From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

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

Evidence presented by Compassionate727

Merger proposal was affected by off-wiki discussions

The following pertains to the merge discussion which I recently attempted to close. Level one bullets are simple timeline and statements of fact plainly contained in the evidence; level two points are my notes on and interpretations of the evidence:

  • On 20 October, Hurricane Noah proposed that February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm be merged; he revised his statement several times, the last of which was 23 October
  • On 23 and early 24 October, LightandDark2000, MarioProtIV, and Destroyeraa !voted; LightandDark2000 supported, MarioProtIV "strongly" opposed, Destroyeraa was mostly neutral
  • On 24 October, Hurricane Noah commented that following off-wiki discussion with MarioProtIV, he now supported an alternative proposal
  • On 26 October, Destroyeraa commented that following off-wiki discussion with Hurricane Noah, he now supported a merge, and collapsed his former vote
  • On 1 November, Hurricane Noah reaffirmed his support for an alternative proposal and asked MarioProtIV to comment, saying he would implement it if MarioProtIV agreed and nobody else objected; MarioProtIV never responded on-wiki
    • As I understand it, Hurricane Noah did not plan to treat the already lodged votes favoring the original merge proposal as relevant "objections"
  • Over the next five months, three additional editors voiced support for the original merge proposal (bringing the total to five editors favoring the merge and one opposing, excluding Hurricane Noah)
  • On 22 March, I closed the original merge discussion following a closure request by an IP editor, finding a consensus to merge
  • 11 minutes later, MarioProtIV reverted my closure with the edit summary: I don’t think consensus was ever reached for this given it died out - should close this as such
  • 9 minutes later, Hurricane Noah closed the merger proposal as "withdrawn/no consensus"
  • The next day, I asked Hurricane Noah why he had withdrawn; he replied that he and LightandDark2000 do not have time to enact a not … standard and simple merge and that he did not want to create any more project drama, which I understood as referring to the controversial map colors RfC
    • I don't know why he felt he needed to speak on LightandDark2000's behalf here, but they clearly had communicated about this off-wiki
  • Following Hurricane Noah's reply, I left a long comment on MarioProtIV's talk page explaining that unilaterally reverting closures is inappropriate and that his conduct was generally too aggressive, and asked him to undo his reversion.
  • That day, MarioProtIV replied that he and several others off-wiki had agreed on a different kind of process we’d do with the article. He apologized for his behavior, which included an admission that: probably I sometimes priories [sic] off-wiki consensus over on-wiki, and promised to behave better.
    • MarioProtIV did not heed my request to undo his reversion, nor did he address this in his reply. If I had to guess, he believed I would consider my request moot after reading his explanation of what had happened off-wiki
  • A few days later, I finally read MarioProtIV's reply. Although satisfied with his promise to improve his behavior, I was uncertain what to do about the closure itself and asked at ANI. TheresNoTime latched onto the off-wiki discussion aspect and requested a case
  • In his preliminary statement, Hurricane Noah admitted that he withdrew his proposal after MarioProtIV posted a closure request on Discord

It is unclear to what extent all of this actually affected the ultimate outcome. Ultimately, nothing was ever done with the article, with discussion just petering out. The article was never merged, nor much else done. Whether the off-wiki discussions diffusing energy to various different venues caused attention and interest to scatter and dissipate or that happened on its own, I can only guess. What is clear, however, is that the off-wiki discussions caused confusion to editors unaware of them (namely me), causing a significant waste of time. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 17:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

MarioProtIV has a history of edit warring and deficient communication

  • MarioProtIV has received numerous comments and warnings on his talk page for edit warring (2022: 1, 2; 2021: 1, 2; 2020: 1; 2018: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; 2017: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; I could go back further but you understand my point)
  • MarioProtIV has been reported to WP:AN3RR three times, one of which resulted in a warning ( 1, 2, 3)
  • MarioProtIV has received comments and questions on his talk page about inadequately explained edits, including reverts and content removal (2021: 1, 2; 2020: 1; 2018: 1, 2, 3, 4; 2017: 1)
  • MarioProtIV does not respond to most questions and concerns on his talk page. Once, he archived a new user's question about his edits without answering, prompting another editor to restore question him about it, although he still did not answer it ( permalink to discussion) corrected 22:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC); the new editor restored the section himself
  • Although not directly related to the case, MarioProtIV has several notes on his talk page about adding unsourced material (2021: 1, 2; 2018: 1, 2, 3) which, combined with other patterns I noted above, suggests that MarioProtIV is not getting the point.

— Compassionate727 ( T· C) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

In response to feedback on the talk page that my evidence seemed somewhat dated, I have reversed the chronological order of links and divided them into sections by year. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 22:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply
One other thing worth noting: if you look at MarioProtIV's edit count by year, it seems that he has received fewer warnings recently partially, although not entirely, because of a corresponding decrease in overall activity. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 22:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Robert McClenon

Hurricane Helene (2018) redirected-deleted after acceptance

I have reviewed numerous draft articles on tropical storms. I accept them if they appear to be adequately sourced and to contain enough information to expand on the article about the tropical storm season. A {{ main}} link is then added to the season article. I reviewed Hurricane Helene (2018): [1]

I accepted the article: [2] [3]

I added a link to the season article: [4]

Hurricane Noah reverted my link: [5]

Hurricane Noah redirected Hurricane Helene (2018) to the season article, thus de facto reverting my acceptance: [6]

The edit summary says: Do not recreate this as there is standing consensus against it existing.

I asked Hurricane Noah about the revert, and was told that there had been consensus at "this talk page". I then asked whether User:Nioni1234 and User:AndrewHat250, who submitted the draft, were aware of the consensus. [7]

I do not see a consensus at Talk:2018 Atlantic hurricane season, and conclude that the consensus was somewhere else. One plausible explanation is that the consensus was off-wiki. As Hurricane Noah notes, other editors are not normally aware of a draft until it is submitted. The other side is that the editors who submitted the draft appear not to have been aware of a consensus, which caused them to work on a draft in the reasonable but incorrect hope that it might be accepted.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Addendum in Response to Hurricane Noah

User:Hurricane Noah points out that the consensus to merge was on an archive of the hurricane season talk page. That discussion was in 2019. On the one hand, there was not off-wiki coordination. On the other hand, the reverting of my acceptance of the draft illustrates article ownership, either by Hurricane Noah, or by the WikiProject. The reverting was done with a command not to recreate the child article on the hurricane, and without providing any opportunity to discuss whether consensus had changed, when the consensus was reached more than two years earlier. There were three editors (Nioni1234, AndrewHat250, and myself) who could be assumed to be interested in changing that consensus to add the Helene article. Content should not be locked based on a discussion more than two years in the past. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Addendum to Addendum

Consensus can change states:

Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).

The revert was not only terse but rude, and did not provide a link to where the consensus was formed. It simply stated that there was a consensus, and provided no opportunity for discussion. The systemic problem is that no information was provided as to the consensus and no opportunity for discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Hurricane Noah

Timeline of stealth canvassed discussions

The following discussions have been stealth canvassed via mention off-wiki. As far as I know, off-wiki mention and discussion was the extent of the canvassing. I'm not sure exactly what private evidence has been submitted by others, but this is as far as my own recollection goes for major discussions. They are listed in chronological order from most recent to oldest. Noah Talk 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Response to Robert McClenon's evidence
 Clerk note: Copied from Hurricane Noah's talk page by request. firefly ( t · c ) 20:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

In response to Robert McClenon's evidence regarding Hurricane Helene (2018): I would like to note that consensus was reached at Talk:2018_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_2#Merger_proposal_with_Hurricane_Helene_(2018) for a merger in 2019 due to lack of effects. An article containing roughly the same amount of content or even less content, the latter being true in this case, shouldn't be created without a consensus to overturn the merger. Noah Talk 20:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't know if it is an unfair expectation on my part (if it is then I apologize), but I expect a person trying to overturn a prior consensus on merging an article to get consensus before creating the article again. Not recreate the article and then see if it is okay for it to stay. I had to get consensus before creating an article for Hurricane Sam since it was disputed so I expect the same for others. Noah Talk 11:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Robert McClenon:If you look again at the edit summary for the reversion to the redirect, it does indeed contain a link to the consensus. However, I don't deny the accompanying message as sounding rude and BITEy. This behavior has been encouraged off-wiki in the discord chat by some of the same people who encouraged the canvassing. Given I can't see the evidence and have not been privy to the WPTC discord logs since my departure on March 26, I have no way of knowing whether the existing evidence substantiates this claim. I also don't have the time to go through everyone's edits on WP to look for more instances, however, I provided 3 older ones below that occurred against me. The issue as you highlighted (along with the older ones I added below) is project ownership of content, blanking (reverting to a redirect), assuming bad faith (not always, but this has happened), and biting people. Is that a fair assessment? If so, this issue has been going on for nearly four years or greater. Noah Talk 12:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Response to Serial Number 54129
  • Again, I would argue this is a systemic problem rather than something any one person did on their own. I have had my own articles redirected multiple times when I was a newcomer by MarioProtIV, such as [8], [9], and [10]. If anything, this should be addressed for the whole topic area since others are guilty of doing the same thing. Noah Talk 19:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by MarioProtIV

Response to Compassionate’s evidence

In response to Compassionate727’s evidence regarding myself I would like to explain a few things. The edit-wars is unfortunately sort of a commonplace thing within WPTC and I have tried to stop doing so. The cases with regards to ANI:3RR is complicated, as in the July 2021 one who reported me was making questionable image additions to exoplanet articles using computer-generated program Celestia and his additions were already questioned on his talk page (the discussion got heated as the user was accusing me of not knowing copyright license and trying to make up new arguments despite not even trying to). The second in October 2020 was by an IP whose course of actions was to go right to the ANI board despite no evidence of 3RR. The third and final was an old report from December 2017 that got stale and didn’t get anywhere and was mainly over unnecessary information being added into 2017–18 North American winter, so all three reports were practically not valid. With regards to my talk page, I will admit I do read my talk page anytime I get a message, however I frequently forget to reply afterwards (coupled with increasing school schedules as noted by my decrease in activity here posted above) and not do so after. That admittedly has caused me to look bad in a way so I have been trying to reply more often. Regarding the canvassing stuff, I think most of my opinion for that was summed up on the opening case request / workshop, but I will reiterate I wasn’t aware that what me and Noah was considered canvassing. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 05:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Response to Jasper Deng’s evidence

Jasper Deng I wasn’t refusing to accept the answer, I wanted to address a possible concern some people might have with the discrepancy between maps and infoboxes while the case is ongoing and awaiting a verdict. And I will admit it was very stupid to act the way I did on that module and I probably lost my cool there (which I will admit crossed into WP:IDLI territory). I wanted to see what people wanted to say (and I probably shouldn’t have put an edit request in but I thought by doing so would make the connection as to why I was doing so). Regarding the WP:IDHT accusations, I can explain why one might think that: I have a history of reading but not replying to said messages left on my talk page, but I do see them and take into account the dialogue. I should note also end up forgetting to reply (and especially in the last few years) because I am getting more into school and college and don’t check as frequently and when I do I end up forgetting to reply. I’m sorry if it’s made it seem like I haven’t taken that into account. Finally the “on-wiki canvassing” is not accurate, at least from my view: USM was involved in the prior RfCs for the color discussions so I decided to leave a message on his talk page because of that. I’ll admit I probably used the wrong language (“unfortunately”) but I think in the heat of the moment I was not happy with the changes given I had been unaware of the revived RfC. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 04:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Serial Number 54129

 Remark: While arbcom does not deal with article content, I suggest, per factispecies, that the previous consensus has been called into sufficient doubt as to honor Robert McClenon's good faith acceptance of the page at AfC.

Regarding Hurricane Noah's evidence

  • It's worth noting that while HN's edit summary reverting the article creation gave somewhat vehement instruction not to recreate, te redirect HN was reverting to contained the template {{ R with possibilities}}; this explicitly instructs not to create an article from this redirect (unless moving a ready draft here) which is precisely what happened. It would seem, therefore, that HN objected to the redirect's instructions from being carried out even though they reverted back to it.
  • HN says in their reply to RMcCl's evidence that they expect a person trying to overturn a prior consensus on merging an article to get consensus before creating the article again. However, those who he expected to do so—presumably AndrewHat250 and Nioni1234—did not join Wikipedia until 31 July 2021 and 22 September 2020 respectively, many months indeed after the 2019 "consensus" was formed (in a discussion lasting all of three days, by the by). This wasn't archived until 11 October 2020, but does indicate that of the two editors involved in the article's creation, only one could have seen the discussion without going through the archives—and then only in the first month's tenure—Nioni1234
    Both of these facts—an immediate assumption of bad faith in what other editors might do, an unwillingness to hold one's self to the same instructions, and failing to look at the histories of other editors demonstrate, I would argue, the full gamut of full-caps blue: ABF, BITE, OWN for starters.
    Note also that these are all demonstrably on-Wiki and are distinct—albeit not separate—from the allegations of canvassing. SN54129 15:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment presented by Pbsouthwood

Off-wiki discussion has no weight on-wiki

Wikipedia is a community effort and is governed by the consensus of participants. Consensus of Wikipedians can only legitimately be achieved on Wikipedia, and any agreements between persons made off the official discussion venues of Wikipedia have no validity within the editing community. Off-wiki discussions by their nature limit participation in discussion to a subset of users who know about them and have access to them, and this practice undermines the community process. While it is clear that the community has no authority to prevent off-wiki discussion by any who choose to do so, we can declare the decisions made by such groups as having no standing in the encyclopedia. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Jasper Deng

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

MarioProtIV has a tendency towards WP:IDHT

I would say that the evidence presented above by Compassionate727, in addition to showing a history of edit warring and deficient communication, also shows in particular a tendency towards WP:IDHT behavior. One reason for adding this section is to show a new instance of this behavior during this very case:

  • Apparently unable to accept that others have rejected their argument that the new colors are confusing, Mario chose to drag on this discussion, and even when shown that others are not willing to accept his proposal, tried to edit request it at Module:Storm categories anyway. I count five editors at the discussion who are against his view.

To add on to Compassionate727's evidence:

It crosses the line from deficient communication to IDHT when they repeat their behavior after being warned against it.

MarioProtIV canvassed on-wiki as well as off-wiki

It being already established that they have canvassed off-wiki, in this latest incident, this is a blatant example of on-wiki canvassing as well, the wording "unfortunately" making it highly non-neutral. -- Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Replies to MarioProtIV's replies

@ MarioProtIV: Please re-read what I said above: "It crosses the line from deficient communication to IDHT when they repeat their behavior after being warned against it." Your actions speak louder than your words. On the point about canvassing, an editor having already been involved in a discussion does not make such a notification not canvassing, and if anything, canvassing is often at its worst when you notify someone because of their prior opinions on the topic.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply


Summary of private evidence received by ArbCom

The Arbitration Committee accepted private evidence in this case. Like with all evidence, Arbitrators, including the drafters, will make individual decisions on how much weight to give to each piece of submitted evidence. In making this decision Arbitrators will consider how the evidence complies with the Arbitration Policy on private evidence and the community feedback offered in the 2020 anti-harassment RfC.

The Committee has received the following categories of private evidence:

  • Off-wiki discussions on Discord concerning on-wiki discussions
  • On-wiki discussions which may have been unduly influenced by off-wiki discussions
  • Accusations of coordinated editing, canvassing & harassment.

The following evidence was received privately as part of longer evidence submissions but involves public information:

Under policy and procedure we are unable to provide other information about private evidence at this time and may not be able to answer questions about this information.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones/Evidence&oldid=1090111081"