 | The Evidence phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request. |
Case clerks: Guerillero (Talk) & GeneralNotability (Talk) & Firefly (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Primefac (Talk) & BDD (Talk) & Cabayi (Talk)
The following pertains to the merge discussion which I recently attempted to close. Level one bullets are simple timeline and statements of fact plainly contained in the evidence; level two points are my notes on and interpretations of the evidence:
I don’t think consensus was ever reached for this given it died out - should close this as such
not … standard and simple mergeand that he did not want to create any more project drama, which I understood as referring to the controversial map colors RfC
and several others off-wiki had agreed on a different kind of process we’d do with the article. He apologized for his behavior, which included an admission that:
probably I sometimes priories [sic] off-wiki consensus over on-wiki, and promised to behave better.
It is unclear to what extent all of this actually affected the ultimate outcome. Ultimately, nothing was ever done with the article, with discussion just petering out. The article was never merged, nor much else done. Whether the off-wiki discussions diffusing energy to various different venues caused attention and interest to scatter and dissipate or that happened on its own, I can only guess. What is clear, however, is that the off-wiki discussions caused confusion to editors unaware of them (namely me), causing a significant waste of time. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
—Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed numerous draft articles on tropical storms. I accept them if they appear to be adequately sourced and to contain enough information to expand on the article about the tropical storm season. A {{main}} link is then added to the season article. I reviewed Hurricane Helene (2018): [1]
I accepted the article: [2] [3]
I added a link to the season article: [4]
Hurricane Noah reverted my link: [5]
Hurricane Noah redirected Hurricane Helene (2018) to the season article, thus de facto reverting my acceptance: [6]
The edit summary says: Do not recreate this as there is standing consensus against it existing.
I asked Hurricane Noah about the revert, and was told that there had been consensus at "this talk page". I then asked whether User:Nioni1234 and User:AndrewHat250, who submitted the draft, were aware of the consensus. [7]
I do not see a consensus at Talk:2018 Atlantic hurricane season, and conclude that the consensus was somewhere else. One plausible explanation is that the consensus was off-wiki. As Hurricane Noah notes, other editors are not normally aware of a draft until it is submitted. The other side is that the editors who submitted the draft appear not to have been aware of a consensus, which caused them to work on a draft in the reasonable but incorrect hope that it might be accepted.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hurricane Noah points out that the consensus to merge was on an archive of the hurricane season talk page. That discussion was in 2019. On the one hand, there was not off-wiki coordination. On the other hand, the reverting of my acceptance of the draft illustrates article ownership, either by Hurricane Noah, or by the WikiProject. The reverting was done with a command not to recreate the child article on the hurricane, and without providing any opportunity to discuss whether consensus had changed, when the consensus was reached more than two years earlier. There were three editors (Nioni1234, AndrewHat250, and myself) who could be assumed to be interested in changing that consensus to add the Helene article. Content should not be locked based on a discussion more than two years in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change states:
Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).
The revert was not only terse but rude, and did not provide a link to where the consensus was formed. It simply stated that there was a consensus, and provided no opportunity for discussion. The systemic problem is that no information was provided as to the consensus and no opportunity for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussions have been stealth canvassed via mention off-wiki. As far as I know, off-wiki mention and discussion was the extent of the canvassing. I'm not sure exactly what private evidence has been submitted by others, but this is as far as my own recollection goes for major discussions. They are listed in chronological order from most recent to oldest. NoahTalk 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: Copied from Hurricane Noah's talk page by request. firefly ( t · c ) 20:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]In response to Robert McClenon's evidence regarding Hurricane Helene (2018): I would like to note that consensus was reached at Talk:2018_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_2#Merger_proposal_with_Hurricane_Helene_(2018) for a merger in 2019 due to lack of effects. An article containing roughly the same amount of content or even less content, the latter being true in this case, shouldn't be created without a consensus to overturn the merger. NoahTalk 20:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Compassionate727’s evidence regarding myself I would like to explain a few things. The edit-wars is unfortunately sort of a commonplace thing within WPTC and I have tried to stop doing so. The cases with regards to ANI:3RR is complicated, as in the July 2021 one who reported me was making questionable image additions to exoplanet articles using computer-generated program Celestia and his additions were already questioned on his talk page (the discussion got heated as the user was accusing me of not knowing copyright license and trying to make up new arguments despite not even trying to). The second in October 2020 was by an IP whose course of actions was to go right to the ANI board despite no evidence of 3RR. The third and final was an old report from December 2017 that got stale and didn’t get anywhere and was mainly over unnecessary information being added into 2017–18 North American winter, so all three reports were practically not valid. With regards to my talk page, I will admit I do read my talk page anytime I get a message, however I frequently forget to reply afterwards (coupled with increasing school schedules as noted by my decrease in activity here posted above) and not do so after. That admittedly has caused me to look bad in a way so I have been trying to reply more often. Regarding the canvassing stuff, I think most of my opinion for that was summed up on the opening case request / workshop, but I will reiterate I wasn’t aware that what me and Noah was considered canvassing. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 05:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper Deng I wasn’t refusing to accept the answer, I wanted to address a possible concern some people might have with the discrepancy between maps and infoboxes while the case is ongoing and awaiting a verdict. And I will admit it was very stupid to act the way I did on that module and I probably lost my cool there (which I will admit crossed into WP:IDLI territory). I wanted to see what people wanted to say (and I probably shouldn’t have put an edit request in but I thought by doing so would make the connection as to why I was doing so). Regarding the WP:IDHT accusations, I can explain why one might think that: I have a history of reading but not replying to said messages left on my talk page, but I do see them and take into account the dialogue. I should note also end up forgetting to reply (and especially in the last few years) because I am getting more into school and college and don’t check as frequently and when I do I end up forgetting to reply. I’m sorry if it’s made it seem like I haven’t taken that into account. Finally the “on-wiki canvassing” is not accurate, at least from my view: USM was involved in the prior RfCs for the color discussions so I decided to leave a message on his talk page because of that. I’ll admit I probably used the wrong language (“unfortunately”) but I think in the heat of the moment I was not happy with the changes given I had been unaware of the revived RfC. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: While arbcom does not deal with article content, I suggest, per factispecies, that the previous consensus has been called into sufficient doubt as to honor Robert McClenon's good faith acceptance of the page at AfC.
create an article from this redirect (unless moving a ready draft here)which is precisely what happened. It would seem, therefore, that HN objected to the redirect's instructions from being carried out even though they reverted back to it.
expect a person trying to overturn a prior consensus on merging an article to get consensus before creating the article again. However, those who he expected to do so—presumably AndrewHat250 and Nioni1234—did not join Wikipedia until 31 July 2021 and 22 September 2020 respectively, many months indeed after the 2019 "consensus" was formed (in a discussion lasting all of three days, by the by). This wasn't archived until 11 October 2020, but does indicate that of the two editors involved in the article's creation, only one could have seen the discussion without going through the archives—and then only in the first month's tenure—Nioni1234
Wikipedia is a community effort and is governed by the consensus of participants. Consensus of Wikipedians can only legitimately be achieved on Wikipedia, and any agreements between persons made off the official discussion venues of Wikipedia have no validity within the editing community. Off-wiki discussions by their nature limit participation in discussion to a subset of users who know about them and have access to them, and this practice undermines the community process. While it is clear that the community has no authority to prevent off-wiki discussion by any who choose to do so, we can declare the decisions made by such groups as having no standing in the encyclopedia. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
I would say that the evidence presented above by Compassionate727, in addition to showing a history of edit warring and deficient communication, also shows in particular a tendency towards WP:IDHT behavior. One reason for adding this section is to show a new instance of this behavior during this very case:
To add on to Compassionate727's evidence:
It crosses the line from deficient communication to IDHT when they repeat their behavior after being warned against it.
It being already established that they have canvassed off-wiki, in this latest incident, this is a blatant example of on-wiki canvassing as well, the wording "unfortunately" making it highly non-neutral. --Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee accepted private evidence in this case. Like with all evidence, Arbitrators, including the drafters, will make individual decisions on how much weight to give to each piece of submitted evidence. In making this decision Arbitrators will consider how the evidence complies with the Arbitration Policy on private evidence and the community feedback offered in the 2020 anti-harassment RfC.
The Committee has received the following categories of private evidence:
The following evidence was received privately as part of longer evidence submissions but involves public information:
Under policy and procedure we are unable to provide other information about private evidence at this time and may not be able to answer questions about this information.
