Initiated by MarioProtIV at 19:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• MarioProtIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

• Lifting of topic ban

Good afternoon. I’m writing this since it has now been at least 6 months since the placing of the topic ban on May 25, 2022. I intended to write this in November 2022 which was 6 months after but I have not been able to get around to writing it and then I just ended up forgetting about it and focused on other things (having actually spent much more time focusing on stuff related to Marvel Cinematic Universe-related things to fill the niche). In that time, I’ve had time to think about how I want to approach this appeal. My time away has allowed me to see what I did wrong and how I will behave should the topic ban be lifted. I am aware I had a history of grudges, sometimes trying to do things my way, and how bad stealth-canvassing is which ended up causing my topic ban. I’ve worked to tune down my language and temper so as to be better-minded and more willing to compromise (an underlying issue which sort of caused this) on stuff within the area of WikiProject Weather should the topic ban be lifted. As such I deeply regret my behavior that led to this, considering the spark that set it off was the color discussion in early 2022 that got nullified because of canvassing (before being restarted this year and implemented).

I believe that should the ArbCom decide to lift my topic-ban they will see better cooperation from me within that area. But I do not think I should just be let off scott-free and I don’t think the ArbCom would think so either. I am aware that they would likely keep tabs on me from time to time so as to monitor progress, and as such I am fully aware that any deviation or violation of WikiProject rules or incidents like last year could easily lead to another topic ban or worse consequences. If the committee wants me to explain more of my stance on this I can gladly provide that info to them below.

As clarification I have included Barkeep49 as part of the involved parties as during the deciding phase for the remedies near the end of the RfC, Bar expressed that he would be open to an appeal in as soon as 6 months from the enactment of the topic ban. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Ah okay thanks for making that clear. I had assumed he could be considered involved since he was the one that suggested to me that he’d be possibly open to an appeal 6 months after but seems that’s not the case. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nova Crystallis: If that’s asked towards me then I don’t mind it being posted in either section. Though, it might be more helpful for those who already stalk/watch the page (those who had contributed to discussion/evidence gathering phase during the initial case (since I think some suggested the TBAN originally). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: My use of reversions back then admittedly sometimes had some attitude, some cases like an image change or whatnot. Mostly because I had an impression that perhaps if I reverted them once or twice they’d either back off or open a discussion (even though I sometimes was hesitant to do so). Nowadays I really only use the revert if there’s an obvious reason (redundant information, random ip edits that are non-constructive, etc.), and I think that the topic ban helped me realize that. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So at least one ArbCom member wants to hear from the community. Which areas would the committee find acceptable to have this discussion posted in (i.e. WP:WEATHER), or do you prefer those who already watch or stalk this page regularly? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time commenting on WP:Arbitration, so I apologize if I am doing something wrong.

I am also a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones (WPTC), albeit an inactive one. I admit that I have not extensively participated in anything related to the project for nearly two years. However, I remember MarioProtIV from my time as a more active project member back in 2020-2021. We never had any interactions one-on-one. That being said, I recall that MarioProtIV had some sort of leadership role in the community. He was a mentor to a user, and I had no objections to the way he fulfilled that duty.

Simply stated, I support lifting the topic ban in question. I have read MarioProtIV's statement above. It seems to me that the user has done some critical reflection of their behavior, and they are ready to return to a welcoming community at WPTC. I do not object to anything that MarioProtIV wrote. However, I encourage older and newer WPTC users than myself to give their input for a true consensus.

And @Nova Crystallis:, I am going to be bold and post a notification on the WP:WPTC talk page if that is acceptable. Since CaptainEek asked for more community input, it is only fair that members of WPTC, where MarioProtIV was involved with, voice opinions here. That being said, Arbitrators, if you object to me posting such a notification, please let me know.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a bystander, I have apprehensions about the whole situation in general, just watching some of the drama that has unfolded around WPTC over the years. However, MarioProtIV seems to me to just be one of many parties in this whole business, and it seems as though there has been some self-reflection and understanding on his part. I align with WTT in terms of being unimpressed with prior conduct, of course. I'd also concur with MPIV's statement of I do not think I should just be let off scott-free and I don’t think the ArbCom would think so either, but while I think some form of probation or editing restriction would be of benefit, given the history of this case I have the inherent worry that it may be exploited by other users in an edit war. I'd sure like to see further community input as well. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this further puts me, an uninvolved community member, in favor of lifting the block. In my opinion, our propensity should always be one towards forbearance and the benefit of the doubt, with a keen eye toward ensuring future growth and collaboration. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a high-profile member of WPTC/WPWX, I have been wondering over the last few days, if I should comment on Mario's appeal or not. The main problem that I see with his contributions is that he caught up in pursuing his interests in a way that wasnt conducive to the way the encyclopedia works. I would suggest that if Mario does get unblocked that he concentrates on writing articles either outside of the Atlantic Ocean or the present day and not get involved with images for the time being.Jason Rees (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I have removed Barkeep49 from the "involved users" list for this amendment request as they acted as an arbitrator in this case, so are not considered involved. They are also currently an arbitrator, so may wish to comment as an arbitrator on this request. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'd like to wait for further comment before making my mind up, I'll note MarioProtIV has been editing regularly and (from what I've seen) been conscientious in abiding by the tban. I'm leaning towards lifting the restriction. Cabayi (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also open to lifting the TBAN. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Glad to see the above diff, which puts me in favour of lifting. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to hear from the community a bit before voting. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I was singularly unimpressed with the brazen nature of MarioProtIV's requests for other members to intervene on their behalf, so I'm not predisposed to accepting. However, I do appreciate that they have been conscientious in abiding, and a reasonable period of time has past. I'd like to hear more from the community, and yes User:Nova Crystallis that includes you, wherever you feel you fit. Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WTT: I was also unimpressed. I do think it worth noting, however, that we had a mixed bag of evidence when it came to Mario's conduct in the area. Obviously enough that we both voted for the topic ban but for me that mitigation does matter when it comes to appeal and the positive work that has happened since then. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MarioProtIV, has your thinking about about editing conflict, and particularly the use of reversions, changed, and if so, how? You can see in the PD from the case I had noted that you employed a revert button when you should not have. Izno (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Support

1. I agree with the thinking of the arbs above and so we might as well start voting. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cabayi (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. MarioProtIV has made a self-reflective appeal which shows understanding and regret - this is the sort of thing that tends to get my support. I would like to see MarioProtIV in future stating in discussions and votes if they have discussed the issue under consideration in any other venue or with any other users on or off Wiki - such transparency encourages trust and respect. SilkTork (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9. I'm sufficiently satisfied with Mario's responses and the community's lack of concern that we agree this. Worm^TT(talk) 10:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain