Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Preliminary statements

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Preliminary statements

Statement by TheresNoTime

Compassionate727 made a post (Closure mess involving off-wiki discussion) to ANI regarding what appeared to be off-wiki canvassing by MarioProtIV and Hurricane Noah at a merger discussion. Having already been aware of previous incidents (such as apparent off-wiki canvassing at a recent RfC on WikiProject Weather), I was fairly confident of what had happened. I confirmed this (off-wiki evidence to be emailed), and then both Hurricane Noah (diff) and MarioProtIV (diff) admitted to their involvement.

As I noted at the ANI thread, I'm personally at a loss of how to deal with this—we can block the two reported editors (Hurricane Noah is blocked as explained here, and should probably be unblocked so that they can respond here), but this will only prevent these two editors from enacting canvassed edits, and not prevent the actual act of canvassing. As Hurricane Noah confirmed on ANI, this is a systemic issue affecting a large number of members of the WPTC discord server, and they do not appear to be listening to the multiple warnings they've received.

I believe the arbitration committee is best placed to deal with this given its heavy reliance on off-wiki evidence that cannot be posted on Wikipedia. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 00:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just now emailed arbcom the above mentioned evidence. Could an arbitrator/clerk please advise me if I should unblock Hurricane Noah so that they may participate here? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 08:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: I agree with your concerns reference scope—if it weren't for the fact that discord logs are involved, this would still be at ANI and I would be equally at a loss of how we as a project can deal with it. I'm hoping that, if this is accepted, y'all as a group of experienced editors can figure something out ~TNT (talk • she/her) 09:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Sure—as I said on their talk page, I have very little time for "retirements" when they are preceded by over-reactions and followed by daft comments such as "I am saying I am unable to control myself. Either people block me here or I will find someone who will." ~TNT (talk • she/her) 16:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note in relation to Robert McClenon's thoughtful comment that, even though WPTC et al have been warned multiple times about this and it is disallowed behaviour, he is quite right that it (mostly) comes from a constructive place. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 14:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: I hope that Hurricane Noah is aware that I do not levy the blame entirely (or even significantly) on them—this is a systemic problem of which they are but a part of. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 14:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For transparency, I should explicitly note that I was previously a member of the WPTC discord server. I left after creating this case request, as that felt like the right thing to do ~TNT (talk • she/her) 16:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hurricane Noah

copied from Special:PermaLink/1079697462#Arbcom_notice with permission. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I want to make it very clear that I am sorry for what has transpired and I never intended for it to go this far. I have already accepted my fate in this ordeal, however, I hope to right some of the injustices that have happened. Second, in the situation with MarioProtIV, I discussed something off-wiki with him in DMs simply because it was more convenient. I then posted on wiki what we discussed and pinged MarioProtIV for a response on wiki to what we agreed on off-wiki. In terms of the discussion closure, MarioProtIV accidentally posted in the WPTC discord asking for someone to close it. Considering the pushback I had already received from a decent chunk of the project (including MarioProtIV) in regards to the color schemes, I chose to withdraw my merge request as to not attract even more scrutiny from these people. I honestly had no idea that Mario had reverted a previous closure until I was contacted about my withdrawal by Compassionate727. Third, I would like to point out that a large chunk of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has engaged in stealth canvassing. It began with FleurDeOdile's ANI where it was discussed off-wiki and project members began to pour in asking that Fleur be topic banned from weather. The project participated in canvassing at ITN where some members opposed an ITN/C item out of protest. It continued from there, leading to numerous move, merge, and other small-scale page discussions being mentioned off-wiki in the discord with some commentary. The colors discussion (RfC) in November was canvassed as it was heavily discussed off-wiki on the discord (no consensus result). People got mad at me for implementing a scheme on March 18 after having discussed it on wiki because many people were not informed that a discussion had taken place. This led to a very minimal portion of the project participating in the discussion. MarioProtIV reverted the changes against that consensus because he disagreed with them. Others were quite frankly upset, with some making ableist comments stating we should do nothing to support the color-blind community because they don't matter. MarioProtIV then started a new discussion on the project talk page to revert the changes which sparked tons of off-wiki discussion. The pressure got to me and I began to involve myself in the off-wiki talks to try and find a solution. The two subsequent proposal discussions were also stealth canvassed as the off-wiki discussion continued. I would like to say that I never blatantly asked anyone to come to any discussion to either support or oppose. Nonetheless, mentioning any on-wiki discussion off-wiki either by linking, reference, or discussion is canvassing and not allowed. I am definitely guilty of the latter two. I have taken responsibility for what I have done and intend to make some of this right by aiding in this arbcom case. I don't expect anyone to forgive me for what I have done. Thank you for your time. Noah^Talk 00:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add here that I also emailed evidence to arbcom for this case. Noah^Talk 00:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarioProtIV

I will start by saying I was not aware conversing off-wiki about the details of the merger and stuff was something that was considered WP:CANVAS and for that I sincerely apologize to all. My main issue regarding this is how are we at WPTC able to get things done/actively keep an eye out on stuff if discussing it on Discord could be considered stealth canvassing? If an RfC is open, how are we able to get input or feedback from various members of the project without mass-pinging (which would not be the best idea)? Some WPTC members in the discord server probably don’t have the talk page in their notifications and so they may completely miss it and not be able to input their opinion. However, I am aware this can also be their fault to some degree as well for not being able to take notice in the first place, but we should at least be able to notify them (Talk pages exists, but I don’t know how often a day members will look at it) via some other method too. As for TNT’s comments, I agree that blocking wouldn’t really help the problem -- instead I believe there should be some way we can figure out how to work productively without breaching canvassing as Discord seems to be doing to us - it’s a very easy way to communicate with the other members. WRGT the warnings, I think it could be that we are aware but end up somehow forgetting it after a while, which is a bad thing. Discord seems to be the only place where it’s easiest to discuss such things with the other members. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I forgot to add: I have no intentions of canvassing going forward (in any kind of discussion, however that may be decided) as I am fully aware myself of its impacts and that continuing to do so would entail consequences for my actions (blocking, etc.) --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: I believe in regards to your last sentence its likely the latter as there wasn't any intention of trying to subvert the outcome. With regards to the talk page stuff, I had it on my watchlist since I had the main article for the storm on my watchlist. I went to my watchlist one day and saw that you had recently edited it and that’s where I made my claim. Hopefully that makes a little more sense now. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: What evidence is there to serve as to warrant a block for me? I already said I apologize for any trouble I’ve caused and it would really help for me to see what would warrant such a thing. I think it would be a benefactor to mention it and I can easily address it and why it happened. I still hope WP:GOODFAITH can be applied to this case even if some actions were not good-spirited. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: The whole issue there stemmed from trying to comply with MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Several times I tried formatting my changes to accommodate that only to be reverted under the apparent guise of MOS:AVOIDBOLD. In one case I even mentioned BOLDALTNAMES as a reason to bold this (as the Texas government had referred to it as such) but was undone with an accusation of “spiteful editing”. It wasn’t the first time we’ve had issues and this sort of ties into the discussion below about the USM stuff. I’ll admit I and others shouldn’t have tried to force an ANI from within the discord server but many of us had some issues with his behavior and it was sort of in-the-heat-of-it moment. I have no ill will to USM but I tried my best to explain to him those terms. As far as the warning from Nova I think I was unaware what he really meant about canvassing that (I hadn’t looked at previous incidents). Had I known more about the previous incidents of canvassing myself I would’ve probably stopped my actions beforehand. I apologize to everyone for that whole fiasco though. In the case of the ANI, I should’ve been straight-forward and done it myself without outside help (I considered doing so but was worried it would’ve looked like tattletaling based on the incident).

Also, requesting I get an extension here on the 500-word limit as I may have to respond to other comments down the line (as I had to for this one). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Compassionate727

I doubt I have anything useful to say. My initial post at ANI basically explains my involvement in this; I assume everyone will read it, so I won't repeat myself. Although MarioProtIV has a lengthy history of edit warring (including against his alleged conspirators), I was basically satisfied with his response to my concerns; I brought the incident to ANI only to receive feedback on how the discussion ultimately should be closed. TheresNoTime suspected foul play, and now we're here. I have mostly just been confused by this whole incident. Why were Hurricane Noah and MarioProtIV paying such close attention to a talk page that had only been edited once in the past four months (excluding a bot), each editing eleven minutes after the previous? Why were participants of the discussion continuing it off-wiki in the first place? At least three of the original six participants admitted in that very discussion to having discussed it off-wiki, so if the consensus they claim to have reached off-wiki had been visible to me, I imagine it would have significantly altered my closure, unless they had reached their agreement through something besides the merits of their arguments (like trading favors); I suppose the vague explanations for what happened off-wiki that I have seen so far could be evidence of impropriety like that. But if they had indeed reached a consensus or other agreement, why was (apparently) nothing happening on Wikipedia to implement it? Without access to the private evidence, I have no idea whether their Discord activity was intended to subvert the normal processes, or if the only problem was that they did so much discussion off-wiki, it became confusing for project nonmembers like myself. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought some more about the issue as a whole (not the specific incident involving me), I would like to add: I think that posting notice of a discussion to a public channel of a WikiProject's public Discord server (linked at WP:WPTC) is not substantially different from posting a notice to the WikiProject's talk page, which is permitted. (WP:APPNOTE suggests that disclosing you have done so is optional.) I understand that there is evidence of direct messaging and pinging specific editors in channel posts, which is different. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because anyone can join the Discord server in question and almost every member (including, if I am not mistaken, every single involved editor) has publicly confirmed the connection between their Discord and Wikipedia accounts by logging in through Special:OAuth, I am not convinced that it makes sense to treat Discord messages as private in this case, unless they were direct messages. Moreover, keeping them private seems likely to lead to much duplicated (and thus wasted effort), resulting from multiple editors submitting the same evidence that everyone can see and Arbs needing to read said evidence multiple times. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serial Number 54129

Are there any arbs who should recuse over this case? SN54129 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nova Crystallis

I probably should make a statement here since I am the founder of the WPTC Discord server. I created this server in 2018 as an extension of the IRC channel we have, #wiki-hurricanes, with the focus on allowing younger and/or less tech-savvy editors to have a quick way to communicate with another (and you see where the problem lies). For the most part, the server discusses issues surrounding the WikiProject and ongoing and historical tropical cyclones. Of course, because this is a server about a WikiProject, discussions are mentioned somewhat frequently, and most members are part of the project and have the talk page of the WikiProject watchlisted. Eventually, we did have to set aside some ground rules on canvassing a few months ago, but it seems like it was not enough to keep the project members from participating.

And fast forward to now. After not being satisfied with a closure of a requested move, the participants decided to use direct messaging, Discord's equivalent of private messaging. This was after acknowledging the "no canvassing rule" on the server. I do not know what happened in the direct messages other than the two participants, and neither will anyone else until the evidence phase.

I do not know what the endgame is for the case or request. The committee could request me to delete the server and the IRC channel or add more moderation, but it will not stop the mentality of the canvassing users, since they could communicate any other way outside of Discord. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

Discord discussions are outside of ArbCom's "jurisdiction." Using Discord for consensus building discussions out of sight of the Community and excluding most of the Community is not. Whether done for expedience or secrecy. I believe ArbCom should take the case to determine what actually occurred and to remedy any problems they identify. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Noting Nova Crystallis's comment above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CycloneFootball71

I am not sure where to start exactly, but I do have a few things to metion and say. First off, I am fairly active in discussions regarding Wikiproject weather and tropical cyclones, as well as other weather-related articles. I myself do not use discord, nor have I used it since I have joined Wikipedia, (nor do I use any other forums or chat websites, except for Wikipedia). However, I will note that in at least some of the larger discussions (usually ones where most of the wiki project participates) there was usually some mention of discord. (Most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Newest Proposal Yet, where Funnycomixking (talk · contribs) mentioned in their comment that "I did not exactly know was the case until I found out on the Discord server." to which Noah then added a note the very next edit [1] that someone was concerned that Funnycomixking was canvassed in.) Usually, whenever I would see someone bring up the discord, I never really thought anything of it at the time, since I thought that they had a right to talk about different articles and just chat in general if they wanted since it was their discussion. I will note that a little over 9 months ago MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) made this discussion, which talks about how they had noticed what, at that time, they thought to be stealth canvassing. It was a relatively short-lived discussion with only 4 editors involved, however it shows an instance where someone who used discord realized the extent of what was happening and decided to bring it to the WikiProject's attention in an attempt to fix it, including the idea of making some rules to avoid canvassing. I do not know what else to say at the moment, however those were some of the things I recently noticed. I will gladly answer any questions if needed, and hope that the few things I linked above will be of some help to this case and opening it. Also, I have never really been involved with a arbcom case, so apologies if I made any mistakes here. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 16:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Including an example of stealth canvassing/"brigading" on an ITN nomination, which seems to show pretty well WPTC editors trying to keep the nomination from being posted.. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I see that the ArbCom is about to accept this case, so I won't make a statement at length as to why the ArbCom should hear the case. I will instead focus on what I think the ArbCom should focus on. This case is brought as a case of stealth canvassing, which appears to be one aspect of what may be a larger problem. The problem appears to be a WikiProject that is the on-wiki part of a larger project that is partly on-wiki and partly off-wiki. The problem is not exactly stealth canvassing, because it is more stealth coordination, and off-wiki coordination has been prohibited since WP:ARBEEML. This is not exactly a rogue effort, in the way that the Eastern European mailing list was a rogue effort. The purpose of the Eastern European mailing list was to introduce a non-neutral point of view, contrary to the second pillar of Wikipedia. The purpose of this project appears to be to improve the encyclopedia, but with coordination that is done outside the encyclopedic community. Because the coordination is being done outside the encyclopedic community, we cannot be sure that the coordination is consistent with neutral point of view.

ArbCom should identify those editors who have been engaging in off-wiki coordination and take action. At the same time, the stealth coordination appears to have been out of a misdirected desire to improve the encyclopedia, so that ArbCom should take good faith into account, and bans or indefinite blocks are not necessarily the right sanction. ArbCom should take consider the positive and negative intentions of the involved editors as well as the extent to which the encyclopedia has been impacted.

The Tropical Cyclones WikiProject has been very active, and has seemed, at least to some editors who have been active in other areas of Wikipedia, to be very productive. However, it now seems that it has gone astray. In identifying misconduct in the course of the project, ArbCom should ensure that the project continues to serve the objective of improving and expanding Wikipedia's coverage of tropical cyclones.

I agree that ArbCom should accept this case, which seems to involve a misdirected effort to improve the encyclopedia by off-wiki coordination, which is itself contrary to the welfare of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

I think it would be a grave mistake to blame Hurricane Noah for something that's quite frankly been going on for a lot longer and encompasses a lot more than them. I emailed ArbCom about this in June of 2021 when WPTC members stealth canvassed a t-ban against FleurDeOdile. [2] I found a lot of evidence and ArbCom decided not to take action at that time. Now the problem has gotten worse and I'm left with making oblique references in this preliminary statement. Also note that at the FDO discussion, Noah said "Recommend closure w/no action due to the stealth canvassing that took place in the discord room where a couple people mentioned the idea of creating an ANI thread." Noah generally tells people who are canvassing and coordinating editing not to do so and you'll see that in my private evidence. That being said, ~~MarioJump~~ User:MarioProtIV deserves a block based on private evidence I'll submit. The real issue with WPTC is offwiki harassment and wikihounding. Canvassing is the tip of the iceberg. I'm going to name some names that should be added as parties based on private evidence I'll send.

User:LightandDark2000. ArbCom has seen the private evidence I sent last year about how they've been wikihounding on the WPTC discord and canvassing for ages. He's still doing it now.
User:United States Man. I won't get into specifics of the evidence but he's a victim of off-wiki harassment and wikihounding by WPTC.
User:Chlod. You can't expect to wikihound people and ask for others to do reverts for you because you're hitting 3rr.
Same for User:Elijahandskip and User:HurricaneCovid.

If none of these people get a 1-way iban from interacting with USM at the very least and Hurricane Noah stays indeffed I'll be pretty mad. He's one of the only people who consistently opposes canvassing in that WikiProject. Chess (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should say my private evidence was meant to be about a different mario who is active in WPTC. I apologize for the confusion. Chess (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chlod: Since we're speaking in riddles to avoid WP:DOX and you said you never made any explicit calls to revert, I'd like to clarify that what you said was an implicit call to revert based on the context, what you've done before in response to others implicitly asking, what was frequently said in the server, and who you were complaining about, but I guess the Arbs can decide that. Chess (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: "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". While I can't post what you've said publicly, this isn't true. You were involved in a non-warning discussion in the WPTC Discord with another person about the issue. Chess (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: you were in an edit war with USM on bolding tropical storm titles [3] and asked people for help. Specifically asked User:LightandDark2000 to do an ANI for you, then you coordinated a response together in the channel after you were warned by Nova not to engage in that. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:LightandDark2000 Since you disregard wordcount I will too. In terms of your onwiki conduct you've canvassed in May of 2021 as well [4] (this is backed by Discord messages) and tried to plan multiple ANI threads about people you didn't like. If I had to pick a few examples off of the Discord, I'd say it was the time when HurricaneCovid asked you to revert USM in March of last year because Covid was hitting 3RR on some dispute on bolding the name of a hurricane and you threatened to bring in the entirety of active WPTC editors. Or when you and Mario planned an ANI case in January of 2022. Or when you tried to coordinate a topic-ban (which never materialized) on User:The Rambling Man because he kept opposing tropical cyclones at WP:ITNC. Or your numerous references to how User:Chicdat needed a formal adminspace ban and when you told User:Hurricane Noah that Chicdat violated his self-imposed adminspace ban we got this ANI thread. [5] Or when User:Chlod asked you for help on some weird point of templates that USM disagreed with you sprang into action. [6] I can go on and on and on and on. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: should probably recuse from clerking as an active participant in the WPTC Discord. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: You've sent 117 messages, believe it or not. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarioJump83

I am going to admit that I was involved in some stealth canvassing during the FDO ANI case, for which I wasn't really aware of until getting warned by Enterprisey in that server. That's when I realized that something is wrong and thus reported the situation into the WPTC talk page regarding what solution should be taken to prevent this from happening again. The discussion did not go anywhere and died very quickly, however I really wish that it should have gone further. I would have been supportive of nuking WPTC discord if the discussion goes that far, and even more so now because of circumstances. I want to also note that I made several comments on-wiki which may have been "canvassing", but I happened to follow the consensus rather than off-wiki discussions, especially prior to 2021 when I wasn't even active on Discord.

Now I want to deeply apologize that what I did during that time when I was a member of WPTC Discord, whatever it is stealth canvassing or coordination, or my treatment to FleurDeOdile, was wrong. I should have known the issue sooner than it should be, and I'm going to admit that I was an influenced/wrongly directed participant of the coordination/canvassing (that includes the FDO ANI case), rather than being an independent editor - since most of the time I tend to trust LightandDark2000 in most of my misdirected decisions at that time. I left the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord because of the toxicity within the server in June of last year, but now I'm leaving that WikiProject, too, because I realize that this WikiProject has no transparency and full of issues as mentioned. I want to just move on from this mess and doing stuff I would like to do. If I were to be blocked, that's up to arbitrators, but I don't think it's appropriate because I wasn't aware with what I'm really doing.

Regardless, I'm ready to comply with arbitrators if possible, including warnings, blocks (not preferred per above), or topic bans.

Mario Jump 83! 02:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ping @Destroyeraa-alt, Hurricaneboy23, and HurricaneCovid:, because they may have been in some of these discussions previously and may be interested in giving statements to this case. Additionally, I'm pinging @JavaHurricane: if they have anything to this case as they quit the Discord server and the WikiProject around mid-2021 (the same timeframe as I myself). I already pinged Chlod and PurpleLights before as seen below. Mario Jump 83! 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm notifying WikiProject Tropical Cyclones and WikiProject Weather regarding this case in their respective project talk pages. Mario Jump 83! 12:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have some hesitation about pinging @Jason Rees and United States Man:, but they have something to this case. Mario Jump 83! 15:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

Question I think others are wondering, and I get that you all are probably debating this behind the scenes: what will the evidence phase look like? Since Discord logs will be oversighted if posted on wiki, will it be completely in-camera (like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block), or will it be like the recent SCE case, where certain stuff will be private but on wiki actions can be publicly submitted? Thanks, Moneytrees^{Talk🏝️CCI guide} 03:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chlod

I initially wasn't going to make a statement because I hate getting involved in drama but here we are. Considering that this case is on its way to being accepted given the number of !votes, I don't think me asking arbitrators to accept the case is still required. Whatever repercussions there may be, be it blocks or the closing of the server for harboring this behavior (something I wouldn't be opposed to as one of the server's moderators), then so be it. For the record, the server has, for the most part in my experience, been a place to discuss current work and ask for advice, the latter being what we spend more time on.

I do however think that we shouldn't make rash accusations here, especially if the public is not able to see the off-wiki evidence presented or what it contains. For all those who can't see the evidence know, it could be something taken out of context or an exaggeration, something that's extremely easy to do given that I send most of my messages in a deadpan tone and generously use sarcasm (something anyone in the main Wikipedia Discord server would know). And of course, they wouldn't know any better. Granted, my memory is in bad shape, so I'm not in a position to say that the accusations made against me don't exist. I do know, at least, that I have never explicitly incited or asked anyone to revert on my behalf. I also know that I occasionally go on the server to vent my frustrations, especially when I see inherently disruptive and bad-faith actions being done on-wiki. Except when dealing with vandalism, in cases of pure disruption, or when reverting myself, I stay well below 3RR — something that I even said on that server itself.

In any case, if the arbitrators find behavior from me that is unacceptable (hopefully after I've been given a chance to explain myself), then I would comply with any sanction they see fit. But please, let's avoid the bad faith accusations and pointed statements. It's really not helping anyone. Chlod (say hi!) 03:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

@MarioJump83: I was in the middle of writing when you pinged. Please give us ample time to consolidate our thoughts as this isn't exactly the usual casual discussion. Fixing your ping of PurpleLights by the way, since they renamed (from CodingCyclone) recently. Chlod (say hi!) 03:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Seems like a misinterpretation of the context (or wording) from my point of view since I know that I'd never ask someone to perform a revert on my behalf, be it implicit. Chlod (say hi!) 03:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note here that many of the discussion-related channels are hidden from the view of non-SUL-confirmed users, including the #tropical-cyclones, #non-tropical, and #irc channels, but not the #general and #off-topic channels. This has been a thing at least since the WikiProject Weather merger (Nova might know exactly when), and is not a change following this request. Chlod (say hi!) 21:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PurpleLights

Since MarioJump has pinged me, I do feel I need to deliver an appropriate response. First off, I was involved in the FleurDeOdile ANI case, and would like to deeply apologize for being involved in the canvassing of his ANI case. No matter what his conduct was like, I should not have helped malform consensus in such a manner. That said, I was frankly unaware of the canvassing policy when the discussion about sending Fleur to ANI happened. Since then, I have familiarized myself with WP:CANVASSING and have tried to the best of my abilities to follow it. As a regular chatter on the WPTC Discord server, I will echo that there have been discussions mentioned there. However, I have seen some accusations brought up in this discussion, which I do think will need further investigation as they are heavily weighted, especially since off-wiki matters need to be handled delicately. In this regard, I mainly also echo what Chlod is saying - communication over text can often be misinterpreted, and over Discord, many users, including myself, are more casual and employ more sarcasm and humor, as well as make exaggerated or more emotionally charged statements than we would on-wiki. As such, I do reiterate that messages, as well as their intent and anything taken from them should be handled delicately, as it could be a big miscommunication. Also, just as a side note, my laptop is currently broken, so responses may be slightly delayed. Purple Lights! 04:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanCherek

The 2021 RfC on Discord logs made them oversightable, but my understanding is that anyone can waive this right and allow their own messages to be posted and discussed on-wiki (if it would not infringe upon the privacy of others). While no one should be compelled to do so, it would certainly make for a more straightforward and transparent process. If arbitrators agree, they could emphasize this at the opening of the case. DanCherek (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elijahandskip

Starting off, I was pinged here and I only had joined the discord recently, with almost no messages sent. I have left the server, so I cannot give an exact number of messages, but a ballpark guess would be 30-40 in total, and these were mostly during an on-wiki ANI about United States Man. To the best of my knowledge, it was not canvassing, since it appears the only person from the discord to comment was Chlod, with the comment that they found out about the ANI off wiki. This took place over a month ago, and since then, myself and USM have not always seen eye to eye, apparent via talk page discussions on the two March tornado outbreak articles, but besides that, I don't have any negative feelings toward USM, even with giving him a barnstar on March 10. But in terms of the crazy canvassing from the discord, I have had little to no contact about that and I haven't participated in the color changing discussion or basically any of the discussions being mentioned. So I guess that is my statement, more or less, I am out of the loop on what has been happening. Also a side note, that when I did join the discord, I had found discussions about myself dating to months before I joined. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KN2731

As a member of the WPTC Discord server, albeit one that rarely comments due to time zone incongruity, I feel I should leave a few words here.

Since United States Man has been brought up: several members of WP:SEVERE/WP:NTROP have found him... difficult to work with. Said users have taken to the server to vent their frustration. This should get its own ANI case (Elijahandskip's link is AN3), since allegations over USM's conduct are tangential to the issue at present. Personally, I don't see an issue with venting so long as no personal attacks are made and there is no deliberate, coordinated attempt to take action – we all have our moments. However, I admit this is a massive grey area as evident in the FleurDeOdile ANI case, where the general sentiment was "if there's so many complaints over FDO's behaviour, go to ANI", and that inadvertently resulted in a witch-hunt.

I am uncertain of what to make of all the stealth canvassing. As a project server, it seems inevitable that discussion of things on-wiki will occur. This could be as innocuous as asking someone to clarify something they said on-wiki, or looking for advice on a situation (similar to the main Wikimedia server). I believe the controversy begins when less straightforward issues, such as merge/split requests, WP:RMs, WP:RfCs, and user conduct, are discussed in detail off-wiki. This obfuscates the on-wiki decision-making process, and said off-wiki discussions could influence previously unopinionated editors to comment. The pinging of select people on the server was something I'd actually forgotten about as it apparently ceased after the inital warning by Worm That Turned. My personal bottom line is to not involve myself on-wiki on matters that have been discussed extensively off-wiki, and if I do take part in off-wiki discussions I mainly try to be someone to bounce ideas off and do not seek to actively convince anyone to take a side. Other users may not be as strict on themselves.

As to what ARBCOM can do, I am unsure of what sort of action can be taken with regards to the server, besides recommending more stringent moderation (along lines that need to be more clearly drawn), asking for people to be removed from the server (which does not prevent direct messaging), or just shutting down the whole server. This last option would not be constructive in my opinion as the server has been helpful in identifying copyright problems, dealing with vandalism, sockpuppeteers, and long-term abusers, providing advice to newer editors, and just as a place to talk about tropical cyclones and enjoy the shared passion which drew all of us to this WikiProject in the first place. I hope that, no matter whoever is held responsible or whatever happens to the server, all of us WPTC members can look back on our behaviour with newfound perspective and move forward as a project. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LightandDark2000

I'll comment, since I was dragged into this mudfight. WPTC did have issues regarding off-wiki canvassing (and still does occasionally), but I was completely unaware of the mess involving this recent RfC closure. I don't endorse the meddling there, and it disappoints me. Concerning canvassing, as defined by the Community, I've only done this once - during the ITN/C debacle in March 2021 - an episode I intend never to repeat. Since then, I didn't try to meddle with any consensus, or obtain votes off-wiki. After the Server was warned about canvassing, I took extra steps to avoid potential canvassing. I haven't been canvassed by others, either. I concur with KN2731 on our off-wiki discussions; these were largely meant to build ideas or quell disputes (e.g. image wars), not manipulate consensus. I cannot speak for others, but I believe that essentially, no one intentionally canvassed or tried to manipulate consensus. From my understanding of WP:CANVAS, it's completely acceptable to hold off-wiki discussion on wiki matters, as long as there is no manipulation involved. The policy page doesn't actually forbid off-wiki discussion on all potential matters under discussion. How is enforcing unwritten "rules" any different from imposing off-wiki "consensus"? If the Community wants to go forbid all these off-wiki discussions, they should settle this at the Village Pump, or wherever appropriate. Concerning some of the newer allegations leveled against me and some others, I'm extremely disturbed to see that they have all been exaggerated or taken out of context. We've had numerous arguments, but we remained mostly civil and eventually worked them out. Yes, we have used unsavory language numerous times, but that was done in a sarcastic or joking manner, not to attack anyone. The Mods didn't find them too excessive, either. I haven't hounded or attacked anyone, though I admit I used rough language on trolls and vandals. Regarding USM, as aggravating as he's been at times, I don't have anything against him. I apologize if any of my comments were seen in a bad light, but it was not my intention to attack him. Chlod hasn't engaged in hounding or requesting illegitimate favors, either. The comment in question was clearly sarcasm. I'm astonished that some people cannot read sarcasm, jokes, or assume good faith. The accusations leveled against ElijahandSkip and HurricaneCovid are similarly baseless. I'm very concerned that certain parties are seeking to turn this ArbCom case into a witch hunt to punish detractors for perceived slights. This isn't the first time Chess has used discussions to wage a witch hunt, either. Worse, these accusations have taxed the mental health of at least 3 participants here. I urge the committee to see through the attacks levied here. I also concur with the opinions of Chlod, PurpleLights, and KN2731.

I'll reply only if mandated by the committee. I have more pressing matters in real life than entertaining more attacks. I preemptively request an extension to the 500-word limit, in case I need it. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HurricaneCovid

I wasn't planning to get involved in this case, but since Chess mentioned me I felt I should make a statement. Regarding canvassing, the WPTC Discord continues to face off-wiki canvassing issues occasionally, although I try to not participate in any of said discussions. As for most of the discussions concerning on-wiki matters on the server, they have been mainly for constructive purposes, not to sway consensus. To my knowledge, no one has deliberately tried to sway consensus in any discussions off-wiki, although inevitably it likely has happened in a number of events. As for the allegations regarding off-wiki personal attacks, I will echo Chlod and PurpleLights in that most members in the server talk in a sarcastic tone and make comments that we would otherwise not make on-wiki. Some members may also use the server to vent their frustration when a user behaves in a manner that may resemble bad faith or incompetence. Many members have used insulting language against users in the server before, but as mentioned above in a sarcastic or joking tone, not to actually make an attack on anyone. I think this is acceptable as long as no serious personal attacks are made and the member doesn't try to coordinate action against the user in question; WP:AGF should apply here. Regardless, if any arbitrators find anything against me, I am willing to comply with any ban or sanction they place on myself. ~ 🌀Hurricane Covid🌀 13:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe

The committee should accept this case. Off-wiki collusion can seriously undermine to our normal consensus-building processes, and I believe there is plenty of precedent that ArbCom is the most appropriate place to investigate it (e.g. Skepticism and coordinated editing, Eastern European mailing list). I think it would be very helpful if, as part of this case, the committee could also comment more generally on the increasing prominence of Discord as an off-wiki discussion venue, and the recent decision to disallow any reference to Discord conversations on-wiki (enforced by oversight), since this is partly based on a 2007 statement by ArbCom that posting of private correspondence is a potential copyright violation. It is absurd that this has to be handled as a "private case" when all the "private evidence" is, in fact, publicly visible to anybody who clicks the link at the top of WP:WPTC. Of course, arbitrators involved in administering the various Wikipedia Discord servers will probably want to recuse from that discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I'm suggesting that there are three specific (and related) aspects of how Discord is used that are directly relevant to ArbCom and to this case:

Discord has been determined to be "private" in part because of an old and questionable ArbCom ruling;
This is enforced with oversight, which ArbCom oversees;
This is the reason that this case cannot be handled by community, and why you have to treat it as a private case (which I think we both agree are extremely undesirable).

I've made no secret of my disdain for the Discord culture and the silly charade we now have to play out when talking about it, so yes my desired outcome would be that you guys tell us we can stop pretending that messages posted to a public website, linked on-wiki, with a SUL-authenticated Wikipedia account are somehow top-secret private personal data subject to oversight. But that aside, I would have thought it was routine to examine why a case has come to ArbCom, and what we could do to stop similar incidents escalating this far in future. – Joe (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yellow Evan

As a longtime WPTC editor who became notably less active after ~2017, as someone still moderator of the WPTC discord server even if I'm not super active on there anymore, and a longtime active user of the server's IRC predecessor, I'm curious on how far this investigation goes in regards to "stealth canvassing". If one merely posts a link to a discussion on discord (or DM's if the user is actively involved in related discussion as an alternative to pinging them), I see that action as harmless and not worthy of serious action, even if WP:STEALTH seems to imply such action is frowned upon, unless they are explicitly posting misleading information to alter the course of discussion. Ditto with any action that could be argued as someone being bold. With that said, this is definitely something worthy of investigation here; I do think users have exhibited poor judgement in regards to the request move and in regards to the proposed action against FluerDeOdile last June but based on my interactions with him, I do believe Noah is relatively responsible and civil and am thus inclined to believe he is not the ring leader here. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seddon

Commenting here as a long term IRC user, a moderator on the Wikimedia Discord and in the recent days joined the moderation team at WPTC, and also an op on the WPTC IRC channel.

Nothing here is unique to Discord. Almost everything we see has been problematic on IRC before and has been covered by various cases in a variety of ways. Nothing here is unique to WPTC. We've seen off wiki disputes involving IRC with the Highways wikiproject. Nothing here is unique to Arbcom. The jurisdiction of Arbcom in governing off Wiki venues has also been firmly established. Reaffirming or adapting previous positions ArbCom have taken apply to Discord, Telegram or any other real time chat platform makes sense here. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

Arbcom could though encourage the governance roles of offwiki venues (such as admins, moderators and ops) that are advertised on wiki, or are run by on-wiki groups like Wikiprojects; that it is in the projects wider interests that they try to enforce basic standards that relate to policies such as canvassing etc. Arbcom could also look to remind individuals who participate in off-wiki venues that are advertised on wiki, or are run by on-wiki groups like Wikiprojects to ensure they are individually responsible for respecting policies that cover canvassing. Arbcom could also look to encourage off-wiki venues that are advertised on wiki, or are run by on-wiki groups like Wikiprojects to adopt or adapt the universal code of conduct to establish a minimum floor for behaviour.

Good moderation can do a lot to aid the issues here. The English Wikimedia Discord has sought to run a much tighter ship and dissuades much of the problematic behaviour observed here. I think that good moderation by WPTC can have a similar positive impact on its community. That does not however prevent individuals circumventing this through direct means such as via email or direct messaging on any external platform. Good moderation is also a never ending active process. As we do on-wiki, it requires the constant educating of newer users. Discord serves the same role IRC does but for a new young generation of editors. Yes we are covering old ground, but adopting and adapting conventions to these new platforms will hopefully result in constructive venues that form a positive extension of our community. Seddon ^talk 21:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TornadoLGS

It took me a bit to think about what I might say here. I'm still mulling over the implications of what has happened. Upon hearing of this ArbCom request, and the mention of multiple warnings, I searched the Discord sever for mentions of canvassing. One impression I got was that members of the server were not, and, it seems still are not in agreement on when off-wiki communication does or does not constitute canvassing. To be frank, I was not clear on the matter myself, and the definition of canvassing appears to be broader than I thought it was. While it's not an excuse if I did cross any lines, I will say that many of the warnings against canvassing were in the "general" channel on the server, which I have not frequented for some time.

As another user has stated in the discussion, the Discord server has been useful for matters such as discussing LTAs (I had understood that to be an appropriate use of off-wiki communication per WP:DENY but please let me know if I'm wrong there). There have been other cases on Discord where there has been brainstorming or someone asked for advice, and other times where there have been attempts to reach consensus. I realize, in hindsight, that the latter was likely inappropriate to do off-wiki, and I'm not sure about the former. While not necessarily explicit, I do feel that there may have been aspects of peer pressure or Groupthink at play. A couple times I have have felt implicit pressure not to raise certain concerns, on or off wiki, due to my reading of the opinions expressed on Discord. I am considering whether I should leave the server for these last reasons, but I'll save my final decision on that for when ArbCom reaches its decision. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Destroyeraa

Since I was pinged, I feel obligated to respond.

First, I’ll address the allegations of hounding. I have known many of these editors for quite a long time, and I am confident that none of them have any malicious intent to hurt or attack their fellow editors. That being said, a few users have occasionally complained about their fellow editors on Discord. Regarding the USM incident, some of my fellow editors have felt frustrated at USM’s actions on-wiki, and used Discord to blow off steam. As PurpleLights has stated above, sarcasm can easily be interpreted as a personal attack or hounding. Regarding LightandDark2000, he has been blunt at times, but after my review of all his mentions of USM, I could not find any malicious intent or personal attacks. I will admit that I have participated in one or two discussions regarding USM, and I sincerely apologize for any messages that may have been construed as being offensive. The best remedy I can see for these infractions is more moderation. Nova recently added Seddon to the moderation team, which will hopefully lead the server onto a new direction. Thus, I believe that the allegations of hounding do not need the Committee’s intervention, as it could be easily remedied through stricter moderation. Secondly, I want to reiterate Robert McClenon‘s point that much of the off-wiki collaboration and canvassing was made in good faith. I also want to note that the majority of canvassing cases, such as bringing FDO to ANI and the ITN vote stacking occurred before WTT’s warning. However, many newer users do not know the difference between what is acceptable and what isn’t for off-wiki collaboration. This could also be remedied through moderation and advice for newer users, which this server has been really helpful in. As Seddon has pointed out, this issue was not limited to WPTC. Proper moderation and mentoring will help greatly here. Thus, I do not believe that blocks or bans will be in the best interest of the project, as many editors are avid content creators. I will disclose that I was involved in off-wiki collaboration, though I have not participated in any on-wiki canvassed discussions in at least the past six months. I thank the Committee for their time spent taking this case, and my hope is that this could be a wake-up call and turning point for WPTC. Best, Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 23:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]