Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Statement by User:Skynorth

The self-flagellating, "I guess I will just ban myself" proposals, in my experience, would indicate users of the Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki are afoot. They tend to do this a lot in their community. - Skynorth/Starfrost^{my talk page} 21:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Hurricane Noah

Could I also be indefinitely page blocked from WP:WPTC and WP:WPWX and their associated talk pages? Noah^Talk 20:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Noah, you were unblocked for the purposes of participating in this case. Once it is resolved, the block will be re-imposed and you will need to go through the normal unblock procedures; you are welcome during that process to request any specific conditions as you see fit. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine with being reblocked now since I have no further issues with what has been proposed. I would also ask that nobody else try to intervene on my behalf in regards to the block. I dug my grave back in March and now I have to lie in it. That's just how it is. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent. Noah^Talk 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to self-flagellate that's a choice, and one I've made in the past myself. But I would urge you to take note of whatever ArbCom ends up deciding as an indicator of what "grave" you actually dug. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue is the block came before this case and is not a requested one per TheresNoTime's comment. Yeah, I probably overreacted as I was quite upset at that time and felt I needed severe punishment. Seeing as it came before the case, the block stands and must be reinstated as Primefac said above, with the ability to appeal it in the future. Noah^Talk 21:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment by MarioProtIV

I’m a little dumbfounded that nothing really relating to RfCs being affected by canvassing has been brought up in the final proposed decision, unless I glossed it over if it was just a sentence or two explaining it. Is that still being discussed? See my correction below. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at it closer it actually does refer to this being prohibited so I stand corrected. My question then is is the committee’s proposal on what to do with affected RfCs still being discussed and not being able to be posted yet? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean RfCs which are already open, or topics that informal discussion has identified a need for RfCs on (but which have not been formally started)? -- BDD (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)