Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case‎ | WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Izno (talk | contribs) at 05:44, 13 May 2022 (→‎Presumption of coordination: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Expression error: Unexpected mod operator
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Jurisdiction

1) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction only over the behavior of editors on the English Wikipedia. While the Arbitration Committee may take note of off-wiki behavior for the purposes of settling on-wiki disputes and in its remedies, restricting the off-wiki behavior of users is not within its remit.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Though I would have no problems making recommendations - they would be simply that, recommendations. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Izno (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Off-wiki communication

2) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can be, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Izno (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Avoiding apparent impropriety

3) All editors should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Avoiding apparent impropriety

3.1) Individual actions - even those done in good faith, are well-meaning, and maybe legitimate - when done as a collective, will frequently be perceived as constituting a collective set of improper actions, independent of whether those individual actions occurred collectively due to proactive coordination or simply by accident. Editors should avoid taking actions as part of or a result of membership of a collective that would be perceived as improper; even if those actions in isolation are legitimate.

Support:
  1. As alternative to 3. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 3. I don't object to any of this, but it's less concise and more wishy-washy. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. More precise, although the wording is a little technical. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Presumption of coordination

4) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Izno (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Consensus

5) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Izno (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Building consensus: WikiProjects

6) WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them.

Support
  1. I think it important to layout the proper role of WikiProjects in all this as the Discord server was a clear part of WPTC. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with this being a principle, especially given the nature of some of the discussion on Discord. WormTT(talk) 14:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Izno (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

WPTC Discord server

1) WikiProject Tropical cyclones Discord server encourages compliance with the wider Wikipedia community's expectations. It is advertised on-wiki at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones and Wikipedia:Discord#Other servers, along with an invitation link. There are no pre-conditions to join. Users on the server are asked to authenticate their accounts to their Wikpedia accounts using WikiAuthBot. The server's rules are pinned in a #rules channel dated 28 May 2021. Notably, the rules mirror WP:Harassment, WP:CANVASS, & WP:OUTING.

1. Be nice and respectful to each other. No slurs or hateful language, personal attacks, harassment of other members will be tolerated.
5. Canvassing of discussions (WP:AFD, WP:GAN, WP:RFA, WP:RFC, etc.) is prohibited. Links to discussions can be removed without warning.
6. Be mindful of your own privacy and the privacy of other members. This server is not private, anyone can access it. Do not post personal information (phone, address, name, etc.)

The Discord server also supports the Hurricanes Fandom wiki which may lead to divergent objectives among its users.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I believe this accurately summarises the server. WormTT(talk) 08:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support this and 1a. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As I said in private and which were not changed prior to PD, I have multiple issues of minor nature that leave me in the abstain pile, unfortunately:
    1. There are no pre-conditions to join. is not a true statement. You need to be using Discord software (whether client or web) and have a login to join. These are relevant barriers to participation by the broader community (though not the only ones).
    2. WikiProject Tropical cyclones Discord server encourages compliance with the wider Wikipedia community's expectations. I do not see a point to putting this value judgement in this FOF. The rest of the FOF is sufficient to indicate that there is at least an attempt to do so, and the necessity of this case maybe even puts a lie to the statement, never mind the addition of the proposed FOF 2.
    3. Lastly, the mention of a particular Fandom wiki sharing the server doesn't appear to be relevant to any of the remedies and having reviewed the evidence, does not appear to have significantly influenced the Wikipedia editors of interest.
    I generally support the other commentary listed in this FOF. --Izno (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

WPTC Discord server warnings

2) Three uninvolved administrators joined the server in 2021 and 2022 to warn its members against improper off-wiki coordination. One such warning, by Worm That Turned, was pinned as a reminder to its members about appropriate expectations. (preliminary statements, private evidence)

Support:
  1. In addition to 1. These warnings are an important element, for me, in establishing that server members should have known better about the improper behavior shown in other FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In addition to 1. (Sorry clerks who have to tidy up at the end!) Noting that I made my warning as an individual administrative action, and I believe it is still pinned if anyone wishes to view it. I do not believe it precludes me from voting on this finding, but if anyone has any issues, please do bring hem up. WormTT(talk) 15:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BDD (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Involved non-admin closures

3) MarioProtIV reopened a discussion, and Hurricane Noah re-closed it with a different outcome despite both having been participants. While Hurricane Noah & Destroyeraa declared their off-wiki discussions, MarioProtIV did not.

Support:
Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Oppose, but simply due to lack of clarity and emphasis on certain points. I've proposed an alternative. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per WTT; while this statement is true the alternate proposal contains more useful detail. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 2.1 is clearer. Cabayi (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BDD (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer 2.1. Izno (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I was about to support, but I'm unclear from this finding where Destroyeraa fits in. What's more, I feel it should be mentioned that Hurricane Noah proposed the move, and when he reclosed it, it was withdrawn as proposer. Which may have been fine, had he not done it 7 minutes after the discussion was reopened and it had already been closed with consensus to move. The additional context and the confirmation of off-wiki coordination makes this a very serious issue, which should probably be further expanded. Thinking about an alternative. WormTT(talk) 08:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I think we were aiming for brevity and something got chopped, resulting in a lack of clarity. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior at merge discussion

3.1) Hurricane Noah proposed a merge on an article, prompting 5 other individuals to comment over a 6 month period. The discussion was closed with consensus to merge by Compassionate727 who had not participated. Very soon after, MarioProtIV reopened the discussion, followed by Hurricane Noah re-closing it as withdrawn with no consensus despite both having been involved participants. During the merge discussion, Hurricane Noah and another participant Destroyeraa noted their off-wiki discussions, though MarioProtIV did not.

Support:
  1. As an alternative. I'm not certain if the title is too harsh, but I am distinctly unhappy with this incident. Hurricane Noah may have changed their mind, but there were other participants in that discussion, and this action disenfranchised them. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is clearer than the original version. Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not a huge fan of the title (so yes Worm That Turned I'd say too harsh) but substantively this seems like the right FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to change it to something you're happier with @Barkeep49 - I'm more concerned about the text of the finding. WormTT(talk) 14:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Izno (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
With Worm's assent I'm retitling this. Courtesy ping to Cabayi and Primefac as others who have voted on this. Barkeep49 (talk)

Edit warring by proxy

4) MarioProtIV, HurricaneCovid, and Chlod have on multiple separate occasions used the WPTC discord server to ask for other editors to intervene in content disputes where they had already performed three reverts and did not want to be blocked. (private evidence)

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In favor of 3a - HurricanCovid did do what is described but the most recent infraction is not recent enough for me to justify an FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Barkeep WormTT(talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Bar. --Izno (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I don't disagree with this, but looking over timelines. There was definitely an issue in the early part of 2021, leading to a few administrators warnings. Things did appear to quieten then, so while I'm willing to take into account past actions, I need to look at whether the individuals heeded warnings. It may be that this needs to be split out by user, or that additional users need to be added. In other words, I intend to come back to this. WormTT(talk) 15:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting because I was coming here to propose a 3a that would include LightAndDark and Elijahandskip, both of whom for we have clear 2022 private evidence of this behavior. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So while there is some 2022 evidence, I also misread the date initially on one of the pieces of evidence I was looking at and so am still considering this. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by proxy

4.1) MarioProtIV, Elijahandskip, and Chlod have on multiple separate occasions used the WPTC discord server to ask for other editors to intervene in content disputes where they had already performed three reverts and did not want to be blocked. (private evidence)

Support:
  1. This reflects the three people who I feel there is the most recent relevent evidence for having done this, along with LightandDark whose behavior is covered by a seperate proposed FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Having reviewed the evidence, these three are the individuals I have most significant concern over, as well as LightAndDark2000 below. All three have clearly canvassed for reverts in the private evidence. I will note that Elijahandskip did request people not comment on an AfD he mentioned there, as he did not want to canvass, but even so I feel he falls in this group. WormTT(talk) 18:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I will tack on that MarioProtIV particularly has been involved in multiple sufficiently-recent cases of edit warring, without necessarily coordinating their activity on the server. Izno (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

LightandDark2000 targeting of editors

5) LightandDark2000 used Discord to target Chicdat and United States Man, including attempts to get server participants to participate in conduct discussions against them and to revert their edits. He was warned against this by some server members, including Hurricane Noah, and members of the server expressed a range of opinions in the onwiki conduct discussions. (private evidence)

Support:
  1. While a lot of the evidence for this occurred in the first half of 2021, the pattern of behavior continued into this year. This included discussion of personally identifiable information, that were it posted onwiki would have been eligible for suppression. I have vented against editors who have frustrated me offwiki, so I want to be clear that the conduct I'm seeing goes beyond that and instead strike me repeated forceful attempts against these two editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A fair amount of evidence has been presented regarding LightAndDark2000, who often appeared blasé regarding the possibility of the off-wiki behaviour being problematic. However, as Barkeep49 points out, the vast majority of that was during the early half of 2021, prior to the multiple warnings given. LightAndDark2000's comments targetting editors detailed in this finding, however, were recent and problematic. WormTT(talk) 17:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

MarioProtIV one-revert restriction

1) Subject to the usual exceptions, MarioProtIV is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I believe the issue is not around revert warring, but about the behaviour in the topic area, therefore oppose this in lieu of a topic ban. WormTT(talk) 18:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There was less evidence of edit warring and more evidence of trying to get others to do it in order to avoid crossing brightlines. I do not think this addresses that in any meaningful way. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I'm not certain about the 1RR remedies and will have to give this a long think. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to review evidence for the 1RR remedies as well, but I am certain I would only support them with-in a tropical storm, broadly construed, topic area. I can't think of any evidence, off the top of my head, that suggests behavior outside this topic area as troubling. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I am still considering remedies. I'm not sure that 1RR is the right solution, as this wasn't simply about edit warring, but about the type of off-wiki communication. If we do consider 1RR, it should limitted to the topic area. I'm also considering topic bans, despite the fact that for many this is effectively a site ban due to lack of contributions outside that the topic area. WormTT(talk) 15:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I do my re-review of the evidence I am also leaning towards topic ban for some parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HurricaneCovid one-revert restriction

2) Subject to the usual exceptions, HurricaneCovid is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I believe Hurricane Covid's problematic actions were in the past, and he appears to have taken heed of warnings, therefore no sanction should be issued. WormTT(talk) 18:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No recent evidence to support this as an issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Chlod one-revert restriction

3) Subject to the usual exceptions, Chlod is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I believe the issue is not around revert warring, but about the behaviour in the topic area, therefore oppose this in lieu of a topic ban. WormTT(talk) 18:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree that it's not about the revert warring, it's about general conduct in the area including attempts to get others to do reverts (which this would not address). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

MarioProtIV & NAC

4) MarioProtIV is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I feel less strongly about this, as I believe MarioProtIV should be topic banned from the area where he has caused these issues. However, I do not believe he showed good judgement in his re-opening a non-admin closure, and would agree to him being banned from doing so. WormTT(talk) 18:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Hurricane Noah & NAC

5) Hurricane Noah is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Between the fact that Hurricane Noah declared on Wiki at the time, the fact that he did request the merge and therefore may have felt that he had the option to withdraw it, and the fact that he was a voice of reason in many of the discussion off wiki, arguing against canvassing, I am going to oppose this sanction. I also agree with TNT's read of the situation that Hurricane Noah has demonstrated understanding of the behaviours and can be unblocked going forward. WormTT(talk) 12:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per WTT. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Chlod topic ban

6) Chlod is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 18:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think Chlod made some poor choices in this area, however there were other times he did attempt to remind others of appropriate expectations and so a topic ban is too harsh. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Chlod warned

6a) Chlod is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.

Support:
  1. To be clear, I don't believe 6a precludes 6 in this situation, and therefore support both. WormTT(talk) 19:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For the same reasons I oppose the topic ban, I support this as an appropriate response to the evidence we have. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Elijahandskip topic ban

7) Elijahandskip is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Having considered the posts made by Elijahandskip, I believe they were made largely through exasperation, and were less intentionally around canvassing. I would prefer a warning (or admonishment) in this situation. WormTT(talk) 18:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Worm above. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Elijahandskip warned

7a) Elijahandskip is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.

Support:
  1. Per my comments above, and on the talk page to Elijahandskip WormTT(talk) 19:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Worm's comments on the talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

LightandDark2000 topic ban

8) LightandDark2000 is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Multiple unacceptable actions over a long period, in addition targeted users they did not like, and argued when it was pointed out to them. WormTT(talk) 18:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I did a comprehensive review of the evidence when that phase closed and have done a second comprehensive review since this propose decision was posted. In both reads, I found behavior from LightandDark2000 to be very troubling in volume and intensity of troubling statements and in their often active disregard of other server members who attempted to caution them when they stepped over the line. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

MarioProtIV topic ban

9) MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Multiple unacceptable actions over a long period. WormTT(talk) 18:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision – at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC) (replace after each update); the last edit to this page was on 05:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC) by Izno.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Jurisdiction 6 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Off-wiki communication 6 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Avoiding apparent impropriety 3 0 0 PASSING ·
3.1 Avoiding apparent impropriety 4 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Presumption of coordination 6 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Consensus 6 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Building consensus: WikiProjects 3 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 WPTC Discord server 6 0 0 PASSING ·
3 WPTC Discord server warnings 4 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Involved non-admin closures 0 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3.1 Behavior at merge discussion 6 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Edit warring by proxy 3 2 0 PASSING ·
4.1 Edit warring by proxy 2 0 0 PASSING ·
5 LightandDark2000 targeting of editors 2 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 MarioProtIV one-revert restriction 1 2 0 PASSING ·
2 HurricaneCovid one-revert restriction 1 2 0 PASSING ·
3 Chlod one-revert restriction 1 2 0 PASSING ·
4 MarioProtIV & NAC 2 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Hurricane Noah & NAC 1 2 0 PASSING ·
6 Chlod topic ban 1 1 0 PASSING ·
6.1 Chlod warned 2 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Elijahandskip topic ban 0 2 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7.1 Elijahandskip warned 2 0 0 PASSING ·
8 LightandDark2000 topic ban 2 0 0 PASSING ·
9 MarioProtIV topic ban 1 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Notes


Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones/Proposed_decision&oldid=1087562606"