Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring   8 March 2023 0/8/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring

Initiated by NoahTalk at 04:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Hurricane Noah

An outcome was reached at WikiProject Weather within the last couple of weeks for a new track map color scheme in order to provide MOS:ACCESSibility for the color blind users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC after having a long discussion that took multiple months. FleurDeOdile did not like the outcome of the discussion and tried multiple tactics to subvert the consensus. FleurDeOdile reverted image changes three times on Wikipedia [1] [2] and [3]. After being warned that he was at 3RR by Jasper Deng [4] and given a followup reminder by MarioJump83 [5], he then proceeded to take it to commons to avoid breaking the 3RR here. He continued edit warring by nominating three maps with the new scheme for deletion with no valid rationale. Here [6] [7] [8], he simply called the images "useless duplicates". Further attesting to the bad faith in these nominations is the fact that he openly accused two WPWX participants of canvassing in the discussion on commons and in the priorly linked discussion on WP for the colors here while there is no evidence of canvassing having taken place. Someone else even mentioned that they were notified via the automatic bot notice at Cyclone Freddy's talk page. I was attempting to have this resolved at AN/I until I discovered that stealth canvassing took place. I have off-wiki evidence (which has been emailed to the Arbitration Committee) that FleurDeOdile discussed ongoing discussions, attempted to "rig" them by asking others to participate in discussions that he started, and asked people to revert an editor on his behalf to avoid breaking 3RR. Given WikiProject Tropical Cyclone/Weather's history of canvassing as well as the fact that the evidence is confidential in nature and can't be posted publicly, I have decided to bring this to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. NoahTalk 04:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WaltCip, what I proposed two years ago was a ban from editing image-related parameters and participating in image-related discussions. Said discussion was discussed off-wiki and was part of the prior ARBCOM case. I did not propose anything in the current AN/I thread. Additionally, AN/I is unable to handle the evidence of the canvassing due to its confidential nature. Fleur is not named in the decision of the WPTC case which was why I filed a new case rather than an AE request (the lack of naming in the case led me to believe that he was not subject to AE for that case). There have been other instances of canvassing within the weather project as of late, however, those people did not know what they were doing was canvassing and admins handled the situation appropriately. That isn't the case for Fleur, who made remarks off-wiki about the prior case and discussed canvassing all while doing it himself both before and after said case. NoahTalk 14:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FleurDeOdile

Statement by Jasper Deng

Statement by MarioJump83

It is important to remember that WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Weather has been hostile to FleurDeOdile for years on and off wiki (confidential), and I for one had been involved by calling for a topic ban in tropical cyclone or weather-related topics for FleurDeOdile two years ago. But in all honesty, I do not want FleurDeOdile to be treated so harshly - I believe that a topic ban could get FleurDeOdile off from getting blocked again - and I could have tried to get FleurDeOdile a mentorship if I had not faced with significant stress at that time. Two days ago, I got stumbled into this case because I just happened to remind FleurDeOdile to stop taking input from off-wiki stuff and called for a topic ban again to prevent FleurDeOdile for, once again, getting blocked. My choice of words have been very harsh and I apologize for that, and during that time when I reminded FleurDeOdile, I thought I was no longer member of WPTC and reminded FleurDeOdile as a member of general Wikipedia community which led me to quickly realize what was going on.

That being said, I have a full regrets and feel shameful that I got involved with this WikiProject almost three years ago. I reconsidered my membership from time to time, but at this point I just don't want to be involved again in the cases involving WPTC, including the WikiProject itself. Despite all of this, I never condoned FleurDeOdile's actions nor I even assisted them on or off wiki. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I feel this should have been put on WP:AE than WP:ARC, for where WP:ARBWPTC could apply. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the WaltCip that this should not be a full case, I would rather that this should be resolved through a motion. I could see that Weather-related topics may be considered contentious as well. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the FleurDeOdile being indeffed this case can safely be dismissed, however I won't count out a motion regarding making weather a contentious topic right now at this case request. Something has to be done. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SolarisPenguin

I have seen FleurDeOdile misbehaving on wiki for a very long time. He's refused to take criticism, and continues to make edits and deletion nominations in bad faith. I've also seen him attempt to canvass people off-wiki to revert the Judy/Kevin tracks once he had passed 2 reverts already, and also to participate in his deletion discussions. In my opinion, it is quite concerning. SolarisPenguin (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

We don't need a full case for this. Not only is the relevant ANI thread still not closed, even if it ended in a deadlock, WP:AE would still be the better route. Also, the concerns I outlined in the ANI thread are still valid.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again to Robert McClenon for articulating my concerns far more eloquently than I with my pea-sized brain could ever hope to do.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LindsayH

I do not believe the time is right for a case here, and i urge the Committee not to accept one. I will point out, however, that there has been at least one other ANI episode (here), and it was not mentioned above; in it, i believe, it is clear that there was general animosity towards FleurDeOdile which was stimulating the attempts to act against him. Like WaltCip, i note that the current ANI is still open and still, i second his concerns, as i did there. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (FleurDeOdile)

Not again!? This is another dispute about weather and the Weather Project. I haven't tried to count the number of disputes about weather articles, but they are really more about editors of weather articles, but we have had one full arbitration case, and other disputes. Weather is not designated currently as a contentious topic, and I am not sure whether it should be designated as such, but it seems to be a topic that attracts contentious editors. My suggestion is that ArbCom decline this case as a matter that the community should be able to resolve if the community is willing to impose a community-mandated sanctions procedure, such as former community general sanctions. The problem isn't the topic, but that the topic seems to be a magnet for fanatical or troublesome editors. Maybe there should be a sarcastic rule that editors are not allowed to behave like tornadoes or tropical storms. This is a troublesome area, and ArbCom should see if the community can handle it. If there is another weather filing in the next few months, ArbCom may need to impose contentious topics, because the editors bring the contentiousness with them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been a case request about misconduct by one editor, and the editor has now been blocked, so that this case can presumably be dismissed. However, it still illustrates that the weather area has a problem with contentious editors, although it doesn't involve nationalistic editing. This case may have blown out to sea, but further action by either the community or the ArbCom will probably unfortunately be necessary in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • While AE is generally the place for reports related to past cases, there is the aspect of private evidence which does not make it wholly inappropriate to post here. That being said, I am not sure whether a full case is necessary. Will wait for further comment by the community and my fellow Arbitrators. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just can't see how AE could enforce the Recommended practices for off-wiki chat platforms remedy here. At the same time, I think we have a limited number of options here. We can't control what happens on other Wikimedia projects, yet alone non-Wikimedia projects. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 09:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Guerillero that AE can't enforce Recommended practices. In fact I don't think ArbCom can enforce them either, hence the "recommended practices" rather than 'required practices" name. But what ArbCom can enforce is when people violate behavioral policies and guidelines onwiki. The idea behind the recommended practices is that if a server does those things its user are less likely to then end up in trouble for violating policies and guidelines, and certain kind of off-wiki coordination that lead to onwiki edits are a violation. For me the substance of this request is largely off-wiki evidence that has been sent to the committee. It's going to take me a bit to go through that in a way to determine if I think there's anything for us to do. If there is I suspect we can do it through motion rather than a full case. That said if there's an uninvolved admin who would like to close the ANI thread, I don't think this case request should stop them from closing it in whatever way they think appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, as an individual checkuser, blocked FluerDeOdile based on evidence of off-wiki conduct violations in accordance with previous ArbCom guidance. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I think this could have been an email to a user with sufficient wiki-trust (meaning a CU or ArbCom) to make a block based on offwiki material, and Barkeep has actioned the private evidence that we did receive. Izno (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline SilkTork (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline — Wug·a·po·des 19:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline FDO is blocked and the block does not need the embellishment of being an ArbCom block. Cabayi (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1145544438"