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 Opabinia regalis (talk | contribs) at 07:26, 23 May 2022 (→‎Proposed findings of fact: v). 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]
  9. Per Worm. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Maxim(talk) 19:44, 18 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]
  9. With a preference for "often" instead of "generally". KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Maxim(talk) 19:44, 18 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:
  1. As framed, I don't think this proposal is particularly pertinent to this case. --Izno (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If I don't know what this means, then its not particularly useful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's good practice to be as transparent as possible about what you're doing, but this feels like a minefield. We already have problems with people jumping to conclusions about sockpuppetry when they find families, college classes, editathons, etc etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per OR. Maxim(talk) 19:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comments in 3.1. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I've added what seemed to be a missing word in that second sentence. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the formulation of this principle that Seddon proposes on the talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As do I - proposed as alternative. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]
    Primefac (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
More precise, although the wording is a little technical. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs a little more work. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around what this is trying to say. If this says what I think it's trying to say, then I agree with isaacl on the talk page that this misses on several points that are core to editing. If it's not trying to say what he's responding to, then it just flat out needs a copyedit. Particularly, but not the sole issue, the word 'collective' pops up and to my knowledge appears nowhere else on this website to mean what it might be meaning here. I accordingly oppose and implore the supporters to come up with a better wording. --Izno (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Izno on the wording, but I also think this concept in general, regardless of the exact form of expression, is sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. I'd rather do it in a positive framing - what to do, not what not to do - along the lines of my comment above about transparency. But I'm not convinced we need a principle about this at all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. OR has convinced me. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I meant to switch this last night after discussing the matter with Barkeep, but I got sidetracked. I do agree with OR on this regarding the appropriateness. Primefac (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per OR. Maxim(talk) 19:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Hold on. Actions are either improper or they aren't. The "appearance" or "perception" of impropriety is not our yardstick. So what am I missing here? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of transparency on an open project. Think of a very simple example: Five editors have a discussion off-wiki about something to be done on-. They come to a consensus and implement it. No one objects. Was there some sort of misconduct? I don't think it's a clear-cut yes or no. Regardless, it would have been better discussed on-wiki.
I see where you're coming from if you're saying we can't control others' perceptions. But we can and should encourage openness. -- BDD (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The second part is the important bit here - don't ascribe too much significance to the numbers, especially when they're frequent fellow-travelers. I don't want to see anybody citing this principle to complain that so many people keep showing up in discussions about the shape of the earth to insist it's round, it's clearly a conspiracy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Maxim(talk) 19:44, 18 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]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Maxim(talk) 19:44, 18 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]
  7. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Meh, I don't oppose but I'm not excited either. Wikiprojects at their best are gathering places of editors who are knowledgeable about a particular topic and so when they weigh in on a relevant issue, there should be good reason to give serious weight to their views. The issue here is all the off-wiki discussion, and the culture drift that can happen in closed-off environment that pulls the group out of sync with prevailing on-wiki norms. If all this stuff had been happening at WT:WPTC, it wouldn't have gone on for so long, and we wouldn't be here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
While true, I find the statement misleading. Wikiprojects in practice are a nexus for collaboration on a certain topic area and invariably they will have sway on matters of content, policy, or procedure. But it is true that Wikiprojects by themselves cannot dictate content, policy, or procedure. Maxim(talk) 19:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have sway, but they are not special, so I am not sure how this is misleading. See also WP:CONLEVEL. Izno (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issues at play weren't about WPTC acting as an exclusive subset of the wiki community but the WPTC Discord users acting as an exclusive subset of the WPTC community. Cabayi (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Equal preference. Maxim(talk) 17:08, 19 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]
    I would be open to shifting my support to an FoF that makes the kind of changes you're suggesting. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see Izno's reservations about There are no pre-conditions to join but it's at least as true as "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." No payment is necessary to use Discord. No extra software is required beyond the web browser the user already has. And unlike GSoW the user does not need to pass any tests or gain the approval of a group master. Cabayi (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See below discussion with BDD that covers the totality of your comment here. Izno (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I am not sure if it should go in this FoF, or in the proxy editing one, but I think the fact that multiple uninvolved administrators joined the server explicitly to warn against conduct coming from the server should be noted. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support adding that somewhere asi ti shows there was prior warning that there was a problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it needs to go somewhere. No objection to it going here, or there, or being it's own finding. WormTT(talk) 08:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WPTC Discord server

1.1) The WikiProject Tropical cyclones Discord server is a Discord server run by several members of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. It is advertised on-wiki at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones and Wikipedia:Discord#Other servers, along with an invitation link. The only pre-conditions to joining the server are the use of Discord and knowledge of the server. 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.)
Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice, though I'm not bothered by either version. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal first choice to the other version (for vote counting purposes consider me in favor of whichever version has more Arb support). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Distant second choice. --BDD (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with BDD that "you must be registered with Discord to use Discord" is a redundant statement and unnecessary, so while I will support this because it it technically true, it is a distant second to the primary FoF 1. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal preference. Maxim(talk) 17:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
For now, at least. See comments below. --BDD (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
By request above, proposed. I also suggested the first sentence in private and have added it here, but it is more negotiable for me. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the differences are removing the language about "no preconditions" and the Fandom project? The first strikes me as extremely pedantic. Is it to contrast with us, where an account is not required? But then a computer of some sort and internet access are preconditions to editing Wikipedia. I don't see a need for this principle to serve as a primer on Discord. On the second point, I can live without that sentence, but it does seem materially relevant that the server also handles a project similar to ours but with a different ethos. --BDD (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I also removed the first sentence. See the enumerated comments in my abstain in FOF 1. I would recommend moving your comment there, but I will at least respond here and you can decide whether you want to move it.
It is not pedantic. It is relevant that people cannot or will not participate because it is not Wikipedia (see our principles on the point of offwiki platforms), which means it is important to this FOF, and I think my addition of this sentence qualifies.
But then a computer of some sort and internet access are preconditions to editing Wikipedia True, they are, but those are shared preconditions with Discord. In addition, using Discord is sufficient to also indicate all the other preconditions of technology (yes, it would be ludicrous to include any- and everything since antiquity). Among the preconditions that don't exist on Wikipedia are handing your email and login and subsequently associated trace to advertisers to an external company, never mind the barrier that exists for having an entirely separate login in the first place, never mind that you may prefer to use the client which requires installation of an entirely separate non-free program, and never mind that you indeed do not even need a login to participate here. If, as I suggested, "no preconditions" had been changed to "no social preconditions" or similar, I would have been happy on this point. It was not changed, so here's the alternative.
As for the point on the Fandom inclusion, please point (via email or other private method) to the evidence which indicates that it is in fact materially relevant. I saw nothing to indicate they have or had special influence, nor even sufficient influence to be worth noting, over the Wikipedia users on the WPTC Discord, and accordingly I find it not materially relevant. It is at-best speculation to say our users acted under the influence of offwiki editors without that evidence, not a sentence suitable for an FOF. Izno (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. The "preconditions" bit still strikes me as nitpicky, but I can see I was probably being too bullheaded about preferring the first version. I apologize. --BDD (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  6. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I was, for the record, one of the three. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Maxim(talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The questions/suggestions about recusal in the case request show that off-wiki communications leave no-one above suspicion. Cabayi (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Switched to 2 as part of a renumbering clerk action. Everything below was incremented by 1 --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 3.1. Izno (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prefer 3.1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 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]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I have a very slight preference for using FoFs that describe conduct per user, as opposed to per incident, but that is not a strong preference at all. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 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]
    Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Moving to support 4.1. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 14 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]
    Note that 3a has been renamed to 4.1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 13 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]
  4. I agree 4.1 has put this better. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In favour of FoF 4.1. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 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]

Outdented Beeblebrox's vote as a clerk action because it was struck --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:04, 20 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]
    Noting that I have equal preference for 4.1 or 6.1 / 7 / 8 passing, but I see them as mutually exclusive, either the combined finding should pass, or the broken out. WormTT(talk) 10:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
    I will not strike my comment, but I no longer prefer this FOF per additional from today. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Individual FoFs provide more details and context. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  4. BDD (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 19:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

MarioProtIV

6) A merge discussion opened by Hurricane Noah was closed as having consensus by Compassionate727 who had not participated. Very soon after, MarioProtIV reopened the discussion, despite being an involved participant. During the merge discussion, MarioProtIV did not acknowledge participating in related off-wiki discussions. MarioProtIV has on multiple separate occasions used the WPTC discord server to ask for other editors to intervene in content disputes, to avoid being blocked, after having already made three reverts.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Per Bar. Izno (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Redundant, duplicates FoF 3.1. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Happy with 6.1. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BDD (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Redundant to 4.1 Cabayi (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I think it's more confusing to have the merge discussion incident broken up between multiple FoF and redundant to have a seperate FoF that discusses it as a whole and then for the individual editor. I do support the final sentence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarioProtIV

6.1) MarioProtIV has on multiple separate occasions used the WPTC Discord server to ask for other editors to intervene in content disputes, to avoid being blocked, after having already made three reverts.

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 08:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that my vote is as an alternative to 4.1, with equal preference, but not for both to pass. WormTT(talk) 10:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. While this statement is true, it is redundant to FoF 4.1 and thus I do not think I can support it. Primefac (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Primefac. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Redundant to 4.1 Cabayi (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Primefac. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Agreed with Bar, so I'm proposing the alternative. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, you voted for the same 'break-up' in 8 and 9. Did you mean this oppose to go in 6.0? --Izno (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. This proposal is identical to 4.1, barring the obvious removal of the other two editors, and thus I find 4.1 satisfactory. As for 8 and 9, the former is entirely different and the latter expands upon the general statement of 4.1. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah

7) After the merge discussion that was opened by Hurricane Noah (#MarioProvIV) was closed as having consensus by Compassionate727 and re-opened by MarioProtIV, Hurricane Noah re-closed it as withdrawn with no consensus despite being an involved participant. However, Hurricane Noah did acknowledge participating in related off-wiki discussions.

Support:
  1. I'm happy with this as an alternate to 3.1 but this is indeed redundant with 3.1 passing. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Bar. Izno (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The incident is covered by 3.1. I do not believe anything more needs to be said here. WormTT(talk) 08:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Redundant, duplicates FoF 3.1. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Redundant. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Redundant to 3.1 Cabayi (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I think there's Hurricane Noah conduct, for good and ill, not mentioned here and more generally have the same concerns about structure/redundancy as with Mario's. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijahandskip

8) Elijahandskip over a two month period in early 2022 used the WPTC Discord server to bring attention to the actions of United States Man. This served to support the targeting of United States Man by LightandDark2000. (private evidence)

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Noting also that, intentional or not, diffs he raised as issues were reverted by members of the server. WormTT(talk) 08:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that my vote is as an alternative to 4.1, with equal preference, but not for both to pass. WormTT(talk) 10:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is more detail, so not redundant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Chlod

9) Chlod has served as a moderator of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclone Discord server since October 2021. Since that time, on multiple separate occasions he used the WPTC Discord server to ask for other editors to intervene in content disputes, to avoid being blocked, after having already made three reverts. At other times, Chlod did remind server members of Wikipedia behavioral expectations, including cautioning against canvassing.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good sumamry. WormTT(talk) 08:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that my vote is as an alternative to 4.1, with equal preference, but not for both to pass. WormTT(talk) 10:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A reasonable statement that expands on FoF 4.1 to provide some more general context for this editor. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

HurricaneCovid

10) HurricaneCovid has on multiple separate occasions used the WPTC Discord server to ask for other editors to intervene in content disputes, to avoid being blocked, after having already made three reverts.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Weakly oppose for the same reasons noted in FoF proposal 4, namely that the behavior we have evidence for is not recent enough to merit a finding. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Bar. --Izno (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Noted elsewhere, HurricaneCovid appears to have heeded warnings, and I have seen no evidence of subsequent actions. WormTT(talk) 08:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not enough for a finding. Maxim(talk) 17:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've come around to the idea that this isn't needed, since we shifted from 4 to 4.1 partially to remove the mention of him. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I find myself on the fence here. The activities as stated did happen, which merits a finding, and if the timeline were relevant we would have included it, but I do see the point of the opposition in that going back too far makes for pointless arguments. Primefac (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Primefac. Cabayi (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  2. I agree that the core issue is not single-user revert warring, but MarioProtIV particularly of the set named in the FOFs above has had an issue with leaving the undo button alone. As a minimum, I support either 1 or 0RR for this user. I would be willing to bound the restriction to the topic area. --Izno (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 22:04, 20 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]
  3. I don't really object to this, but I don't think it solves the problem either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I believe Remedy 9 fixes the issues observed better than this remedy. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer topic ban. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 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:
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]
  3. The evidence indicates that HurricaneCovid understood the previous warnings issued and has changed his behavior as a result. I don't think a reduced RR here is necessary. --Izno (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As no related FoF is passed. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Maxim. Cabayi (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 21:54, 20 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]
  3. Since Chlod has proved to be useful elsewhere with reversion (i.e. RedWarn) I don't think we should be pulling that away. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree this would not solve the issues related to Chlod's involvement. I do not think any lenience, however, should be predicated on his work with RedWarn. --Izno (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, if weakly; edit warring has been a problem for them, but as mentioned on the talk page they are also heavily involved in RedWarn and anti-vandal editing, which does not always meet the "obvious" criteria of the 1RR exceptions. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I buy that this runs the risk of doing more harm than good. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 20 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]
  3. Weakly, but "no NACs for a while" is a really weak restriction with little effect on most people's regular wiki activities, so I think the bar can be on the lower side for something like this. I wouldn't object to softening it (weather related, or a shorter time period). Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Basically per OR. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. A single incident in the evidence doesn't rise to the level of a total ban on closing things for me. I could maybe be sold on 'weather-related' discussions. --Izno (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Izno. I feel that sanctioning over a single incident should be done in cases of particularly egregious incidents, and this one I'd call egregious but not particularly so. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  3. Per WTT. --Izno (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As above, this is a very mild restriction. But it seems to me that Noah has gotten his act together on this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Following the incident that kicked this whole case off, I have seen multiple instances where Noah demonstrates that he recognises what he did was wrong and has been encouraging others to edit more appropriately. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weakly. This would not be unjustified, but I can agree that it's not needed either. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 20 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]
  2. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 20 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]
  2. Per Barkeep. --Izno (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand after looking at the evidence again, I don't like the look of much of it as it pertains to Chlod, and even trying to temper it with how informal Discord is, I'm not happy. This is an on-the-balance oppose from me, and I wouldn't fault anyone from voting to support here. --Izno (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Overkill. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BDD (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The weakest possible oppose, which I don't think does Chlod any favours. If there's a topic area in which Chlod's ever going to run into further problems it's this one. But that's his choice to make. Cabayi (talk) 08:18, 21 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]
  3. At a minimum. I also do not believe 6a precludes 6. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. At a minimum. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. At a minimum - Cabayi (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BDD (talk) 21:59, 20 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]
  3. I can see why WTT says 'exasperation', but I also see several other cases of 'exasperation' from several other WPTC server users if that's the read here. Regardless, I do see only minor involvement in the negative sense in the evidence on hand in comparison to several others, and so I don't think this is an appropriate remedy. --Izno (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Overkill. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 22:03, 20 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]
  3. At a minimum, not necessarily precluding 7. --Izno (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BDD (talk) 22:03, 20 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]
  3. Per above. The kind of behavior I saw is a fast-track to total removal from Wikipedia. Izno (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deeply unimpressed by relevant behavior. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Discord behaviour I observed was appalling, and a topic ban from these subjects will likely help to quell it. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BDD (talk) 22:01, 20 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]
  2. In addition to the broad indefinite restricted reverts as discussed above. --Izno (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've been struggling with this one for a bit. Why vote for this one but not the topic bans for Chlod and Elijahandskip? The reasoning for me lies both with the mitigating factors, the lack of them for Mario, and for the evidence against Mario. Mario both escalated things with the reversal of the RfC close and there is evidence of these issues stretching back for quite a while. Owing to the private nature of the evidence this pattern is harder to see from the outside but is there in my analysis, and this is joined by the edit warring which has been noted and discussed on the talk page. The mitigating factors for Chlod (mixed record when it comes to canvassing on Discord) and Elijahandskip (misconduct being noted fell in a very short timeframe) are also not present here. That said, I could quite imagine being receptive to an appeal in as few as six months; this rather than the lack of sanction is a better way to acknowledge the positive work that Mario has noted he's done on the talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Izno. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Recommended practices for off-wiki chat platforms

10) Leaders/moderators of off-wiki chat platforms (i.e. IRC, Discord, Telegram) should consider the following practices for their platform:

  • Advertised on-wiki, including at relevant Wiki Project pages and more general pages (e.g. WP:DISCORD).
  • Instructions and links on how to join are provided.
  • Users are asked to authenticate to their onwiki identity.
  • The rules and expectations are posted in a prominent place (e.g. a read-only channel). WP:HARASSMENT, WP:CANVASS & WP:OUTING are considered in those rules and expectations. Consideration should be given to incorporating m:UCoC as it takes effect.
  • There is active moderation to enforce the rules and expectations. The moderation team is made up of trusted members and is sufficiently large for the size of the platform/channel.
Support:
  1. Cabayi did a fairly comprehensive survey of discord servers and wrote a version of this as "best practices" that he found. I have adapted it slightly here because I think these ideas are useful not only for Discord but for other platforms, including IRC. I am less familiar with Telegram, but can say that for both the main Discord Server and for the Wikipedia (Wikimedia) official channels on IRC that these practices are already in effect. So for those places it's not about them making changes, it's about codifying what they already do. For some of the smaller Discord servers I think this gives them a better sense of what expectations are and also gives the chance to consider any future offwiki problems through the lens of how well they implemented these practices. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think that having these sort of best practices documented somewhere is a laudable goal and I wholeheartedly support. I also believe these should be passed to the community, to build upon too - but that can happen subsequent to the case. WormTT(talk) 08:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not a big fan of these sort of recommendations, but the contents of it aren't particularly objectionable now. Maxim(talk) 18:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think it behooves us in this situation to point to good practices, not just sanction poor ones. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
I'm with Izno on the inclusion of the UCoC reference. Maxim(talk) 17:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With Worm's agreement, I've struck that clause, Izno and Maxim. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I don't think we need to get into this here, but I have no particularly substantive issues with what's listed besides the UCOC. Which, to be fair, is a pretty sizeable thing to object to, so if this one comes down to some wire or another, I anticipate moving to Oppose between the two things. Izno (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine removing that line, though I will note just how mushy it is - consideration to doing it, in the future, in something that's already just a recommendation. But if that's a blocker for you it can go from my POV. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see what the rest of the committee says. My currently-soft oppose may not matter. :^) Izno (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have not come to any firm conclusion but do not want to stand in the way of those who support. Primefac (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I don't disagree with these best practices, but to me this seems awfully close to the committee dictating new policy, I'd rather this was considered an advisory vote and these practices were presented to the community to be discussed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this, and am still debating the best course of action. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's why I don't think we're out of bounds here. First policy doesn't "recommend" or ask that things be "considered" to use some key words from the remedy. It says how things are. We don't ask admins to consider responding to questions, we say it must happen. We don't recommend removing poorly sourced information from BLPs, we require it. So to the extent that there can be policy in regards to stuff that happens off-wiki - which isn't impossible but is always more of a challenge - this isn't us dictating policy. Second, I would suggest that if these 5 pieces had been in place we wouldn't be here. The WPTC Discord server took a bit but it eventually followed the fourth bullet. The problem was that actually stopping it from happening was uneven at best and presented more in a "c'mon guys" rather than a "this must stop" sort of way - in other words I don't believe that the 5th bullet happened. So I do see it quite directly as remedying the problems we have identified in the FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, which is why I have yet to oppose it. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC) by Opabinia regalis.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Jurisdiction 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Off-wiki communication 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Avoiding apparent impropriety 3 5 0 PASSING ·
3.1 Avoiding apparent impropriety 2 5 0 PASSING ·
4 Presumption of coordination 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Consensus 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Building consensus: WikiProjects 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 WPTC Discord server 10 0 1 PASSING · [1]
1.1 WPTC Discord server 6 0 0 PASSING · [2]
2 WPTC Discord server warnings 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Involved non-admin closures 0 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3.1 Behavior at merge discussion 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Edit warring by proxy 1 7 0 PASSING ·
4.1 Edit warring by proxy 9 1 0 PASSING · [3]
5 LightandDark2000 targeting of editors 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6 MarioProtIV 0 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6.1 MarioProtIV 4 3 0 PASSING · [3]
7 Hurricane Noah 1 5 0 PASSING ·
8 Elijahandskip 8 0 0 PASSING · [3]
9 Chlod 8 0 0 PASSING · [3]
10 HurricaneCovid 0 5 2 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 MarioProtIV one-revert restriction 3 5 0 PASSING ·
2 HurricaneCovid one-revert restriction 0 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3 Chlod one-revert restriction 1 8 0 PASSING ·
4 MarioProtIV & NAC 6 2 0 PASSING ·
5 Hurricane Noah & NAC 1 7 0 PASSING ·
6 Chlod topic ban 2 5 0 PASSING ·
6a Chlod warned 8 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Elijahandskip topic ban 0 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7a Elijahandskip warned 9 0 0 PASSING ·
8 LightandDark2000 topic ban 10 0 0 PASSING ·
9 MarioProtIV topic ban 9 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Recommended practices for off-wiki chat platforms 4 0 1 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Notes
  1. ^ OR and Barkeep have choices to account for
  2. ^ OR and Barkeep have choices to account for
  3. ^ a b c d Either 4.1 or 6.1, 8, and 9 for WTT

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=1089340654"