Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

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

Target dates: Opened 30 March 2022 • Evidence closes 13 April 2022 • Workshop closes 20 April 2022 • Proposed decision to be posted by 4 May 2022

Scope: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones and its members' adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines

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
This case is currently open, so no changes may be made to this page, and unauthorised edits may be reverted.
If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop.

Case opened on 07:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed, however lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.


Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

  • LightandDark2000 - your statement and its edit summary contain veiled aspersions at the filer of this case and other participants. Such behaviour is not acceptable at Arbitration - I would remind you to keep your statements related directly to the matter at hand, and avoid unproductive or personalised comments. Your pre-emptive request for a word limit extension is declined given that by your own admission you are unlikely to actively participate further in the case request. firefly ( t · c ) 10:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chess, I consider my involvement in the WPTC Discord to be minimal (most of it involves WPTC members who have decided that I should be pinged for every sockpuppet problem they come across, though I concede that I fussed at the members of the Discord for their the other day prior to this case request being filed). I am certainly not an "active participant". I do not believe that my involvement to date impacts my ability to remain neutral, though if the arbs feel differently I will recuse. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (10/0/0)[edit]

  • I'm tentatively inclined to accept. The private evidence combined with the note from TheresNoTime that multiple warnings were given and it seems no one is listening are a good basis to open a case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chess: We don't have an established formal path for asking for a clerk to recuse, but if you really want to submit such a request, you may do so via clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Anyone wishing for an arbitrator (not a clerk) to recuse should follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Recusal of arbitrators. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Kevin. Primefac (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabayi, the opening statement by Compassionate727 at the linked ANI thread pretty clearly states that a closed discussion was re-opened and then re-closed with a different outcome because editors on Discord decided amongst themselves that the discussion should not be closed in the original manner. See specifically Special:Diff/1078681645. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept per my previous. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been aware of this for quite some time, I logged on to the discord server to give a canvassing warning some months ago, which remained as a pinned post. I agree a case may be required, but equally, I am concerned about the scope. The server is out of our jurisdiction, for example, though we can accept private evidence regarding it WormTT(talk) 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept. Noting (in response to Serial Number 54129) also that I do not believe that anyone needs to recuse over this case. We have a number of arbitrators who use discord on a different server. I do not believe any arbitrators have been involved in any of the discussions in question, except in a purely administrative capacity to warn the individuals in question. WormTT(talk) 18:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess, I strongly disagree that I have been involved in a conversational, non administrative role. It's easy to see all 4 posts I have made to the server, which I would rather not clutter this page with - but I will summarise. 1) "Hello" 2) A warning in July 2021 about canvassing - this was about 4 paragraphs long and has remained as a pinned post on the server since 3) In response to the ANI thread on 26 March (above) where I was pinged, I accessed the server for the first time since July and I made 2 posts within 2 minutes - each was based on a quick read of the situation at that time. First expressing my disappointment and deferring to TNT, who I believed was handling the situation. 4) Secondly in response to Hurricane Noah's request for a block specifically stating (on discord) that they were "falling on their sword". I pointed out that we fix forward on Wikipedia and quitting was not a noble act.
    That is the sum total of my comments from my perspective, each made in a purely administrator capacity. WormTT(talk) 08:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe, it appears we're fast on the way to opening the case, but I disagree that it should have the wider scope regarding Discord. Indeed, any such discussions regarding Discord as an off-wiki venue should be held by the community as part of wider discussions. It would only fall to Arbcom if the community were unable to handle such discussions, and I don't believe that's the case. WormTT(talk) 13:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The server is out of our jurisdiction," but on-wiki decisions tainted by it may need to be nullified & the discussions re-run. I'd be swayed by evidence showing that any on-wiki discussions had been materially tainted by collusion exclusionary collaboration off-wiki. Cabayi (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Primefac. ∃>1 instance, ∴pattern of behaviour, Accept Cabayi (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aceept per Kevin and Prime. - Donald Albury 15:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept --BDD (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept given the previous warnings about canvassing suggesting an ongoing issue that needs examining and can only be done by ArbCom because of the offwiki evidence involved. TheresNoTime can I ask why you only blocked one of the two people coming out of that ANI? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moneytrees: you are correct we're talking behind the scenes. I expect we will use what we did during the GSoW case which had a fair amount of private evidence as a starting point and make adjustments from there. As you can see here it is also possible for some evidence to be public. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe if we do our job right (which is obviously no guarantee) I think the final decision in this case which will be useful to editors who frequent other Wikipedia related Discord servers in how to avoid certain issues. We can do that without making the scope as large as you suggest, and which is not supported by the evidence submitted to us or the public statements here. More generally, the Village Pump discussion you link to shows community consensus about this matter. I get that you think the consensus is there because of an ArbCom decision of long ago and that a new decision now could shift that consensus, but I don't see this committee overriding a community consensus in that way. I have some more thoughts I'll share at your user talk as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept the off-wiki nature of this issue is exactly what makes ArbCom the appropriate body to deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per above. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept I just got back from a wikibreak for RL business, but having read this over now, I agree with the above as well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision (none yet)[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles[edit]

Findings of fact[edit]

Remedies[edit]

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220513134105/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones

Leave a Reply