Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Workshop

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

Case clerks: Guerillero (Talk) & GeneralNotability (Talk) & Firefly (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Primefac (Talk) & BDD (Talk) & Cabayi (Talk)

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Seddon

Proposed principles

Jurisdiction

1) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction only over the behaviour of editors on the English Wikipedia. While the Arbitration Committee can take note of off-wiki behaviour when it results in on-wiki breaches of policy, restricting the off-wiki behaviour of users is not within its remit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Participation in off-wiki communication platforms

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. Off-wiki communication platforms have had a long history in aiding the work of editors. These platforms should not be used to push or coordinate for a certain type of agenda or a view. Discussing an issue off-wiki necessarily excludes those editors who do not use these external platforms from the discussion, and therefore, such off-wiki discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution. While restricting the off-wiki behaviour of users is not within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, editors are reminded their participation in off-wiki venues must not lead to, or encourage in others, breaches of policy on-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Off-wiki conduct

3) 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. While the Arbitration Committee cannot require it, the Committee encourages the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct and other behavioural policies by those who govern (such as admins, moderators and ops) offwiki communication platforms that are advertised on wiki, or are run by on-wiki groups like Wikiprojects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Private correspondence

4) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. In a similar vein, off-wiki disclosure of personal information does not allow, or excuse, a third party to post it on-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the community needs to have a broader discussion of these issues. If we're talking abut email, sure, it is not cool to publicly re-post an email without permission. Comments on some off-wiki forums, including public ones, may be made by users who are pretending to be someone else, and the link between the on and off-wiki identities may be impossible to confirm. Then there's the WP Discord servers. By my understanding, these accounts are vetted and verified to their on-wiki IDs. By the letter of our current policy, it is still outing and a breach of privacy for a third party to make the connection on-wiki. That strikes me as fairly ridiculous, but it is not a problem the committee can resolve. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Private correspondence should not be posted on-wiki without consent for reasons of privacy; the copyright angle seems like a cop-out to me. This is more of a non-free content issue anyway, and the relevant policy states: Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author [...] and specifically indicated as direct quotations. If someone emails me, I shouldn't repost the message not because of copyright concerns, but because it would violate their privacy and trust. DanCherek (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Given this clause: Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions.

We would need to modify the exemption:

Certain non-article pages are exempt from the non-free content policy. These uses are necessary for creating or managing the encyclopedia, such as special pages and categories that are used to review questionable non-free content uses. Categories that are exempt are listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Due to software limitations, TimedText pages for non-free video files will automatically include the video file, and as such, pages in the TimedText namespace are presumed to be exempted from NFCC#9. Fair use rationales are not required for such pages. Article images may appear in article preview popups.

-- Seddon ^talk 14:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That paragraph and the article-space restriction are about non-free media, not non-free text (as it is obviously sometimes necessary to quote non-free text on talk pages when discussing it as part of the article content, in discussions about whether a source is reliable, etc.). The relevant part of the policy for text is:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations... (emphasis mine). So, posting excerpts of off-wiki communication is permitted from a copyright standpoint (where properly attributed and marked and implicitly limited to where relevant). Copying large swathes of discussions from elsewhere though would be prohibited, so it's not clear-cut. DanCherek is right that the restriction is primarily one about privacy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Content disputes

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be subject to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ownership

2) Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Appearance of Impropriety

3) There is a legal principle that a court or an official should avoid not only actual impropriety but the appearance of impropriety. Wikipedia should observe a similar principle with regard to neutral point of view, that any process that contributes to the appearance of non-neutrality should be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Participation in off-wiki communication platforms

4) Because off-wiki coordination of editing is not transparent to the Wikipedia community, it creates the appearance of impropriety, that the purpose of the coordination may be to bias the content of Wikipedia. Off-wiki coordination that is only intended to improve the encyclopedia, e.g., by involving editors who do not want to leave a history, nonetheless brings dissatisfaction and suspicion, and should be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is no policy basis for this, and arbcom is not empowered to dictate new policies, so I can't see how we could even consider this. It's far too broad, and basically seems to be saying that any off-wiki discussion of on-wiki matters is discouraged. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Content disputes

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Hurricane Noah

Proposed principles

Canvassing

1) Canvassing usually involves a direct attempt to influence the outcome of a discussion. However, actions that would normally be seen as neutral if done on Wikipedia, such as pings and neutrally-worded talk page messages asking for input, are considered canvassing if done off-wiki because they are done in secret where others cannot see who has been notified and what has been sent to them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stealth Canvassing

2) Stealth canvassing specifically involves any off-wiki attempt to sway the opinion of editors both already involved or uninvolved in a discussion or to bring in editors who were otherwise unaware that a discussion was taking place, including discussing current or future (future meaning the immediate future) on-wiki discussions off-wiki, mentioning a current or future on-wiki discussion off-wiki, and linking to a current on-wiki discussion. Posting about discussions in any form off-wiki either on a forum or in a chatroom is stealth canvassing because these forums and chatroom notifications are often not able to be seen or traced by editors on-wiki and the grouping of editors and other individuals on these websites are often non-neutral.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I do not believe merely mentioning the existence of a discussion in an off-wiki forum is canvassing. Nor is expressing one's opinion on a discussion without encouraging others to participate. If it is I am guilty of it many times over. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The issue is that a person can inadvertently notify outside editors in a secret/off-wiki manner that a discussion is going on by mentioning its existence (which is an inappropriate notification; similar to directly asking people off-wiki to participate except there isn't an explicit target or request) or a person who is considered a veteran could sway the opinion of newer editors off-wiki with their thoughts which changes the outcome of a discussion. For that first one, depending on where it is mentioned and what the discussion is about, it could lead to people creating accounts just for the sole purpose of participating in the discussion, which would rise to the level of WP:MEATPUPPET. These two examples above are why I included both as stealth canvassing as discussions need to be safeguarded from undue influence. Basically, the mere mention of a discussion could be blood in the water with sharks swarming to get it (which is what I believe started this latest fiasco for the color discussion). Noah^Talk 10:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Off-wiki attacks

3) Personal attacks are not acceptable whether done on wiki or off-wiki. Specifically, in regards to off-wiki harassment, any personal attacks, defamation, slander, or libel against another editor may not be directly regulated. These messages may be considered as evidence and as aggravating factors in arbitration cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Page Blanking

4) Page blanking is not acceptable under normal circumstances, in cases where an editor does not have the backing of consensus or another editor is objecting to the page blanking. Articles where an editor thinks that there is no useful content should be proposed for deletion. Other cases where coverage does not warrant a full, dedicated article should go through either a merge discussion or an AfD. Page blanking is acceptable within an editor's own userspace (with the exception of active administration notices) and if he or she is the sole contributor to an article. Page blanking is also acceptable in cases of copyright violations or as an emergency measure if there are libel or privacy concerns as described at Biographies of living persons. All other instances of page blanking are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Compassionate727, WP:BLAR is the citation you're thinking of. It was surprisingly not covered at WP:BLANK. I've added it to the see-also. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Added the missing word. Noah^Talk 10:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Should that be "full, dedicated article"? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Although I couldn't cite anything off-hand, my understanding is that it is okay to unilaterally blank pages (e.g., by redirecting them) provided you are not doing so despite another editor's objections while without the backing of consensus. The reason is that anyone who disagrees can restore the article if they wish, whereas only admins can view content that has been deleted. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus can change

5) Consensus can change on Wikipedia, for example, once time has passed, new arguments have been made, or new information has come to light. Recreating an article similar to a version that has been previously merged or deleted is a proposal of a consensus change and warrants a new discussion to merge or delete if the recreation is disputed. Recreating a recently merged or deleted article can be disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

TornadoLGS, from what I have read at the page on BRD, BRD is NOT required by policy and is entirely optional. It may be inappropriate for people in our project to have been reverting to redirects. It's biting newcomers by removing their work and undoing good faith acceptance of articles. This was the point that was made on the evidence page by Robert McClenon. Noah^Talk 21:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Is that better? Noah^Talk 12:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Would redirecting an a new article, which had previously been a redirect, fall under WP:BRD? I only bring this up since WP:BLARing an article is more easily reversed than an actual deletion. I'm not necessarily saying bold redirects, but I do want matters to be as clear as possible, since there have been cases where atciles were made that likely shouldn't have been. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Recreating a recently merged or deleted article is disruptive is not necessarily true. While there is a WP:SPEEDY way to delete recently recreated articles deleted at AfD, its scope is very narrow. Productive cases for article re-creation are plentiful, for example:

1. An article that fails WP:NPOV and gets WP:TNT'd can be productively re-created in a manner that maintains neutrality;
2. An article that is a giant WP:OR/WP:SYNTH mess and gets WP:TNT'd can be productively re-created in a manner that doesn't perform original research or novel synthesis;
3. Articles deleted for being copyright violations can be productively re-created in ways that avoid copyvio;
4. Articles deleted for failing WP:V can be productively re-created once adequate sourcing is found;
5. Articles deleted for being attack pages against a living person can be productively re-created and rewritten in a policy-compliant way.

The proposed phrasing, whose crux is the amount of time has based, seems to be far too broad to be a good principle. The phrasing of principle would unduly ensnare good behavior—the passage of time is not a necessary condition for productively re-creating a deleted page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: the changes made in this edit are an improvement, but I don't think I could get behind them as-written:

1. I don't like the construction either after, which upon my first reading came off as if that list is both exclusive and exhaustive. I recognize that the text does not explicitly say that, but it feels implied in the absence of any disclaimer.
2. The sentence [r]ecreating an article that has been previously merged or deleted is a proposal of a consensus change and warrants a new discussion to merge or delete if the recreation is disputed. is interesting, but I don't think the part of the sentence before the first and is quite correct. Re-creating an article that has been previously deleted doesn't actually require consensus and isn't really a proposal to change consensus; the consensus reached by editors at AfD apply to an article text and/or its topic at the time of that discussion. In this light, and outside of the narrow context that the sourcing and text are substantially identical to the deleted version, I don't really see a reason that the re-creation of the article is in some way a proposal to change existing consensus. After all, there's no reason to consider consensus to delete an unsourced attack page against person X to also be consensus that person X is non-notable and not warranting a page on our encyclopedia.
3. The change in the final sentence of is to can be is an improvement and reflects language in WP:CCC.
4. There's not really language here about repeated recreation of articles that had previously been deleted at AfD or were merged as the result of a formal proposal. Such language might be worthwhile, but that might be better saved for a different principle.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Assume good faith: biting

6) All editors should Assume good faith in the absence of obvious vandalism. Other people are likely not trying to hurt Wikipedia deliberately. Specifically, in regards to newcomers, they are likely not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and procedures and should not be bitten. They are likely not aware of past discussions where a consensus has been established. Instead, editors should explain things to them politely and avoid hostile actions. If there is a disagreement on whether an article should exist, a discussion should be opened and a new consensus established rather than taking a hostile course of action against it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biographies of living persons

7) The biographies of living persons policy applies to all living persons, including Wikipedians, anywhere on Wikipedia. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is written about Wikipedians may not contain defamation or personal attacks. Such material is subject to removal by administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harassment

8) Harassment is a continual pattern of aggressive behavior targetting a specific person or group that aims to threaten or intimidate a person, usually to discourage them from making future edits. Harassment is never acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hounding

9) Hounding is 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vote stacking

10) Vote stacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have a predetermined opinion on a matter, usually in support of the view of the person notifying them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Meat puppetry

11) Meat puppetry is bringing in real or fictitious participants into a discussion in order to create a false sense of support for a specific viewpoint in a discussion. Meat puppetry often involves bringing in new editors in order to influence the outcome of a discussion. Consensuses in discussions are determined by points containing policy, not votes. Vote-like comments made by new editors may be disregarded in determining the consensus of discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Coordinated Editing

12) Coordinated editing is acceptable when it is done for finding sources for articles and improving content across Wikipedia. It is disruptive to coordinate editing in a manner that involves Harassment, Hounding, canvassing, vote stacking, or meat puppetry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Stealth Canvassing (Hurricane Noah)

1) Per his own admission and evidence he submitted off-wiki, Hurricane Noah has engaged in stealth canvassing on Discord.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Canvassing (MarioProtIV)

2) Per evidence submitted by Jasper Deng and Hurricane Noah (and possibly others), MarioProtIV has engaged in both stealth canvassing off-wiki as well as canvassing on wiki (vote stacking).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For the record the canvassing accusations were under the realm of not actually knowing what I was doing was considered canvassing (i.e not deliberate), and in the case of the “vote-stacking” I was simply asking a user who was involved in the project discussions beforehand to look at the RfC about the color changes for their input because it affects the project they were working in. In no way was I trying to influence the vote (although the language I used was definitely not neutral and I should have used neutral language - I pretty much only said it that way because I was frustrated most of us weren’t made aware of the revised RfC and the changes seemed like they were sprung onto us for some people). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You explicitly asked a user off-wiki to comment on the colors discussion after hearing their opinion that they supported a proposal. That's the other part of what I meant by vote stacking. Noah^Talk 21:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Going back, I just realized what this was referring to (in “Newest Proposal Yet” I think?) and yeah that was a pretty big blunder on my end and it should not have occurred. It was only later when I got reprimanded and realized what I did actually was considered vote stacking/canvassing (I merely had done what I did under the impression that we needed as much feedback as we could for that discussion, and not trying to intentionally canvas). I had good faith in mind but seems like that was tainted. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

OWN, BITING, and BLANKING (Hurricane Noah)

3) Per evidence submitted by Robert McClenon and Serial Number 54129, Hurricane Noah has recently engaged in the ownership of content, blanking of pages, and biting of newcomers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

OWN, BITING, and BLANKING (MarioProtIV)

4) Per evidence submitted by Hurricane Noah, MarioProtIV has priorly engaged (in 2018 at least) in the blanking of pages and biting of newcomers, and per evidence submitted by Jasper Deng, MarioProtIV has recently engaged in the ownership of content via edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I will admit my behavior back then was not nice or respectful, but the OWN/BITING/BLANKING accusations mostly were either due to users or ips adding irrelevant info to the page or creating a section/article for an unnecessary event or storm (since it is often a rehash of previously mentioned stuff). I also tend to get worked up over disputes frequently but I have tried my best to refrain so (not withstanding incidents where I recklessly did so and infringed on BITING/OWN terms with my language). Outside factors from here such as schoolwork and college can already heighten my impulses and disputes on Wikipedia can easily make act impulsively. I apologize to those who I have acted not in a nice way towards. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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.

Revokation of user rights (Hurricane Noah)

1) Hurricane Noah loses his user rights: Page mover, Pending changes reviewer, Rollbacker for violating the trust placed in him by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I am not done reviewing the evidence, what I have seen so far doesn't support this as an arbcom remedy. This of course wouldn't stop Noah from handing in tools should he choose. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I also have not looked at every piece of evidence just yet (there's a lot of off-wiki material that has been submitted) but I think this goes to why ArbCom accepted this case: because of private evidence. If the private evidence shows that they misused these specific user rights, then it is our responsibility to consider revoking them. If the evidence of misuse is on-wiki any administrator can do the revocation at their own discretion. A wholesale revocation of all these rights is only appropriate if it can be demonstrated that each of them have been repeatedly misused. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While I haven't seen most of the private evidence, what I have seen suggests to me that Hurricane Noah has been sincere (albeit inconsistent) in his attempts to reduce the canvassing problem in WPTC. I am inclined to oppose any sanctions more severe than an admonishment. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Revokation of page mover right

2) Anyone deemed to have been engaging in stealth canvassing for page move discussions will have page mover right revoked for violating the trust placed in them by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The committee is making the determination since the evidence is private. Noah^Talk 10:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Deemed by whom? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocks for habitual stealth canvassing

3) Those who are determined as responsible for having stealth canvassed others more than once both before the warning in August and after it will be indefinitely blocked with an appeal after six months have passed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's unclear from the wording of this if it is meant to be used as a remedy when closing this case, or a proposed new rule going forward. I'm also not a fan of arbcom issuing timed blocks. ArbCom blocks are for intractable, ongoing problems, and so usually an indefinite block or other restriction, which can be appealed after a certain amount of time is more appropriate. Also, blocks are not supposed to be punitive regardless of who issues them. This seems punitive. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

What if there are users who are deemed having canvased more then twice done so unintentionally and was not aware that it was considered canvassing, but rather thought it was discussion? I bring this up because I feel like it could be unfair to punish those who unknowingly did so (and I’m pretty sure there are users involved that have unintentionally done so without intent. Instead, perhaps (as suggested by LGS) a one-time warning, and if said canvassing is done again, then the block will take place. This is so at least they are aware of what they did and to not do it again given they now know what was wrong. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this any better? I rewrote it to be an indefinite block for those who have stealth canvassed more than once both before and after the warning in August. Basically, this will only apply to people who have canvassed DESPITE the warning. Noah^Talk 10:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes a bit more sense. This applies to those who have intentionally done it correct with knowledge that they were doing it? I think before August most were not aware what was being done was considered stealth canvassing. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is the intention. People who both did it before the warning multiple times and then did it again multiple times after, showing a warning is not sufficient to stop their disruption. Noah^Talk 14:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admonishment for stealth canvassing

4) All others who were stealth canvassing (non-habitually) are admonished for their behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing is the section on stealth canvassing. Basically, anything done in a place where everyone on WP cant see or know about it (secretive) for discussions is stealth canvassing. Noah^Talk 10:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Do we have a pre-existing on-wiki consensus definition for "Stealth canvassing"? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminder to the Weather Project about stealth canvassing

5) A reminder about what stealth canvassing is and entails is posted to the talkpages of WP:WPWX, WP:WPTC, WP:WPSVR, and in the WPTC discord with the expectation that it will not occur again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussions that have been affected by stealth canvassing

6) All discussions where the outcome has been determined to have been directly affected by canvassing will have said outcomes expunged and the discussion will be restarted to achieve a proper consensus without the influence of canvassing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Admonishment for people engaging in page blanking, ownership, and/or biting

7) Everyone determined to have engaged in either page blanking without a proper discussion on the article's existence, the ownership of content, and/or the biting of newcomers are hereby admonished for their behavior and reminded of the right course of action (depending on the specifics of the situation).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

One-way interaction ban for personal attacks, harassment, and hounding

8) Everyone determined to have been engaged in personal attacks towards, the harassment of, and/or the hounding of United States Man is given a one-way interaction ban to prevent future incidents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Blocks for future canvassing

1) If anyone who has been determined to have stealth canvassed more than two times within the topic of weather attempts to discuss on-wiki discussions (either upcoming future discussions or already open discussions where a consensus needs to be determined) off-wiki in any manner (project chat, direct messages, email, etc.) that either draws in editors who otherwise would not have known about the discussion or sways (or attempts to sway) the opinion of others, then that person shall be subject to a block no less than 1 month in duration as long as they have been properly warned for the prior two times. All others will be issued a warning for the first occurrence and a one-week block for the second occurrence in an attempt to mitigate the effects of canvassing on an active discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Drawing in more editors who may not have known about a discussion is not generally considered to be canvassing if done in a neutral manner. Otherwise we wouldn't have WP:CENT, watchlist notices, etc. So, I couldn't support this as written. I'm also not a fan of a rule that would only apply to those whom are branded with a scarlet letter for past canvassing. If this were re-written as an instance of discretionary sanctions regarding editing in the topic area that is the focus of this case you might have something, but as written I personally would not even consider it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@TornadoLGS: This isn't applying to newcomers. It is for the parties involved in this case (including myself) as an enforcement measure for future occurrences. I added the caveat "Where a consensus needs to be determined" since questions about sources (your example) wouldn't be canvassing if mentioned off-wiki since no decision is being rendered by the community. I will leave your part about sock puppets for an arbitrator to answer. Noah^Talk 23:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This was meant to be solely pertaining to drawing in editors off-wiki (ie excluding the neutral on-wiki notices) and influencing the opinion of people off-wiki. I rewrote it to be more clear on that. I also made it pertain to the whole topic area of weather. Noah^Talk 10:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is discord is NOT public per the RfC that determined it to be private conservations. That's why the evidence can't be posted on wiki here. Even if it is accessible to the public, the community has determined it is not public. Further, the template for Not a ballot says "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website". This infers that any off-wiki mention is canvassing regardless of whether the message tried to persuade the individual to vote a certain way or not. The issue is mentioning a discussion in a place where only a limited number of people will see that mention. It's not on WP where anyone and everyone can happen to come across that mention and join in. Off-wiki only a few dozen people may see a notification whereas hundreds or even thousands could see it on-wiki. This is why I believe even a neutrally worded mention or a mere linking to a discussion, both off-wiki, are considered canvassing. Noah^Talk 12:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You could probably do a neutral canvassing even off-wiki, but I suspect that any attempt to notify about an RfC within WPTC's scope, on WPTC, is likely to be a non-neutral grouping of editors (one of the four things that gets you in trouble with CANVASS). However, the remedy as a whole would need significant wordsmithing to be viable. Even beyond that, TBANNING from the field seems like a more appropriate sanction than "warning, warning, huge (normally 3rd level) block" Nosebagbear (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Just noting my apology for placing in wrong section - I'm not a party, but as HN has replied, I'm reticient to self-correct by moving below. Those who know better are welcome to do so, so long as something to make it remain clear is done. Apologies again, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a remedy. It is for future enforcement to stop future canvassing, with a warning being issued for the first instance of canvassing by an individual, a one-week block for the second, and a one-month to indefinite block for the third and subsequent infractions. Topic banning people from the only thing they edit, which is the case for many weather editors, is essentially a block in all but name. Anyone who has already canvassed habitually (as determined by this committee) would get the 1-month block by default. Noah^Talk 12:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If we are to establish strict rules about what is not permissible, especially if the consequence is an immediate block, then there should be unambiguous guidelines for what is permissible as well. If we cannot mention on-wiki discussions off-wiki, what can be discussed? A couple areas that come to mind are questions about sources and access to them, and instances of sockpuppets. In the latter instance, I was under the impression that off-wiki communication was appropriate per WP:DENY (correct me if I am wrong). Discussions of socks have included questions of whether the behavior of a new account matches known LTAs, with others who are familiar with these cases. I would also recommend some manner of leniency, at least for newcomers (i.e. anyone who joins the Discord server after the conclusion of this ArbCom case), that they should receive a warning first before being blocked. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I have said this before and I will say it again: I don't believe a neutrally worded message mentioning a discussion in a public channel of a public discord server violates our rulers on canvassing, either in letter or in spirit. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocks for future page blanking, ownership, and biting

2) Anyone who has been priorly warned for page blanking, ownership, and/or biting newcomers within the topic of weather will be blocked for a period of no less than 1 week. All others will be given a warning not to do these things as appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by isaacl

Proposed principles

Sufficient requirement to participate fully in making decisions

1) Wikipedia comprises a global community spanning many time zones, with editors having access to different levels of technology. To accommodate all editors, decisions about Wikipedia's content and processes are made through discussion on the Wikipedia web site. Although some preliminary, informal discussions may take place using other means, editors must strive to ensure that the ability to contribute on the web site is a sufficient requirement for anyone to participate fully in making decisions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jasper Deng

Proposed principles

Canvassing, both on- and off-wiki, is not acceptable

1) As canvassing affects the formation of consensus, the fundamental principle behind Wikipedia:Canvassing is reiterated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Communication

2) Users are expected to respond promptly to all concerns raised by the community and abide by policies adopted thereby.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

MarioProtIV: edit wars and IDHT

1) MarioProtIV has a significant history of edit warring and other problematic behavior and ignoring warnings over such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Off-wiki canvassing in WPTC

2) As shown by the evidence presented by Noah and others, WPTC has a significant history of off-wiki canvassing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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 restricted

1) Until further notice, MarioProtIV is prohibited from making more than one revert in any given 24-hour period on any page on Wikipedia, and is further prohibited from at all reverting discussion closes, subject to the usual exemptions for BLP, vandalism, and within user space. This restriction may be appealed after a period of 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) The editing restriction on MarioProtIV is subject to the standard arbitration enforcement procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I realize that this is outside the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee (thus why I am placing it here), however, nonetheless, I would like to publicly request that I be permanently banned from the WPTC discord as a remedy since that chat is the source of the problem that brought us all here. Even though I left the chat on March 26, I believe permanently banning me will prevent any future issues since I won't be around anyone who contributed to these problems (no temptation to rejoin later). Whoever has the power to make this happen, I would like to ask that it be done. Thanks. Noah^Talk 01:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Weather would also like guidance on what to do with the colors RfCs where a significant amount of off-wiki discussion occurred. While the discussion was done in good faith in order to improve and refine proposals to be more accessible for color blind users, it was disruptive nonetheless since it occurred off-wiki. The project would like the committee to advise it on what should be done about that. Keep in mind that reverting to the old colors would undo compliance with ACCESS, which makes this a tricky situation. Noah^Talk 22:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: I have seen your comments at WP:WPWX and implore you to WAIT for the committee to address this matter as others have suggested. The final decision will be rendered by May 4, which is before the start of the official season. A rash action regarding a discussion that is part of this case is not the best course of action. In all likelihood, a rash action is just likely to make the committee's role more difficult. Just leave it be and worry about the case at hand here until the committee has advised the project on how to proceed. Noah^Talk 13:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t really see how that would impact the decision given some had already brought up comments about how the entire process was affected by canvassing, and to not confuse new people. It’s best in my opinion to at least fix the discrepancy with the maps until the case is settled. Then we can proceed from there MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: I hope you realize I am not trying to call you out specifically for this situation (both the OWN and canvassing) as there are plenty of other guilty people in both issues. I'm just going off the limited evidence I gathered on March 26 before my exodus from the discord room. The proposed decision by the committee will reflect all the private evidence that hasn't been publicly seen. Noah^Talk 21:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of this yes. This was previously a concern I had but I eventually just decided to let it be as it is right now and see what the final decision/proposal asks. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Back at it again to propose another shortcut for an arbitration case, this time WP:ARBWPTC. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, a better place to request these would be WP:AFC/R. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Usually, closed discussions that are significantly affected by canvassing are overturned. I am not aware of (and doubt there is) any easy way to fix ongoing discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)