Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Evidence
 | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Guerillero (talk) & GeneralNotability (talk) & Firefly (talk) Drafting arbitrators: Primefac (talk) & BDD (talk) & Cabayi (talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the Committee in arriving at a final decision.
Discord logs and confidentiality
editHello. I’m here because I’m not sure how evidence will be handled in this case, since most of it is in the form of Discord chat logs. Will an exception be made for this case to post logs on-wiki, or must they be emailed? I will note that all the users involved have their Discord account authenticated via their Wikipedia account. PurpleLights! 16:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
- @PurpleLights: The Discord log RfC says that logs are not permissible on-wiki; therefore, they should be emailed in consistent with the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Evidence. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Related question: if I am constructing a timeline of mostly on-wiki events in which an event that happened on Discord is relevant, can I include the off-wiki event in the timeline with a note that evidence (which I'll email) is private, or should I omit the thing altogether? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- The existence of a Discord log is acceptable to note, but only that it exists (there should be no public evidence other than that). I would liken it to a VRTS ticket, in that we can mention that it exists but give no further information. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- And how careful a line do I need to tread? If I give a short sentence summarizing a post and a date stamp, that's enough information for anyone interested to find the relevant Discord post within five minutes. In some cases, the short summary alone may be sufficient. I'm not very familiar with the outing policy, but I imagine that giving someone all the information they need to find personal info is treated pretty much the same as directly posting it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to answer your question, but I will say that the evidence you have just presented is the ideal I was hoping for when it came to evidence; you have provided on-wiki diffs to support any potential off-wiki evidence that may be provided without linking to or otherwise giving enough specifics to where someone would be able to track down the exact logs. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think I'd better not say anything, then. I'll email my remaining evidence soonish. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to answer your question, but I will say that the evidence you have just presented is the ideal I was hoping for when it came to evidence; you have provided on-wiki diffs to support any potential off-wiki evidence that may be provided without linking to or otherwise giving enough specifics to where someone would be able to track down the exact logs. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- And how careful a line do I need to tread? If I give a short sentence summarizing a post and a date stamp, that's enough information for anyone interested to find the relevant Discord post within five minutes. In some cases, the short summary alone may be sufficient. I'm not very familiar with the outing policy, but I imagine that giving someone all the information they need to find personal info is treated pretty much the same as directly posting it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- The existence of a Discord log is acceptable to note, but only that it exists (there should be no public evidence other than that). I would liken it to a VRTS ticket, in that we can mention that it exists but give no further information. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Related question: if I am constructing a timeline of mostly on-wiki events in which an event that happened on Discord is relevant, can I include the off-wiki event in the timeline with a note that evidence (which I'll email) is private, or should I omit the thing altogether? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Amount of evidence
editIf I am trying to establish behavioral history, how much evidence does the Committee want? At ANI, you are supposed to select a few of the best examples; is ArbCom the same, or do you want everything relevant? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Start with "a few of the best examples" and see where that leads; keep in mind there are likely to be multiple individuals providing evidence so do not feel like you need to do all of the work yourself. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. I'd already gathered all the evidence before I thought to ask the question (derp), so I just posted what I had written; apologies if that creates extra work for you all, there is nothing particularly special about any of the linked items, just that there are so many of them. I'll keep that in mind if I submit any other evidence. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for such clearly presented evidence with diffs. One thing I'll note if you do any more evidence is that ArbCom tends to weight more recent events more heavily. Older evidence can be helpful in showing it's a long time problem, but recent evidence showing it is a problem now is particularly helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. I'd already gathered all the evidence before I thought to ask the question (derp), so I just posted what I had written; apologies if that creates extra work for you all, there is nothing particularly special about any of the linked items, just that there are so many of them. I'll keep that in mind if I submit any other evidence. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Two Questions About Replies to Evidence
editReply by a Blocked User
editUser:Hurricane Noah, who is blocked, has replied on his talk page. While I know that the ArbCom and its clerks have seen the reply, should their reply be put somewhere that other parties and non-parties to the case can see? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Their reply has been copied by Firefly. Primefac (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Request for Partial Unblock ?
editCan User:Hurricane Noah be partially unblocked to participate in this case? Can their block be downgraded to a block from article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging blocking admin, TNT. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly have no issues with that (I mentioned this in the case request)—I'd prefer an arb/clerk give comment though ~TNT (talk • she/her) 22:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Noah has been unblocked for the duration of this case so that they may participate. Primefac (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Replying to Post by Blocked User
editI have read the reply by User:Hurricane Noah on his talk page, and think that I should reply to it. He is mostly correct, and the problem is less serious and different than I had thought, but is still a problem. Should I reply by adding my comment at the end of my evidence section, or should I reply somewhere else? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: From the instructions:
The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section
. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)- User:Compassionate727 - Yes. This isn't exactly an evidence submission that I want to reply to. I will be replying to a reply to my evidence submission, which is on a user talk page because the user is blocked. I will probably go ahead and reply while I am awaiting specific instructions here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- As above, Noah has been unblocked, so unless your reply is not pertinent to the case, please reply here. Primefac (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- User:Compassionate727 - Yes. This isn't exactly an evidence submission that I want to reply to. I will be replying to a reply to my evidence submission, which is on a user talk page because the user is blocked. I will probably go ahead and reply while I am awaiting specific instructions here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Questions about off-wiki evidence
editI sent an email earlier today containing some evidence from the Discord server along with some related diffs and a couple questions. It's possible this was included with other off-wiki evidence submitted, but I wasn't sure. Do I need to mention this on the evidence page? I also had forgotten that I had email disabled for my account, and reenabled it after sending the email. Would this interfere at all with ArbCom's ability to respond? TornadoLGS (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- To the latter, no; ArbCom receives your email address when you email them and replies to it directly. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Status quo stonewalling from WP:SEVERE members
editSeveral WP:SEVERE members like chesseric, elijahandskip and United States man have engaged in status quo stonewalling and it need to be addressed like on Tornado outbreak of March 5-7, 2022. This needs to be addressed as the loss of information is hampering readers and we need to make sure it is in the proposed solution that the project needs to stop status quo stonewalling. Can someone transfer it over? --69.116.96.17 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Elijahandskip was not status quo stonewalling --69.116.96.17 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I would ask this not be considered stonewalling, because a first of all, a talk page discussion decided to not create a section. Second of all, this IP editor attempted to circumvent the previous talk page discussion with a WP:BOLD edit, then when questioned about about, decided to edit war over it. I support a section being created for the tornado, but this IP believes following the WP:BRD is “stone walling”. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- United States Man and ChessEric, since you have been mentioned here, I think you should know about it. That being said, I strongly suggest you take any discussion of the Winterset tornado to the outbreak talk page, rather than here. To reply to the allegations here, I don't think this is the place to discuss this matter. While, arguably, it could be a reflection of broader issues across WikiProject: Weather, the primary concern of this ArbCom case is off-wiki canvassing and harassment which took place on the WikiProject:Tropical Cyclones Discord server, of which neither United States Man nor ChessEric are members. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the section for two reasons. (1) The previous consensus was to not make a section and a section was not made even after more information became available, so my assumption was that we were still waiting for additional information before making a section. (2) The person who made the section said they did their own research. I took that as this IP user blatantly admitting that they violated the OR rule, so I reverted it. In my edit summary, I CLEARLY mentioned that the previous consensus was to not make a section right now. I have no problem with making a section, but what I'm NOT fine with is someone blatantly admitting that they violated a rule of Wikipedia and then blaming me for stonewalling them. While it is true that normally we add tornado sections that we deem necessary on our own since we all agree that it needs one, this was not the case. The NWS Des Moines originally put out almost no information on the Winterset tornado. NWS offices in Iowa have a TERRIBLE track recordwith puttingout damage info. Often times, we have to wait until NCDC reports just so we can get info on the tornadoes in question. Therefore, a discussion on the talk page was started BY ME, to discuss what to do and the consensus was merge. After that, we would have to reconvene and come up with a consensus to add the section back. I would also like to add that made a section for this without proper formatting and then added an additional paragraph after the tornado summary that in no way contributed to adding more information. If they wanted add that, it should've in an aftermath and historical significance section, not the tornado summary section. The point is this; if they wanted section, they should brought it up on the talk page and not just assume that everyone is going to be okay with it, ESPECIALLY when they blatantly admit that they broke a rule. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: There is a new discussion at the article talk page now. I would rather discuss matters specific to that article there, than here. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I already made a reply over there. Thank you. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: There is a new discussion at the article talk page now. I would rather discuss matters specific to that article there, than here. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the section for two reasons. (1) The previous consensus was to not make a section and a section was not made even after more information became available, so my assumption was that we were still waiting for additional information before making a section. (2) The person who made the section said they did their own research. I took that as this IP user blatantly admitting that they violated the OR rule, so I reverted it. In my edit summary, I CLEARLY mentioned that the previous consensus was to not make a section right now. I have no problem with making a section, but what I'm NOT fine with is someone blatantly admitting that they violated a rule of Wikipedia and then blaming me for stonewalling them. While it is true that normally we add tornado sections that we deem necessary on our own since we all agree that it needs one, this was not the case. The NWS Des Moines originally put out almost no information on the Winterset tornado. NWS offices in Iowa have a TERRIBLE track recordwith puttingout damage info. Often times, we have to wait until NCDC reports just so we can get info on the tornadoes in question. Therefore, a discussion on the talk page was started BY ME, to discuss what to do and the consensus was merge. After that, we would have to reconvene and come up with a consensus to add the section back. I would also like to add that made a section for this without proper formatting and then added an additional paragraph after the tornado summary that in no way contributed to adding more information. If they wanted add that, it should've in an aftermath and historical significance section, not the tornado summary section. The point is this; if they wanted section, they should brought it up on the talk page and not just assume that everyone is going to be okay with it, ESPECIALLY when they blatantly admit that they broke a rule. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood‘s comment
edit@Pbsouthwood: were you meaning for your comment to be a principle like the others that have been proposed at the workshop page rather than evidence? NoahTalk 16:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hurricane Noah, You are correct. If a clerk feels it would be more appropriate there, they are welcome to move it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is fine -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is it though? It's not evidence, and it's not a reply to the evidence. Seems like it would be better fit over at the workshop as a principle. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Guerillero: I honestly had forgotten about my comment here until I had checked back for something else. I realize the workshop is now closed, but would it still be possible for Pbsouthwood‘s comment to be moved there? I believe this principle would be especially pertinent to the case at hand here, given the off-wiki discussions that influenced some consensuses. I also don't believe this principle has been rendered in another form by anyone else who has participated. NoahTalk 00:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is fine -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Not responding to talk page messages
edit@MarioProtIV: This isn't evidence, so I don't want to write this in my evidence section. But if I may make a suggestion: you may find the changes to your behavior that others ask you to make may stick better if you respond to talk page comments about your behavior even when you don't think it is strictly necessary. This is because attitudes often follow behavior, and therefore physically writing: "I agree that my behavior X is problematic for reason Y, and next time I will do Z instead," is more likely to produce a long-term change than merely mentally recognizing or assenting to it. This is because when you write that, you are personally assuming responsibility for the need to change your behavior and why (writing is a very personal activity and people implicitly assume a relationship with what they write). This is especially true if your internal response is really more along the lines of: "Yeah, I can see why my behavior was problematic, but I still believe I'm right about the core substance of the dispute," which frames the behavioral problem as incidental to the dispute and thus directs your focus away from it, making it unlikely you will still remember the behavioral aspect several months later. I recognize that it's hard to do that, especially when you're really invested in a dispute (take a look at my first few talk page archives, I definitely didn't do what I'm recommending now), but I think you will find it really profitable if you can force yourself to. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- You have a fair point about that. Will try to do that moving forward so I don’t come off as not listening. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Back and forth on evidence page
edit@MarioProtIV and Jasper Deng: The evidence page is for evidence for the committee and not for discussion. If you would like to discuss the evidence presented by another user, please use the Workshop -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Canvassing still going on
editI would like to bring it the attention of the committee that canvassing has still been going on while this case has been open. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Pacific_typhoon_category and the notifications made by User:Jupiter50. I believe this is the only instance of them canvassing. The user has been warned about their behavior on their talkpage. NoahTalk 21:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)