Skeptics given heavenly judgement, whirlwind of Discord drama begins to spin for tropical cyclone editors: Unclear whether storm will make landfall
The Signpost


In last month's arbitration report, we saw many discretionary sanctions reviewed, two cases involving long-time administrators, and the continuation of the case involving off-site coordination among some members of the skeptic movement (largely associated with the "Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" group). This month is some more of the same, and some more of the different.

No case requests were declined in March. Two cases were processed: one was accepted and suspended, and one was closed. One motion for a topic-ban removal was enacted, one amendment was carried out, one block appeal was processed, and one request for clarification and amendment is open.

Wow, was that exciting or what?! I thought so too. Here is all of what happened (and, indeed, is happening).

Finished business

No fire, but a little brimstone

The Skepticism and coordinated editing case was closed on March 2. As I participated in this case by giving a preliminary statement, I've refrained from commenting in depth (although, for the curious, my opinion[1] is explicated at length in said statement). That said, the case's remedies are fairly straightforward. One editor (A. C. Santacruz) was reminded to be nice, and two (Roxy the dog and Rp2006) were warned to be nice. The latter of those two, Rp2006, was also topic banned from "edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed". Additionally, the "Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" group was advised that

A presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.

Another open-and-suspend case
On March 16, a case was opened and suspended the same day regarding Geschichte, an administrator and editor since 2004. In preliminary statements, filer Dennis Brown described a February 19 incident in which Geschichte blocked an editor (Jax 0677) during an edit war. Brown said the block was out of process, a violation of WP:ADMINACCT, and grounds for desysopping. Many others commented in support of some action being taken, or at least investigated. Geschichte's activity dropped off afterwards – since February 22, they have made just three edits, the most recent on March 13. While opinion was divided on whether this constituted a desysoppable offense, consensus was clear that Geschichte needed to be present and respond to the issues at hand. Of course, I'm not one to speak ill about people being mysteriously absent for things they really ought to be present for.[2] At any rate, the case was accepted on the 16th, with a 10–1 motion passing to accept-and-suspend:

This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.

If Geschichte should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Geschichte is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Geschichte may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

Banned user to roam free

MustafaO, an editor previously indef-blocked and community-banned in April 2020 pursuant to this SPI, was unblocked on March 21 following a successful appeal. There is a whole crapload of chatter about it on the ACN talk page – nearly thirty two thousand bytes of it, to be exact.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy – it just plays one on TV

Several discretionary sanctions procedures and templates were altered in an amendment process that began on March 15. Edge-of-your-seat thrills included combining multiple topic areas into a single ((Ds/alert)) transclusion, and adding a lead section to WP:AC/DS to summarize the system. The changes were approved on March 22.

Topic ban lifted

On March 22, a motion was passed lifting Supreme Deliciousness's topic ban (issued as Remedy 8 of the Kurds and Kurdistan case covered in February's arbitration report).

Get your kicks on AE 66

Additionally, there were 66 total actions in March's arbitration enforcement log. Most were in common arb enforcement areas (AP2, BLP, COVID-19, EE, and the like), although there was a rare instance of a ARB911 semi-protection.

Ongoing business

One open ARCA for the happiest little DS area on en.wp

Currently, there is one open request for clarification and amendment, relating to Palestine-Israel topics. This concerns the vagaries of extended-confirmed protection as it applies to articles and talk pages covered by applicable sanctions.

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones members in the eye of the storm

Yesterday saw a new case request, WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord. This request, filed by TheresNoTime, concerns alleged off-wiki canvassing by two members of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones (MarioProtIV and Hurricane Noah) on an instant-messaging group maintained by the project. The aged and wise among us will remember when this was called "IRC", "AIM" or "ICQ". Now it is called "Discord", which seems fitting, since people are always arguing about it. Previously, the issue was brought up in an ANI thread by Compassionate727 (also a party to the requested case) – it's been brought to ArbCom due to privacy issues concerning logs of off-wiki discussions. Currently at 6–0–0, it looks quite likely to be accepted.

Notes

  1. ^ Opinions are like opinions: everyone's got one and they all stink.
  2. ^ I am currently procrastinating on responding to a ping on a GA review, a ping for a bugfix on ReFill, and copyedit requests on this very Signpost issue. Yikesaroo!
+ Add a commentDiscuss this story
  • WPTC Discord drama, for what matters, has been quite stressful to, if not damaging several established editors respect and reputation that have been involved in this matter, including me. It made me feel really bad and I deeply regret everything what I have done as a member of WPTC Discord - or even being a member of this project if anything else. My only wish at this point is that I'm hoping to get it through. MarioJump83! 14:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is true for pretty much all Discord drama. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 15:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that most of those bytes are more general discussion of how ArbCom treats appeals, rather than discussion of MustafaO specifically. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]