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

Statement by User:Skynorth
The self-flagellating, "I guess I will just ban myself" proposals, in my experience, would indicate users of the Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki are afoot. They tend to do this a lot in their community. - Skynorth/ Starfrost my talk page 21:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Hurricane Noah
Could I also be indefinitely page blocked from WP:WPTC and WP:WPWX and their associated talk pages? Noah Talk 20:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Noah, you were unblocked for the purposes of participating in this case. Once it is resolved, the block will be re-imposed and you will need to go through the normal unblock procedures; you are welcome during that process to request any specific conditions as you see fit. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with being reblocked now since I have no further issues with what has been proposed. I would also ask that nobody else try to intervene on my behalf in regards to the block. I dug my grave back in March and now I have to lie in it. That's just how it is. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent. Noah Talk 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to self-flagellate that's a choice, and one I've made in the past myself. But I would urge you to take note of whatever ArbCom ends up deciding as an indicator of what "grave" you actually dug. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is the block came before this case and is not a requested one per TheresNoTime's comment. Yeah, I probably overreacted as I was quite upset at that time and felt I needed severe punishment. Seeing as it came before the case, the block stands and must be reinstated as Primefac said above, with the ability to appeal it in the future. Noah Talk 21:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If one were proposed I'd probably support it, but I think our existing principles cover a wider range of behavior, including that, and so a specific principle isn't needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, the block has been lifted by the original blocking administrator; no further action is needed from ArbCom at this time. Primefac (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first comment under L&D topic ban has a time stamp but is missing a signature. Mobile edit. Noah Talk 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That was me, and I have fixed. WormTT(talk) 19:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the additions that have been made to this page since May 11, I believe some additions and adjustments are needed. The coordination of editing is covered by the existing principles thoroughly and I see that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are mentioned in one, however, canvassing is not mentioned specifically until the FoF. I just believe it should at least be mentioned somewhere before the FoF considering its importance in this case specifically. In regards to the targeting of editors FoF, I believe there should be some principle(s) on off-wiki attacks, hounding, and/or harassment. Lastly, I believe there should be a one-way interaction ban between L&D and both United States Man and Chicdat to safeguard against any further targeting considering all three individuals edit pages outside the weather topic. Noah Talk 11:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In regards to principles, maybe something of this nature: Personal attacks are not acceptable whether done on wiki or off-wiki.
 * Harassment is a continual pattern of aggressive behavior targeting a specific person or group that aims to threaten or intimidate a person, usually to discourage them from making future edits. Hounding is a type of harassment that involves the singling out another editor or group of editors (ie harassing them) in places that they normally contribute in order to confront them or disrupt their work. This is usually done in a manner to cause distress, annoyance, and irritation to the victims of the hounding. Editors must be careful when tracking other editors' edits and must only do so in a collegial or administrative manner. Edits that are aimed to cause distress to another are especially disruptive if combined with tenedentious editing, personal attacks, or other disruptive activities. All forms of harassment aren't acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. Noah Talk 11:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think mentioning canvassing directly before the FoF along with one or two principles related to PA and harassment would be worthwhile for this case? I thought it might be worthwhile considering the targeting FoF. Sorry for the ping, but I just wanted to make sure this got a response before it was too late. Noah Talk 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the one editor who engaged in harassment behaviors is noted in the FoF even if that word isn't used. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Im asking whether or not there should be principles added about harassment because there is a FoF that is about harassment. I realize canvassing is covered even if it isn't explicitly mentioned by name, however, I don't believe there are any principles related to harassment specifically. If I am wrong about this, please correct me. Noah Talk 21:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also highly recommend a remedy reminding every listed member of WPWX, WPTC, and WPSVR about what canvassing is, especially considering there was an attempt to canvass another discussion during this case by a new user. I feel this could go a long way in preventing future canvassing by making people aware so they don't canvass others or get canvassed by others. Noah Talk 14:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Community reminder remedies are generally low cost but I also think they tend to be low effectiveness. Any reason you think it would be particularly helpful in this case? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have heard people say they were unaware of what canvassing was prior to incidents occurring and some people might have gotten dragged into discussions not knowing they were being canvassed. They likely wouldn't have participated otherwise had they been aware of the policy. I think arming people with knowledge is one of the best ways to prevent them from canvassing others and from being canvassed. People can either take it or leave it, but at least we made the knowledge available to them. Noah Talk 14:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If there were an arb who proposed it I'd like vote for it but as I'm ambivalent about its effectiveness, I'll just point out that the principles in this case can also be used as a reminder to project members about what should and shouldn't happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue I see here is informing/reminding the project members who are unaware of the existence of this case as well as the ones who are. Noah Talk 15:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mario himself suggested a 0RR restriction for himself in his section. Noah Talk 16:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This would be for weather areas. He also suggested 1RR for outside weather. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As an alternative to the topic ban. To the extent that 1RR or 0RR is appropriate, it doesn't address the evidence I most concerned about: concerted attempts to get others to do editing so that Mario would not run afoul of bright line revert restrictions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think a 1RR outside weather could work to prevent edit wars by Mario himself, however, I am not sure how you would stop the issue you brought up. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you have any thoughts on my other suggested additions/changes above? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * This comes off in a bad light to me. I'm reading it as people should avoid doing things collectively based on possible negative appearances (ie avoid work and discussions where members of the same group have participated). I think this would actually lead to fewer people participating in discussions or working collaboratively on improving content out of fear of the perception of having done something wrong. The first iteration of this principle isn't any better in my opinion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think at the very least I should have an admonishment on the record considering my role in this, even if I have taken steps to improve my behavior and avoid this problem in the future. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Noah, you are starting to remind me of the protagonist of Magic's Pawn, in that he too is held in this terribly aggravating spiral of self-deprecation (I almost had to stop reading the book); you made a mistake, you learned from it, and all of this "but I must be punished!" nonsense is starting to wear thin. You have made your amends, so please stop asking for repercussions. Primefac (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Should the FoF for HurricaneCovid be numbered as 10 instead of 6? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 18:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused - the FoF is numbered 10? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s in the implementation notes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 18:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like got it Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry Barkeep & Noah, I didn't notice it was under discussion here. :) firefly  ( t · c ) 19:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by MarioProtIV
I’m a little dumbfounded that nothing really relating to RfCs being affected by canvassing has been brought up in the final proposed decision, unless I glossed it over if it was just a sentence or two explaining it. Is that still being discussed? See my correction below. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at it closer it actually does refer to this being prohibited so I stand corrected. My question then is is the committee’s proposal on what to do with affected RfCs still being discussed and not being able to be posted yet? MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean RfCs which are already open, or topics that informal discussion has identified a need for RfCs on (but which have not been formally started)? -- BDD (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Primarily the RfC regarding the colors which was underway when ArbCom started and it became evident it was canvassed at points. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that the RfC was paused while the committee process was followed. I would suggest that the best solution would be a fresh discussion on the topic would occur at the end of the case. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 18:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would the current (February/March 2022) colors have to be reverted to the original to build from scratch if this is the case? The current proposal above, minus the canvassing involved seemed to be a solution people were liking, and I would like to know if this means that we restart the discussion fresh with that proposal in mind. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I answered something similar below, where I said "I would suggest starting a new discussion with the status quo - once the case is finished. In doing so, anything that has "consensus of silent majority" can remain, anything that has already changed that is contentious can have further discussions." <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 06:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally feel a topic ban from weather for me is too harsh. Yes I’ve made multiple mistakes but I think that problems aside I can and have improve(d) the quality of old articles that haven’t been updated (and several pages that I feel like need an update as well), and given the project does not have that many members to do so enacting this could end up proving detrimental instead of beneficial. Perhaps in addition to the 1RR remedy, maybe a 0RR for weather-related pages for six months instead? Weather is one of the topics that I have a passion for (and am actually going to study in college) and I definitely want to still be able to participate in WPTC and give opinions and what-not. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also understand that my actions beforehand here and off-wiki as noted by “multiple occasions” were primarily out of frustration on my end and will even admit that after the fact on some occasions to myself I felt guilty for causing such an argument to break out. I still strongly believe I should be punished to an extent but not too harshly, but enough to make me stay inline behavior-wise, which is why I would think a 0RR within the weather area will work better then a topic ban, since I still want to help out with this area. Plus, a 0RR will actually force me to collect opinion and consensus on the talk page more (which I haven’t had the best record of doing I will admit) instead of reckless edit-warring, which I agree has been disruptive on multiple occasions. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to also state in addition to the above that there are several areas that I feel need improvement, such as the winter storm pages which are rarely worked on by others and I have taken the mantle to fix those for the most part (see the early page history of this blizzard from January for an example as I frequently updated this as the event unfolded). A topic-ban will only serve to actually degrade the quality somewhat of these pages since again, as far as I’m aware no one else in WPWX really edits in that area constantly besides me really. The other restrictions alone (1RR/0RR and indef block on closing discussions) are good enough, in my opinion to solve the problems that the committee has observed with me and I’m hoping they take that into account. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any other alternatives to a topic ban that can address the problem at hand? As you’re the one who first proposed it I want to ask you about this. Particularly because this would almost be like a site-ban as weather is mostly where I do my editing (with some work occasionally in other areas on Wikipedia). My explanations are already above so I don’t feel the need to regurgitate it. If there’s anything you’d like me to address regarding this feel free to do so. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I proposed the topic bans more as a "I think these are reasonable sanctions to consider" than because I necessarily supported them (and indeed have voted against 2 of the others). As you wrote this question I was finally casting my vote for the topic ban because I had decided that it was the right remedy. I would be open if another arb had some other kind of sanction to propose but I don't have one in my myself. And while I know that this feels like equivalent to a siteban for you, it's not actually one. If it does pass, some editing in another area might help you pick up some skills at maintaining equilibrium when things get tough for when you would return to this topic. Of course if that's not of interest to you, a credible appeal could still be made and as noted in my vote I can conceive of voting to accept it after the minimum appeal time (which is, of course, not a promise to do so just that I can conceive of doing so). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My issue is that this is coming just as Atlantic hurricane season is about to begin. The proposed ban theoretically could be lifted as soon as November with an appeal, and based on the expected forecasts, it is possible high activity in the area will occur from editors if a major storm is approaching land. It’ll be very difficult to resist the temptation and this also can attract a bunch of IPs who reckless edit the page, which was the case with Ida last year. Besides this, the ban would prevent me from giving opinions on the color RfC once it can be resumed (more likely in the case it has to be done over) since we halted it once this began. The color proposal could technically be outside of the weather scope because it is more relating to color blindness proposals and whatnot despite where it’s taking place. Additionally since it concerns technical information (infoboxes, maps, etc) that could fall outside of the topic as well. If it can be made more clear if this is something I can still technically operate in or not I’d greatly appreciate it. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be a little direct here and I hope I don't offend you. ArbCom doesn't negotiate remedies with parties. Instead a group of highly experienced editors are elected and using their judgement and experience try to make the best decisions possible. At the moment a topic ban is definitely being considered, though obviously it doesn't yet have majority support. The fact that a topic ban would stop you from participating in the RfC isn't a bad thing in my mind, it's a positive given what happened before. I am not denying that you do good work during Hurricane season, but good work doesn't give somebody a free pass from the other expectations we have. It is my judgement that a topic ban is an appropriate remedy for the reasons I've stated. I don't expect that's easy to hear and you don't even need to agree with my judgement - just agree to abide by it so further sanctions don't become necessary if it does pass. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One more thing that crossed my mind: Does this TBAN also include the prohibition of weather-related topics in the WPTC server itself? That seems like a gray area and I feel like I will have to leave it for a while if it does so since it’s pretty much what everyone discusses, and any discussion by me could be considered meatpuppetry if the tban covers the WPTC discord server. This also pertains to L&D’s as well. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @MarioProtIV fair question. Per Principle #1 (emphasis added) we can't tell the WPTC Discord mods what to do. What happens with that will be up to them. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh ok makes sense. Yeah was just a bit confused on how that would work out. I’ll stay then but not engage in wiki discussion which would violate the TBAN. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, we have no authority over what happens on WPTC Discord, but if you ask/suggest/induce anyone to edit Wikipedia on your behalf on the topics of your TBAN that definitely is within the scope of the TBAN sanction, for you and them. You may want to consider what you'll discuss in a forum dedicated to weather on Wikipedia when interacting with you on weather topics may cause problems for yourself and other editors. Cabayi (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Chlod
Does the 1RR restriction apply to all pages or only those related to WPTC? I'm afraid a 1RR restriction for all pages on me (even when considering the usual exceptions) interferes with my work as developer for RedWarn and Ultraviolet, and as an anti-vandalism editor in general. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 22:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The exceptions listed at WP:3RRNO, which apply to 1RR as well, include reverting obvious vandalism. Primefac (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the exceptions, however it makes very clear that the exception applies only for obvious vandalism, and my understanding of our related guide pages on vandalism is that addition of improperly cited content, addition of content that skews the neutral point of view of an article, violating CITEVAR or DATEVAR, or performing an edit anyways without regards to a previous discussion do not constitute as "obvious vandalism" (albeit are still under the umbrella of problematic/non-constructie edits), and this is what I mostly encounter when patrolling. This also comes at a highly problematic time, as the Philippine President-elect aims to whitewash Philippine history and our pages relating to those topics (of which I patrol) are currently being warred on by IP editors who do not listen to talk page messages in an attempt to remove content under the pretense of "fake information" and "lies". Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 06:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe what you are describing falls under point #7, and as you probably know sanctions like this are not enforced without a warning first, which would in theory give you the opportunity to explain your actions to justify the exception.
 * That being said, I doubt that you are the only editor who is watching these contentious pages, and if there is a doubt or concern about sufficient editorial staffing you can always ask for more eyes at venues such as WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Reflection
Perhaps if the then-arbs had issued Proposed principles 2, 3 and 4 following on WP:ARBMED, the same situation with the Cyclone project could have been avoided. The evidence of the same behaviors several years ago, within members of one off-Wiki project, was (ahem) abundant and ample. The situation was solved because those members stopped editing-- not because the arb findings resolved anything. Installing discretionary sanctions re drug pricing, rather than issuing more relevant behavioral findings as is occurring here, accomplished nothing, and those sanctions were not needed, as only a very small handful of editors were causing the issues. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Seddon
I find proposed principle #3 problematic in its current wording. It lays all fault for the appearance of an act at the actor's door. There is for sure a degree of burden, but something perfectly legitimate can very much, at first sight, appear as impropriety due to the observer having a lack of context or understanding. That doesn't mean the actor was in the wrong, nor should they have avoided the act in the first place. This is applicable in a number of support roles where events can sometimes require action to precede explanation, such as combatting vandalism or other abuse.

Now in instances where there is an increased degree of likelihood that a legitimate act might appear to be impropriety, then there is a burden that exists on an actor to provide context, motive and justification to their actions on-wiki. This can reduce both the appearance of impropriety and the likelihood of actual impropriety (even if unconscious).

Now this also all assumes competence in the individual and that the act is legitimate. Impropriety isn't always concious and doesn't require malicious intent. The issue here is in this case that impropriety occurred, even if at best it was simply the result of inexperience or misguidedness. The principle doesn't account for that and feels odd next to the example given:

"an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry."

In the setting of a content dispute on wiki that isn't an appearance of impropriety. That is impropriety. Seddon talk 01:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd be open to some other wording even if, in general, I would prefer to reuse existing wording rather than make new ones. I think the principle gets an important idea. If someone brings up a on article on Discord, or some other off wiki space, it can be inappropriate for multiple editors to all go and edit that article, even if the original message was not asking for anything to be done and if the edits on their own improve the article. I know mods on the main discord server, of which you're one, caution editors about this behavior. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental acknowledgement we are trying to make which is that:
 * "individual actions - even those done in good faith, are well-meaning, and perhaps even 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 collective due to proactive coordination or simply by accident."


 * Which leads us to something along the lines of:
 * "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."

Seddon talk 01:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Seddon talk 01:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Seddon talk 21:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * or
 * "Editors should avoid taking actions collectively that come about due to participation in, or membership of, a collective; even if those actions in isolation would be considered legitimate."
 * Another variant:
 * "Editors should avoid taking actions collectively that, due to participation in or membership of said collective, would be perceived as improper; even if those actions in isolation would be considered legitimate."
 * (Apologies for the double ping) The wording from the previous case Skepticism case should do the job:
 * "Behaviour of editors on-wiki and off-wiki are not subject to the same standards. Conduct which may be considered acceptable in the open and transparent atmosphere of Wikipedia (i.e., on-wiki) may be controversial and even unacceptable if made off wiki, due to the lack of transparency. In a similar vein, off-wiki disclosure of personal information does not allow, or excuse, a third party to post it on-wiki."

Re-emphasis WP:STEALTH
Another option is to simply reemphasise one or several pieces of guidance around stealth canvassing (WP:STEALTH): "the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages."

OR some component from Consensus: "While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, wikiprojects, or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive."

Comment by TornadoLGS
I had just wanted to say that I share some of the concerns that brought up, on even avoiding the appearance of impropriety, mainly because I've seen unfounded accusations of coordination in past content disputes when two or more editors happened to be be in agreement. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I also have a question. The related project at WP:SEVERE also has a Discord server, which is less active but shares some of the same members. The project page, as far as I can see, does not have a link to the Discord sever. Given this ArbCom case, and in the interest of transparency, shouldn't it have such a link? TornadoLGS (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Indicating directly onwiki somewhere that a channel or server exists for a project appears to be a good-possibly-best practice for transparency, but barring any actual policy of interest, is a question for the members of that group. Izno (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to what Izno said, and I'll add that without evidence about that server, we're not really going to do anything. If there's evidence that the other server is/was violating Wikipedia behavior norms I would be interested in considering it, but the mere presence of a server existing isn't, on its own, cause for alarm for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am not aware of any wrongdoing on that server that would warrant attention. I just felt I should ask since it's tangentially related to the case. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On your response to Mario's comment, where you suggest starting a new discussion, do you mean we should revert to the colors used before the RfC, or start a new discussion with the current colors as the status quo? TornadoLGS (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest starting a new discussion with the status quo - once the case is finished. In doing so, anything that has "consensus of silent majority" can remain, anything that has already changed that is contentious can have further discussions. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 18:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I do have a question for clarification on LightandDark2000's impending T-ban. L&D has had experience in dealing with the various LTAs that have plagued weather-related articles, and I have often asked his opinion about suspected LTA socks. While asking about matters pertaining to content in weather articles would likely be in appropriate, as it could be construed as meatpuppetry, would asking about suspected socks editing weather articles still be acceptable? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @TornadoLGS a topic ban would prevent L&D from giving opinions about suspected LTA socks. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Documenting good practice and other advice
It would seem to me that the "good-possibly-best practice for transparency" of linking to any off-wiki venues that support or in other ways are directly related to an on-wiki project (cf ) should, along with other advice, etc. arising out of this case should be listed somewhere on-wiki - someone setting up a server for e.g. a linguistics project is not necessarily going to be aware of or see the relevance from the title of this case. WP:IRC and WP:DISCORD are specific to individual venues and the advice, good practice, etc is not limited to any specific platform, External discussion is a low-impact essay about the general concept. Where should this go? Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That essay seems as good a place as any. WP:Offwiki discussion is available. I know that has collected a few common practices that look to be good practices on arbwiki. I don't think a discussion about what those are needs to happen in this case context though. Izno (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by isaacl
I feel Editors should avoid taking actions as part of or a result of membership of a collective is too broad a generalization. The essence of collaboration is for interested users to work together to decide what is in the collective best interests of the project. I think the key issue is that participation must be open to all interested parties, which means holding discussions and making decisions in a common venue where everyone has access: on the English Wikipedia website. isaacl (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Editors on the wrong side of consensus already stall progress by accusing others of improper behaviour. The vagueness of this proposed principle provides additional impetus for disagreeing editors to draw out disputes. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones/Proposed_decision&diff=1088063459&oldid=1088035490 BDD's comment on transparency] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones/Proposed_decision&diff=1088028874&oldid=1087948739 Opabinia regalis's comment on the issue being off-wiki discussion]: this aligns with my initial statement and is covered by principle 2. Principle 3.1 as written can be applied to any consensus agreement reached, even on the English Wikipedia website, and thus can fuel more arguing about what actions should or shouldn't have taken place to avoid being "perceived as improper". isaacl (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones/Proposed_decision&type=revision&diff=1087615119&oldid=1087607610 suggestion to add a reminder remedy] and the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones/Proposed_decision&type=revision&diff=1087627978&oldid=1087623602 subsequent comment], The issue I see here is informing/reminding the project members who are unaware of the existence of this case as well as the ones who are.: Adding a reminder remedy doesn't address this. Anyone is free to inform interested editors through the usual communication channels of the outcome of this case, and provide greater details on community-agreed upon guidance. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Elijahandskip
I am very concerned about Edit warring by Proxy 3a, which states that I (along with others) “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”. I highly dispute this claim as I know the singular incident where private evidence pertained to this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive448#User%3AUnited_States_Man_reported_by_User%3AElijahandskip_%28Result%3A_No_action%29), where I never asked any other editors to comment nor did I ask others to revert edits for me. What I highly doubt the private evidence shows (because it goes against it), is what actually happened, which is where I posted a link to the ongoing 3RR incident between myself and United States Man. I then specifically put a message to not post in the 3RR, but feel free to watch. Chlod decided to jump into the discussion and stated they found out about it off-wiki. So in my mind, that statement is false and I personally protest the accusations to me above. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, just noting that I posted 30-40 messages in total on the WPTC discord server, so I have no idea how this turned into a “multiple separate occasions” statement. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm considering what you have to say but will note that a search of the WPTC for you reveals 102 results. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I stand corrected on the 30-40 messages then, but nevertheless, the only part I am protesting is the “multiple separate occasions”, since that is the only incident pertaining to my edits and WPTC discord. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Elijahandskip I can see that almost all your posts were over a 2 week period in February, but I can also see that you posted a direct link where you had been reverted, which was then in turn reverted by another member of the server. I have mentioned that you did request at one point that people not comment on another discussion you raised - but again, you did post a direct link, which will bring people to the discussion. What's more, 2 minutes later, you pinged the same editor who had made the revert for you on-wiki. Between these actions, I am comfortable with the finding as written. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not in the server anymore and I am unable to check anything, so I wanted to see if the wording of “two months” is correct or suppose to be “two weeks” on the proposed findings of facts for my section. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, they're both correct, depending on the context. Your entire contributions spanned a total of about two months, but the vast majority were in a two week period. From my point of view, the two weeks is all that really matters, but I don't object to the wider timeframe being cited. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I also believe a full topic ban was weather-related topic is too harsh for me. It has been proposed to warn/admonish me, but if Arbcom felt a warning was not enough, I would much rather have a full week block from editing over a topic ban from weather. I am currently in college studying meteorology, and I have been working on multiple weather articles for Wikipedia, including things like the ‘Weather by Year’ articles (ex: Weather of 2021), which basically did not exist before I started creating them, and I am currently working with others on a large draft, which is extremely beneficial. A topic ban for me over a situation where I was telling people not to comment, would in fact hurt the quality of articles in the long run. I hope Arbcom takes into consideration everything about my edits, not just a situation which has been going on a long time and I got caught up into it for a 2 week period months ago. It should also be known that I left the discord server and have no intention of ever joining back. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Your comments are being read and considered. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit for grammar and readability
The current Proposed principle 3.1 is in need of a copyedit for grammar and readability; right now, it contains a grammatical error in the portion between hyphens (which, by the way, should be WP:ENDASHes), uses the word collective four times, and its meaning is lost among the verbosity. Without reading the much clearer Proposed principle 3 for meaning, it is difficult to decipher the intent of 3.1 even if one presumes correction of the grammar. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh good, I'm not the only one (I saw your comment after I made mine, even though yours came before). :) Izno (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I just saw your comment on the case page, which I endorse. It's hard to suggest wording improvements when it's not even possible to understand what the finding means to say.  If it's intended to be about avoiding even the appearance of coordinated editing, which is what I initially thought it was as in prior cases eg ARBMED, we have previous arbcase principles that do that with effective wording. Maybe if someone explains in plain English what the thing says, someone else can suggest fixes.  For now, it reads like WMF-speak. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Compassionate727
I, too, wish to echo the concerns about principle 3.1. The existing wording seems to imply that it would seem improper for multiple members of a WikiProject to support the same position in a dispute. Surely that is not what is intended. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Although the vast majority of MarioProtIV's edit wars have been related to storms (as, indeed, have most of his edits), the dispute referenced here is clearly not. However, this is the only one in recent years that I am aware of outside of that topic. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this note to suggest 1RR may be appropriate for Mario? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. You had commented that you couldn't think of any examples of MarioProtIV edit warring outside of the topic of storms; I was just pointing one that I am aware of one instance of him doing so. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to you whether or not that information should change your position at all. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

On the new proposed Findings of Facts
Some arbitrators felt that having FoFs that focused on specific users would provide a better decision. did most of the work in drafting these proposed FoFs and I brought them over in a more secretarial manner. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor typo
In proposed finding of fact #9, should be. DanCherek (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Temporarily inactive
As an FYI for parties, I'm going to ask the clerks to mark me as inactive on this case. I had wished to participate actively in the PD but this week (and the last two) has been very busy for me in real life. I was holding off, hoping to get around to voting before the case closes, but since the motion to close has been made that now seems unlikely. If the case is still open during the weekend, I'll go un-inactive and vote on the proposals. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)