbitration proceedings should be taken to have no effect on any community discussion regarding content, including, but not limited to, whether the Clarice Phelps should be restored or recreated. The community is encouraged to continue any necessary content discussions without regard to this arbitration proceeding. In particular, this arbitration proceeding does not prevent any administrator from taking action to implement the consensus of any content-related discussion that is tangentially related to this dispute.
Support
Alternative motion. This is intended to set out a narrow scope to prevent this from turning into a "dig up every minor mistake over the past decade" slug-fest. We should stay on-topic with the issue that was brought to us. Further, this motion makes abundantly clear that we don't do content and are not pre-empting any community discussions that may emerge from this. ~ Rob13Talk 20:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
At least for me, whether a misuse of admin tools was a one-off occurrence or part of a pattern is a major consideration in deciding on remedies. Restricting the scope in this way would seriously impair our ability to make a balanced assessment. I also don't see why we need to restate principles that are already a core part of WP:ARBPOL and which everyone who has commented has agreed with. – Joe (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This motion does nothing of substance and I oppose progressing it for that reason. AGK ■ 20:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
I see nothing in here that I oppose, however, I prefer the former motion, so will abstain here. WormTT(talk) 11:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.
Passed 9 to 0 at 13:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Editor conduct
2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Administrator conduct
3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.
Passed 9 to 0 at 13:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Administrator involvement
4) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.
Passed 6 to 2 with 1 abstention at 13:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Reversing actions by other administrators
5) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.
Passed 9 to 0 at 13:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Ignore all rules (IAR)
6.1) One of Wikipedia's central rules – to "ignore all rules" – permits a user to ignore any rule that prevents improving or maintaining Wikipedia. When users decide to ignore a rule, they must be able to show what they were prevented from doing and why being so prevented was detrimental to Wikipedia.
Passed 7 to 0 at 13:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Consensus
8) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and the community as a whole to change their mind.
1) On 29 April, Rama unilaterally restored an article on Clarice Phelps. There was consensus for the article to be deleted, including two deletion discussions (1, 2) closed as delete and a DRV endorsing the first decision (1). In addition, the article was protected against re-creation by non-administrators after the second deletion discussion.
Passed 9 to 0 at 13:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Rama acted without prior discussion
2) Rama undeleted the article after they became aware of its deletion from a press article ([17]). Rama did not discuss their concerns with any users prior to undeleting.
Passed 9 to 0 at 13:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Rama did not establish that consensus had changed
3) When Rama undeleted the page, they had not established that the original evaluation of a consensus was in error, nor that the consensus had changed. At the time of undeleting, Rama opposed the original consensus for deletion and remarked that 'there are many sources establishing notability' ([18]). Rama explained their action as an emergency action.
Passed 9 to 0 at 13:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Rama's history as an administrator
4) Rama became an administrator in 2005. In late 2009 and early 2010, Rama's admin actions were put under the scrutiny of the community, in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama and at Administrators Noticeboard, including a topic ban. Subsequently, Rama significantly reduced his administrator workload, taking
approximately 30 administrator actions in the following nine years.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Rama desysopped
1.1) For misuse of administrative tools and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT, Rama (talk·contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.
