This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Where is the request for arbitration? The main case page has no statements. What is the dispute that is being attempted to be resolved? Isn't there an original complaint with statements that arbitrators used to evaluate whether to take the case? Where is that? ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ConstantPlancks: You can find them in the "Preliminary statements" and "Preliminary decisions" sections of the main case page. Preliminary statements can be found in a subpage (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Preliminary statements). Chlod (say hi!) 00:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chlod: Thanks! Got it. I didn't see the link in the Preliminary Statements section so it looked empty. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: With the draft that Robert McClenon just accepted, it has come to light that the off-wiki discussion issue extends far beyond what the committee has been considering thus far in this case. Draft_talk:Tropical_Storm_Helene_(2012) shows evidence of off-wiki discussion as far back as 2012. It's unknown how many other discussions have been tainted in this manner. Noah^Talk 13:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah I am not a drafter for this case. I am slightly unsurprised to hear that there was off-wiki coordination in 2012 on IRC. The good news is that this discovery doesn't really change the shape of what we're trying to do now: minimize future disruption/violation of Wikipedia policies which means a focus on what's been happening recently, which is the evidence that was submitted during this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that some of these discussions are nearly if not over a decade old, but shouldn't something be done about them since they are tainted? Noah^Talk 15:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No? Primefac (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the proposed decision talk page there is an interesting statement that links WikiProject Tropical Cyclones to Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki in Fandom, referring to falling-your-own-sword proposals that were suggested in the workshop. I think this is an issue that could be considered. MarioJump83! 04:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless discussions at the Hypothetical Hurricane Wiki have influenced discussions or decisions on Wikipedia, I don't really see how it's relevant. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the users involved is a member of that community. The falling-on-your-sword, over the top proposals proposed really remind me of my time there (2017-2021), before I moved on to more productive things...for some reason, they tend to act like that when literally anything happens, and often literally beg to be banned as some kind of self-pity or flagellation. - Skynorth/Starfrost^{my talk page} 22:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skynorth: I still don’t see how that’s relevant to this case. There is no evidence that theperson you’re mentioning has connections with HHW. Even if they do, ArbCom does not have jurisdiction on fandom. Unless canvassing of WP discussions or a breach of policy related to this case occurred on HHW, I don’t think this should be considered. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 01:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what Destroyeraa said. There's no rule here against being on HHW. Membership in communities on other websites has no bearing here unless there is reason to believe there was canvassing or other inappropriate coordination on those sites. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting for the arbitrators that I have unblocked Hurricane Noah proper, so the block does not need to be reinstated once the case closes, notwithstanding any remedy to the contrary. — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]