Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 1 April 2024 (→‎Venezuelan politics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: accept: 3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals   28 March 2024 0/6/2
Venezuelan politics   29 March 2024 3/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals

Initiated by Thinker78 (talk) at 05:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Thinker78

See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman

I am a veteran editor familiar with the civility, vandalism, consensus and dispute resolution policies, which I regularly consult, ponder about, analyze, and contribute to. I was unduly blocked[1] on 10 February 2024 after being involved in a content dispute.

At times, I notice in my watchlist removal of an ip talk page post. I check it out and most of the time I don't do anything. But sometimes it appears to be an undue removal. I can spend an hour analyzing and investigating the post of an ip. I don't expect others to do that but I expect others to respect it as part of the consensus process. These are some examples of my restores (I have done only about 16 in 8 years): [2], [3], [4] [5]

Ips also have the Wikipedian right per the Five Pillars to present their points in talk pages. I protest the stance that it is a waste of time or disruptive trying to assume good faith and trying to be more considerate with their criticisms. In fact, unduly removing their criticisms or legitimate posts instead of respectfully addressing them damages the project.

My edits of concern and publicizing objectively a discussion with limited reach elsewhere were based on Wikipedia guidance[6] but administrators showed lack of collegiality, lack of consideration and lack of respect when treating me like an anonymous troll,Wikipedia:Civility disregarding the consensus policy and dispute resolution process. Johnuniq and ScottishFinnishRadish issued their warning[7] and block against me without proper discussion.

Admin 331dot did not properly explain why they denied my appeal,[8] in essence just saying they liked it (WP:TALKDONTREVERT). Bishonen went further and not only did not explain why the points of my new appeal did not apply [9] (which I did only because 331dot advised me I could), but further blocked me, mentioning length. But WP:TALK, "If you really need to make a detailed, point-by-point post, see below for tips." They mention number of editors against me, but whatever points they may have had in the content dispute, they could have told me in a discussion beforehand without any need of accusations, warnings or blocks. (Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling).

Because of the perceived arbitrariness, lack of collegiality, imposing instead of seeking consensus, threats and blocks of the whole proceeding, it felt to me (not accusing anyone of) like I was being editorially lynched and I was deeply demoralized. An editor in the thread even said when criticizing me, "It does not matter if your block is entirely unjust. All you can do now is kowtow [...]"[10]

Response to statement by User:Firefly
{The issue is that the block (one week for a first) was arbitrary and ignored the consensus policy, made because I was following guidance on publicizing the discussion objectively, not canvassing. I believe this block per WP:ADMINCOND was egregious poor judgment. Per Arbitration/Case/GiantSnowman, Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct, not mild. } Thinker78 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statement by User:Primefac
{Issue is of pressing importance not because of an individual case but rather a system-wide question. Should administrators be able to arbitrarily block editors without even attempting beforehand to collegially counsel editors, specially experienced editors? Should administrators rather use the consensus process as a first step to point out what said administrators believe are mistakes or other issues in the editors' edits? This, in cases where there is not an evident need to block WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Also in such discussions, editors can point out what they believe are Wikipedia guidance that backs their edits and also perceived shortcomings of the administrators' views. In addition, this avoids surreptitious arbitrarily retaliatory and unduly punitive blocks. WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Plus, see my response to Firefly.} Thinker78 (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for extension
{Heeding advice from admin Firefangledfeathers, I request word limit extension to address arbitrators, after my attempt contacting clerks was not responded for days. I would expect if they denied to at least state so instead of keeping editors waiting. Thanks. } Thinker78 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I am very busy right now IRL, so I don't have time for much other than a short statement. I blocked after they started using Wikipedia talk space to deal with perceived behavior issues. This came up earlier here, after they restored a section that was removed as being in the wrong venue. They have also demonstrated a lack of understanding of what falls under disruptive discussion and editing, and appropriate venues for discussion, after I blocked an IP for this harassment, which was discussed here and here. If anything else is needed from me I'd appreciate a ping, because although I have this page watchlisted I'm not paying much attention to my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I was going to suggest that the case request be declined with a suggestion to Thinker78 that it might be necessary to tolerate the views of the editors who commented at User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails (permalink) and User talk:Thinker78#February 2024 (permalink). However, reviewing User talk:Thinker78#DTTR (permalink) shows that a similar situation has arisen. That concerns a comment by an IP that was reverted by an editor and restoredparaphrased by Thinker78. A subsequent discussion is at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Revert of ip, no explanation (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I regret having spoken impatiently here, but I still believe it was time to revoke talkpage access. Bishonen | tålk 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by 331dot

I'm not really sure what the issue is here, but I'm willing to answer questions. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

Remind me I must write an essay about Wiki-saviour syndrome. Every so often it happens an editor shows up who perceives there is some perfect lost state of Wikipedia that the community has strayed from. Sometimes lost prophets are invoked (Larry). They then take it upon themselves to kick the moneylenders out of the temple and restore grace. It never ends well. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly: [11] Bon courage (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory seems to be another talk page with dozen or more reverts like Talk:2023, Talk:Minecraft, Talk:Harry Styles, Talk:Earth, Talk:Mathematics, Talk:Music, Talk:History, etc. There is likely over two dozen more examples that could be listed. The problems with those talk pages generally are that IP users and new accounts don't understand the Wikipedia is not a forum policy, leading to numerous reverts. The chemtrail talk page isn't as bad as the history talk page in terms of reverts, but there have been clear issues given the talk page banners.

I will give Thinker78 credit for trying to look out for these IP users and new accounts, but I think he made an error in restoring in this specific case. I would encourage Thinker78 to consider leaving a comment on the discussion if they restore in the future and to be more cautious as well. I believe that could have avoid this situation, or at least resolved it better than what occurred.

Regarding the events at the user talk page, I would say that it is disappointing. From my limited perspective, it feels like a swarm of users descended with some of them increasing the issue instead of trying to resolve it. Sadly, it seems that things spiraled when they shouldn't have and now here we are. I think there was a misunderstanding by Thinker78 about Dispute resolution by looking at SEEKHELP instead of CONDUCTDISPUTE. That mistake seems to have led to the block, which is understandable.

The only [One minor] thing that I could see as actionable was some behavior that leans toward Gravedancing elsewhere, but even that doesn't seem eligible for ANI or the Committee. This case does not rise to the level of the 2018 case mentioned. I think the parties just need to reflect on what happened, filing party included, and try to move forward. To borrow some words from that case, admining is a "thankless and socially difficult job" and that can apply to trying to help newer users and IPs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 9:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Can you double-check as I don't see any comment restored by Thinker78 at Mahatma Gandhi, just a discussion there. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Thank you for double checking. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Striking [and adding] some text due to Aquillion's statement as ANI might be appropriate for something else. Still believe this case is a decline for the Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (Fixed at 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Quoting Super Goku V: I will give Thinker78 credit for trying to look out for these IP users and new accounts, but I think he made an error in restoring in this specific case. Maybe a reasonable assessment, but it shouldn't've led to blocking. I don't see any rationale for administrative action on this at all, much less that severe. It's something that could've been hashed out in user talk, or ANI if necessary. Also, as I've suggested elsewhere, a workable solution to this sort of thing is to not delete comments that lean toward WP:NOTFORUM, but respond briefly to anything substantive in them, note that WP is not a forum, notify the user page about NOTFORUM policy, and then close and archive the thread. This tends to prevent a "censorship of newbies" versus "encouragement of NOTFORUM ranting" debate from even happening.

Quoting SGV again: it feels like a swarm of users descended with some of them increasing the issue instead of trying to resolve it. ... admining is a "thankless and socially difficult job" ....: User talk pages largely exist for editors to work out their differences. This can sometimes get heated, but it's a process and it generally works itself out. When it fails to, we have ANI and other noticeboards. There was insufficient cause for a block much less for talk-page-access revocation. WP is not actually disrupted by an editor defending their actions and objecting to actions that make them feel put-upon, even if they do it vociferously. In short, admins need to take action to protect the project, not to muzzle its participants when they're not actually breaking anything or doing any actual harm.

Also, ScottishFinnishRadish's diffs at Thinker78's user-talk of Thinker78 "canvassing" are not canvassing, but normal, neutrally worded notice in two completly appropriate venues. It is a bit disturbing to me that two different admins jumped on Thinker78 for restoring IP-editor comments on the basis that one admin thinks the material is "nonsense" (Johnuniq), which is content involvement, and in ScottishFinnishRadish's case of accusing Thinker78 of "a recurring pattern of not understanding what is disruptive" after Thinker78 questioned SFR's previous block of someone else in the same content area, which smacks of a different kind of involvement (retributive).

Diclaimer(?): I've had disputations with Thinker78 in the past (including recently), but also a civil and productive discussion (via email). So, I'm neither a Thinker78 fan nor critic. To the extent Thinker78 has been intemperate in some of this, I think WP:HOTHEADS may be worth reading, especially the WP:CAPITULATE section, which I think pretty much describes what happened with this blocking: if one makes enough noise, it may inspire someone else, with the ability to do so, to apply a gag. But this should not actually happen unless the project really is being disrupted. CIVIL, NPA, AGF and related policies are not requirements for brevity, cheerfulness, or obsequious politeness. Some discussions will be a bit heated, and long, and that is okay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Thinker78 has been going around restoring obviously non-constructive drive-by comments for some time, eg. [12][13][14][15][16] (the last was removed under ARBECR). --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogene

Talk pages should not be used to post time-wasting, inactionable, or abusive drive-by comments, as shown in the various diffs that have been posted. It concerns me that Thinker has used free speech ("rights") rhetoric in filing for this case, i.e. there is a right to make these kinds of comments on article talk pages. If Arbs decline, then this should go to AN/I per WP:PREVENTATIVE. Geogene (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and article talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing improvements to articles. They are not a forum for free speech nor for general commentary about an article's topic, and off-topic personal commentary on controversial topics is regularly refactored or removed entirely, and not just by administrators. This is moderation, not censorship, and it's necessary to ensure that discussions stay on-topic and to ensure the smooth running of the project.

Thinker78 has described their actions as "stand[ing] against undue censorship", and believes that doing so "mak[es] Wikipedia a more welcoming environment". They also seem to have an extreme view of the assume good faith policy, believing it compels us to find good faith in every word written here, which is a long way from the generally accepted consensus that we have no duty to entertain obvious trolls, and removing comments that are intended to distract editors into political arguments don't make Wikipedia more welcoming; quite the opposite actually.

It might be a noble pursuit to monitor reverts of IP editors for coaching opportunities, but as Chris troutman put it in the most recent discussion, "there is a difference between patience for a new editor unaware of how we operate and a crank who brought their derangement to Wikipedia." An IP editor who complains that we don't pay enough lip service to Donald Trump, or that calling chemtrails a conspiracy theory is "racist", or who openly impugns the intelligence of an administrator, aren't editors interested in how Wikipedia works, they're just here to disrupt with their petty grievances. They don't need to be educated, they need to be shown the door. Again this is not censorship, it's moderation.

Numerous editors have tried to explain this to Thinker78 over several years of related incidents, but even after being blocked and having talk access revoked, this case request shows they still don't get it. For that reason I think a case is warranted, as this is a pattern of disruptive conduct which the community has been unable to resolve. A case would examine whether Thinker78 is really upholding a principled position about editing being for everyone, or if they're really just watching for provocative comments to restore so they can then fight with administrators about it to make a point about what they wrongly perceive as censorship. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

Just as a general fyi, the community recently discussed the removal of other users' comments here: [17]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[18]. I didn't see that coming. Whether it's true that it wasn't canvassing is above my pay grade. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this^, as well as what Acroterion said, I do think increasingly that we are in boomerang territory, but I tend to think that it is something the community can and should deal with, without ArbCom needing to step in. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zaathras

Pls decline, largely per Geogene, this may need to head to ANI. The filer feels they are a voice against censorship of "right-wing people" (their own words, 26 July 2022), when other editors remove disruptive thread starters made by IP users or newly-created accounts. It has been a practice in a contentious topic areas to nip clear bad-faith comments early before things get out of hand. This user opposes this practice, which let to their week block. And it is still happening.

Statement by Acroterion

I guess I started the events at Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory by reverting obvious nonsense. [19]. I have a little trouble imagining that the IP's post was anything but trolling, using the familiar "racist" trope for anything someone doesn't like. While the subsequent response may have been a bit more harsh than it needed to be, Thinker78's enablement and even justification of straightforward trolling as constructive is unhelpful. I don't see this as a matter for arbitration, this looks like extended forum-shopping. I do think that some form of editing restriction for Thinker78 may become necessary if they continue in this rather quixotic fashion. As I warned them, purposely reverting such comments can be viewed as an endorsement of the problematic edit, which is not a good look. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that Thinker78 wants to be immunized from criticism by administrators, here or anywhere else on the basis of AGF, based on this talk page message in response to my comment above [20]. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that they misunderstand AGF, based on their response, [21], and believe that criticism is a product of an assumption of bad faith, which is untrue, or that they are the final judge of what is justifiable criticism and what is not when it is directed at them. I'm confident they're acting in good faith, but that doesn't give behavior a free pass. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ... unusual [22], but in character from what I've seen. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

The only thing I'd like to contribute here is in response to a claim by Thinker, that Ips also have the Wikipedian right per the Five Pillars to present their points in talk pages. That is absolutely not the case. Editing Wikipedia is not a *right*. Nor is "presenting points" the purpose of Wikipedia. This misunderstanding of our core principles and purpose by Thinker seems, in this case, likely to lead to further WP:POINTy and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior if not corrected. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

It does not seem terribly likely that this case will be accepted, but I will make a statement, mostly to the effect that I think there's a persistent problem with talk pages and something ought to be done about it.

I struggle to see any reason why, outside of genuinely worthless garbage (e.g. "love too diarrhea shit my Pants" or "Adfsfkkeeeesssllfddmm" or "teh guy who wrote this is a MORoNN!!") the project is improved by people deputizing themselves the talk page police and going through to remove anything they think is stupid, or already addressed, or whatever -- and doubly so when there's dispute over whether the comments are indeed worthless.

It really doesn't take that much time to {{hat}} the section with "Already answered, see Archive 8" or whatever. And it isn't that hard to just close it normally, in a professional manner -- we do not need to dismiss people with total removal or smarmy WP:SUPERHAT dunks. This makes the entire project look stupid and petty, in exchange for the benefit of... nothing, as far as I can tell. If somebody is making a genuine attempt to improve the article by pointing out bias and recommending concrete changes be made, then I think this is a legitimate use of the talk page, even if their opinion is stupid or wrong. Personally, I think the comment in question here is stupid, but its stupidity makes it much easier to respond to and archive it, not harder! Certainly, they should not expect to have their comment taken seriously and responded to in earnest, but it's really hard for me to understand what the benefit is supposed to be of aggressively removing comments in this manner.

If the five seconds required to type out an actual response and close the section is too much, then maybe no edits should be getting made, and it should be left to someone else who does have the time. By analogy, if you want to cook some chicken and you only have ten seconds to spare, you simply pick a different meal, you don't eat the raw chicken and get salmonella and say "well what I was supposed to do in just ten seconds". If there is not enough time to do the task properly, it is often better to just not do it at all. jp×g🗯️ 05:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Alanscottwalker

Contra above, apart from if there is truly some kind of controversy about the matter, which is probably relatively seldom, cleaning up things is what editors do, it's basically the purpose of editors. Sorry, our pages are just not for propagating attacks, misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, word salads, etc. (that's what the rest of the internet is for :)). Also, as between editing out, hatting, and archiving -- distinction without much substantive difference, except hatting is unlikely to be received better, apart from drawing more attention than a discreet, uhm, 'no'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Article talk pages)

This appears to be a dispute about the removal of material from article talk pages that was of questionable relevance, subsequent restoration of that material, and resulting conflict. There is also another similar dispute pending at WP:ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletions_of_(article)_talk_page_material. In my opinion, part of the underlying problem is that the talk page guidelines, and in particular the guidelines on removal of posts by other editors, are poorly written and ambiguous. The guidelines state that material that is off-topic, including because it is using the talk page as a forum for general discussion rather than article improvement, may be removed, collapsed, or archived. The guidelines do not address what should be done if there is a dispute over a removal of material, or exactly when removal is justified in place of archival or collapsing. The fact that there are two disputes pending at the same time over the same poorly written guideline should be a sign either that the guideline should be clarified by interpretation or that the guideline should be reworked. I do not know whether the arbitrators consider it to be within their scope to try to apply a poorly written guideline, but if these two disputes are simply allowed to continue, there will be more such disputes in the future. This is a type of dispute that the community has not been able to resolve, as is evidenced by there being two of them open. If ArbCom decides that a case about article talk page removals should be opened, additional parties will need to be added. If ArbCom chooses not to open a full evidentiary case, it would be helpful to the community, if ArbCom thinks that it is within their scope, to provide guidance to the community about article talk page editing disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

  • If the Committee declines the case, can they still address issues they see via motion?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Z80Spectrum

I would first like to mention that I'm a biased party, because I am the editor who started the WP:ANI case case that User:Robert McClenon has pointed to. I'm also a newbie user.

From my point-of-view, I see a lot of truth in the statement made by User:JPxG. It might appear, that this case might be related to the concern of practicality (because it might be easier to delete than to respond), but I think that practicality concerns can be solved by various methods.

In my view, this case is about two issues: the first is the ambiguity in WP:TPO, and the second one is the issue of uniform application of rules, (the uniformity concern). I won't comment here about WP:TPO.

User:Thinker78 apparently wants Wikipedia's policies and principles to be uniformly applied, even regarding highly dubious talk page posts. Wikipedia doesn't talk much about uniformity, in fact, Wikipedia might be severely neglecting the uniformity concern. Neglecting uniformity concern is never sufficient, because the one (whether a person or an institution) who neglects the uniformity concern is always going to appear as inconsistent and deceptful. By neglecting the uniformity concern, the Wikipedia is going to attract more conflicts from people who naturally tend towards uniformity. That is the source of this case at ARB.

I estimate that the common practice on Wikipedia has been to simply delete the posts that are highly unlikely to produce any improvements. Such a practice is also a kind of uniformity. As I also naturally tend towards uniformity, I would mostly respect such a practice, especially in this case when the guidelines are either highly ambiguous or completely missing. On the other side, User:Thinker78 has been attempting to provide evidence that the deleted content might actually have some substance, and if those claims are true than it is hard to judge whether the deletion can be considered an appropriate action. So, to stay on the safe side, I would recommend responding to the dubious talk page posts (if practically possible) instead of deleting them, although I don't view the deletions as necessarily wrong. This is also a question of the sorites paradox, where some gray area must always exists. It would be advantageous if the gray area is made smaller, which implies that the rules (WP:TPO) should be clarified.

User:Thinker78 has also been complaining about the lack of proper explanations from administrators (or perhaps, insufficient cooperation from administrators). I don't see his complaints sufficiently addressed. I'm unsure of the proper procedure for his complaints, and I also don't want to take sides.

I don't have any other specific suggestions, and my statement here should primarily be understood as a clarification attempt. I would suggest, in general, that Wikipedia should, in future, pay more attention to uniformity and clarity concerns, to avoid many problems that stem from inconsistencies and ambiguities.

- Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals: Clerk notes

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

Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • I do not think there is anything here that rises to the level of requiring arbitration. Talk pages of prominent articles, or those about controversial subjects, frequently attract "drive-by" comments either angry at us for not adhering to their particular point of view, making comments for the sake of commenting, or just posting word salad. These comments are rarely serious attempts at improving the encyclopedia. I tend to think the best course of action is to ignore these comments unless they are - by their nature or volume - disruptive to collaboration on the talk page, but equally I don't think removing the comment in question here was improper.
    On the block, I'm not sure it's one I personally would have made - absent evidence that Thinker78 had made a habit of restoring such comments against the advice of others - but that's as far as I get. It's important to remember that we as volunteers have a limited number of hours as a group to 'spend', and dealing with "I don't like it" comments from users otherwise not engaged with Wikipedia sucks up some of that time. I entirely sympathise with the view that volunteer time is indeed better spent elsewhere. firefly ( t · c ) 10:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Converting this to a formal decline per my reasoning above. firefly ( t · c ) 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely agree with Firefly; the admins in question may have been slightly heavy-handed but I do not immediately see anything necessarily requiring a full case to sort out. Decline unless that changes. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely agree with what SMcCandlish has written. However, I don't think any of the issues raised so far feel "ripe" for arbitration at this time and so I am leaning towards declining. I am waiting, however, for further community feedback before formalizing that vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline This does not strike me as appropriate for ArbCom at this time. This would have been better served by going to AN/ANI. There are two possibilities of what would have happened there. Either the community would agree with the admins, or the community would have disagreed with the admins and established a consensus that policies and guidelines apply in the way Thinker is claiming they do. And then if admins didn't respect that consensus it would be maybe be appropriate for ArbCom. I suspect based on the feedback offered here that if this had gone to a community noticeboard that consensus would have supported the admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline I don’t think any actions taken here were unreasonable or heavy handed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse I warned Thinker for the exact issue in question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CaptainEek&oldid=prev&diff=1176976838#Good_one._Lol Strictly speaking, I don't think we have to recuse for warnings. But given that I gave the warning in a content dispute about Noah's Ark about which I expressed an opinion, and given that my instinct is to ban him, that seems enough for recusal. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - This doesn't appear to be something that needs to go straight to an ArbCom case. I don't think the block appeals are sufficient attempt at prior dispute resolution when the reviewers of those appeals are named parties to and within the scope of the case request. - Aoidh (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline In agreement with Firefly. The removal of talk-page comments should be discussed on noticeboards first. I am sympathetic to editors who have suggested that the guidelines on removing talk page discussions is poorly written, but again this should go through a community review, not ArbCom. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan politics

Initiated by —S Marshall T/C at 10:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • this AN/I which is still open at the moment, but it's two weeks old and starting to stink up AN/I;
  • this previous AN/I which was archived unclosed and without result;
  • this previous AN/I from 2020 that got action but didn't resolve the dispute.

Statement by S Marshall

I think that a case about Venezuela is called for. There's a longstanding dispute, we've exhausted the alternatives to Arbcom, and the community thinks we've got to come here. For example:

A case needs parties, and as the filer, I'm automatically a party, although I've never made a mainspace edit to an article about Venezuela. I've also joined NoonIcarus, who for the avoidance of confusion is the same user as Jamez42 who was sanctioned in the 2020 AN/I, and WMRapids the AN/I filer, as parties, because that's the immediate conflict, but I'm afraid I think there's more to it than just the parties. Rather, I hope to persuade Arbcom to accept a case with a more general scope, such as "conduct in articles about the 21st century politics of Venezuela."

I understand that SandyGeorgia has things to say about this and she's got a lot going on in her life at the moment, so if she indicates a desire to participate in the case, then please would Arbcom be kind to her about response times and word counts?—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simonm223's statement that I'm opening this case to muddy the waters is denied.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Vanamonde93 that the AN/Is often lead to sanctions against NoonIcarus, but to be fair, I've sided with WMrapids rather than NoonIcarus on most of the issues at the most recent AN/I. I also agree with Vanamonde93 that NoonIcarus isn't the only problem. Agree with Duatfreeworld that sealioning and well-poisoning are both taking place, and I'd observe that one of NoonIcarus' difficulties is a tendency to take the bait when it's dangled in front of him. I think there's an opportunity to give additional guidance to WMrapids about the precision with which he cites sources, and to give additional guidance to NoonIcarus about how to challenge poor citations. This guidance to both editors should be maximally clear and hard to misunderstand.—S Marshall T/C 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NoonIcarus

I'm unfamiliar with the process for ARBCOM, but I agree that opening a case will help tackling such a complex dispute. It has been ongoing for almost a year now. I'll link other examples of archived discussions without admin action or even community participation:

Linking additional discussions for reference:

Opening a case would also allow the opportunity to consider general arbitration remedies (as Robert McClenon mentioned), particularly knowing this is an electoral year in Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: The thing remaining to be dealt with is WMrapids' behavior. I'm looking forward to address my own conduct, but the current thread at ANI seems to be focused only on me and so far it is considering only one side of the dispute. Arguably the only reason why the current thread has not been archived is because S Marshall placed the {{DNAU}}. The discussions linked by Vanamonde93 and myself show all those unarchived and that the issue remains unadressed. With the current situation, the problem only risks lasting longer. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49's proposal on word limits would definitely help. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving another link:

Statement by WMrapids

Statement by Simonm223

When WMrapids originally brought NoonIcarus's edit behavior, with significant evidence, to the attention of AN/I, it became immediately evident to me that NoonIcarus should probably be editing elsewhere and I readily supported a topic ban. Despite some borderline bludgeoning behavior from one editor who collaborates with NoonIcarus, it became immediately evident that consensus concurred. Now, during this time I did not realize that NoonIcarus was actually a rename of Jamez42 - an editor whose battleground behavior and civil POV pushing was so frustrating I stopped editing articles they were active on. Upon learning this connection I was more certain a TBan was an appropriate remedy.

I cannot speak for the silence of admins in this matter but I can say, based on the evidence provided in AN/I that the only remedy needed here is to invite NoonIcarus to edit topics other than Latin American politics. I am somewhat alarmed that this arbcom request may have been created in part to muddy the waters and see that WMrapids suffers consequences for saying enough was enough regarding this long-term problematic editor. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also like Barkeep49's suggestions regarding word limits and sectioning. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Barkeep queries whether there is any community appetite for allowing uninvolved administrators to impose word counts (and perhaps sectioning?) at noticeboards on INVOLVED parties. My answer is a firm "yes" to the word limits and only slightly less firm to the sectioning. I've been saying for years that the formal structure and word limits at AE are what make that venue so much more productive than ANI. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's probably best to decline a case at the present time, enact the topic ban and word count restriction and give it time to see if that fixes the problem. If it does then it does and we can spare everyone the time and effort of an arb case, if it doesn't then that's good evidence that a case is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

  • @Barkeep49: I'd like the word limits and the sectioning. The reason I don't look at these threads is often the overwhelming volume of some posts.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: " muddy the waters, "" so much for WP:AGF. There's a fallacy there somewhere. Where are the admins? Taking care of the headaches they get from eyestrain from reading such. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

At various points over the past few months I've been on the verge of filing a Venezuelan politics case request, specifically to ask ARBCOM to designate it a contentious topic and allow the use of AE to deal with problematic behavior. I held off largely because I would have been unable to participate in an evidence phase, and I wasn't sure if a WP:HORN-style request would be useful without examining the behavior of the current protagonists. It is possible the community may be able to handle the conflict between these two editors - indeed there was widespread recognition from uninvolved editors at ANI that NoonIcarus had engaged in persistent problematic behavior. However, Venezuelan topics have been consuming a disproportionate share of airtime at the noticeboards for a long time, with a lot of discussions finding problems but not reaching consensus. To me, this indicates the need for a CT designation, possibly preceded by an investigation into the principal actors. Here is a sampling of noticeboard discussions, in which a number of involved editors are exhibiting borderline battleground behavior, enabled in many cases by more experienced editors who are less involved. I note that NoonIcarus was warned or sanctioned in several of these, but is far from the only problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • FWIW I don't think this filing should impact the closure of the ANI thread; there is consensus there, and it should be enforced. But I believe the CT designation is needed nonetheless, and it wouldn't hurt to examine the behavior of the two protagonists here in greater detail than ANI is able to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moneytrees: I cannot speak for anyone else, but the major reason I have not previously requested community GS in this area is that disputes would still need to be reported to AN rather than AE. This is not a topic with a lot of patrolling uninvolved admins. I wish it were, but it isn't. CT/GS would need to be enforced in response to reports, and as I believe my evidence above shows, the other noticeboards are not able to handle these usefully. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Venezuelan politics)

I tried to mediate a dispute between WMRapids and NoonIcarus at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about the Venezuelan opposition movement La Salida, which was at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241#La_Salida. I failed this mediation attempt because there was also a dispute at WP:ANI between the same parties. This was a long-running dispute that is aggravated by battleground editing. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case in order to determine that Venezuelan politics is a contentious topic. I don't know whether a full evidentiary phase is necessary, or whether that determination can be made either by motion or by an accelerated procedure. The contentious topic procedure is sufficiently flexible that it can be a vehicle for imposing word limits on editors who normally write walls of text, or to impose similar restrictions. This topic area needs to be identified as a contentious topic by ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Innisfree987

I’m not sure I’ve ever edited a page dealing with Venezuela, but just working on other LATAM topics is enough to be well aware of this protracted dispute. A contentious topics designation strikes me as a helpful instrument for reining in the unchecked, time-consuming conflict that the community is otherwise struggling to manage here. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tornheim

I support Barkeep's [23] assessment: (1) Let the AN/I play out. (2) Impose word counts at AN/I. This is primarily about one editor: NoonIcarus fka Jamez42, and there appears to be consensus to topic ban him. The cases at AN/I cited by Vanamonde almost all involved NoonIcarus/Jamez42. If you look at those cases, there is an admin who was willing to rule on some of them. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

Based on my experience of restrictions/sanctions on the Israel/Palestine articles, I don't think CTOP rules would help in the Venezuela topic area. The problem isn't really disruptive behaviour but rather long-term POV pushing through selective addition or removal of content. My experience is that this type of behaviour has not been prevented at all by the ARBPIA restrictions and has actually been exacerbated by the removal of nearly all the editors on one side of the debate, which has allowed the other to impose their POV almost unopposed.

Given that there is currently a clear consensus on ANI to impose a topic ban on the editor that is in my view by far the worst offender of POV pushing on Venezuela and other Latin American politics (based on what I see go on on election and referendum articles that I have watchlisted), I'm not convinced an ARBCOM case is necessary at this stage. Number 57 19:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dustfreeworld

I’d like to express my opinion on what SandyGeorgia said Special:diff/1216075304.

Adding content that failed verification into articles is a serious issue. If it’s deliberately done, it’s deceiving and is a problem of dishonesty.

People think the content is sourced. If no other editors bother to do the fact-check and cleanup, the content will stand and our readers will just think it’s true.

When the act of adding failed verification content is a lasting pattern, it absolutely shouldn’t be tolerated, as it’s detrimental to the neutrality of an article.

We’re lucky enough that we’ve some faithful editors to check the likely dishonest / makeup content added, and tagging them for failed verification one by one. But when the same thing happens again and again, it’s very exhausting, and this greatly affects the work of our good editors (who want to improve articles instead of doing endless cleanup plus dealing with endless disputes hopelessly, and seeing the quality of articles deteriorates) and may have them leaving the project dishearteningly.

Similarly, adding back the “Failed verification” banner to top of article *after* the issue’d been resolved and adding back problematic content, without engaging on talk, is showing the same potentially disruptive editing pattern and same problems of dishonesty, which are exhausting the time / energy of good editors.

I believe the above is just a tip of the iceberg. IMO polite POV pushing can have a very profound effect on article quality and should be dealt with seriously. Given that it affects the whole topic on Venezuela and not just 1 or 2 articles, I believe an ArbCom case is warranted.

Further, I saw a tendency of casting of aspersions and failure to assume good faith as shown by WMrapids, which is astonishing to me. SG hasn’t been active for nearly 3 months and NoonIcarus replied to my post on her talk page with words like “Stay safe. My best wishes”. This was interpreted by WMrapids as “interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after NoonIcarus contacted them”, Special:diff/1216007573,

while SG had already mentioned in the same thread that “mostly-break since early December when two of my closest friends died coincidentally on the same day, and I knew that I could not reasonably deal with serious grieving and WMRapids' editing at the same time.” Special:diff/1215958846

After I told them their problem Special:diff/1216010524, WMrapids replied that, “the timing is curious ... which will be usually emailed ... I am more concerned about NoonIcarus' gamey behavior due to their history of unconventional canvassing” Special:diff/1216025170

Keep on describing a message expressing Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian as “gamey behavior” and/or “unconventional canvassing”, and that they’re *more concerned* about that than another Wikipedian’s real life tragedies ... is just a totally unacceptable explicit example of failure to AGF. If this kind of mentality persists during their interaction with other involved editors who’ve views different from them, I can imagine how exhausting and disheartening it can be.

This is a time sink. The issue is better fixed sooner rather than later. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC); 07:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Enforceable word limits at noticeboards would be extremely welcome (not just AN/ANI, but the village pumps and the other main ones as well). Endless bludgeoning and walls of text are the main reason threads spiral out of control/don't get the necessary resolution, and at ANI at least, it rarely gets pushback because of the reputation of the WP:Great Dismal Swamp. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

I have been slightly involved insofar that I've been involved in various WP:RS/N discussions (example [24]) . I've chosen to mostly stay out of WP:AN/I discussions because the walls of text and the history that I find off-putting. Over the last couple of years, through my observations of RS/N and AN/I discussions, it has become apparent to me that Venezuela is a contentious topic area. I hope that ArbCom through its deliberations will specifically list it as such. TarnishedPathtalk 13:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, if there were word count restrictions on involved parties at AN/I I think this would be helpful. However, in the latest AN/I thread there were some editors who reported being burnt out by Venezuela on both sides. I'm uninvolved in the area directly and I think that perhaps maybe some more attention might be helpful. TarnishedPathtalk 13:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moneytrees, while last minute steps might be well and good in regards to the situation between NoonIcarus and WMrapids, of concern I think is editors in the current AN/I discussion reporting not participating in the Venezuela topic area any longer due to being burnt out by their past experiences. I think this shouldn't be a situation that should be allowed to occur and needs addressing. TarnishedPathtalk 03:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

By my reading of the ANI thread, there's an open proposal to topic-ban NoonIcarus that appears on the path to succeeding. Unless someone can make the argument that there's other things that need to be dealt with, it seems like that would resolve things and make ArbCom involvement unnecessary. Also, as an aside, the filer here, S Marshall, made the first reply to that proposal, saying No. Proposals are needed here but it's best if they come from uninvolved people. (the proposal was made by WRapids); presumably that rejection is part of why he thinks an ArbCom case is necessary. But I don't think that is true - it's entirely normal for proposals like that to come from involved people. It may not always be the best idea tactically (if their proposal is intemperate it opens them up to a boomerang) but they have the option to do so, and it's important that they do because it's also a fact that involved people are often the ones with the most impetus to keep things moving forwards. A proposal still needs a consensus to achieve anything, so their biases in opening it don't matter. And given the (currently) lopsided support for this one it seems like it was reasonable. I can understand the concerns about detectable brigading, which, if true, is more serious, but that ought to be decided by a closing admin; and either way, the fact is that the RFC is currently so lopsided that it's hard to see it mattering - the fact that so few people have opposed it is telling and suggests that beneath all the wordiness this isn't actually something too complex for the community to resolve. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

Queries re Barkeep49 13:04 at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Moneytrees at 23:52; I could suggest sanctions/warnings to address the main problems (edit warring equally by both parties;[25] and by one party, serious BLP vios,[26] personalization and aspersions,[27] and sourcing issues to circumvent deprecated sources and create SYNTH/OR resulting in POV[28] and [29], [30]), but a) other than spend my vacation digging for diffs, I'm at a loss for how to do that when I have most of my diffs back home, b) and I don't believe most arbs would enact those necessary sanctions without a full case anyway. The Number 57 Israel/Palestine scenario is where we are headed if one-sided sanctions are enacted, and I'm concerned that most of the allegations at ANI that involve more than citation tagging are without diffs, so a sledge hammer is being applied. I don't see how to get the right sanctions without an evidence phase; noticeboard posts won't work because the community has been exhausted, independent editors don't/won't weigh in, and that's why we need an arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

@Moneytrees: are you proposing a specific sanction applying to all editors working in a particular topic area, or are you suggesting that the community should have a discussion to see if there is consensus for such a sanction? isaacl (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector (Venezuela)

I'm not involved in the dispute in question and don't edit this topic, but please, no word limits at ANI. That page is a venue of last resort for issues that other more formalized dispute resolution processes fail to resolve, or which don't fit neatly into those processes. Almost by definition it's a mishmash of issues that don't take well to formality and structure. It's visibly a dysfunctional free-for-all, frequently resolves issues through mob justice, and has created an unstable favouritism of editors with social capital, but what definitely won't make any of that better is tone policing in the form of word limits, as is being proposed here. This won't bring order, it will bring distracting side arguments about whether or not word counts have been violated, which themselves will probably be too long and will also not help to resolve any reported issue.

Besides, it will be impossible to enforce. The page has very consistently rejected clerking and imposed moderation. This will only raise the temperature of already hot arguments, without any corresponding increase in illumination. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Allan Nonymous

Hi, this was my first AN/I, and over it, I learned a bit about how these sorts of discussions are conducted (and made a few mistakes on the way). Frankly, the sheer length of the the discussion made it hard for me to get a good overall picture of what was going on, or participate in general. I think taking this to ARBCOM was a good move, and I hope they can do a better job untangling this whole mess than I did. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Venezuelan politics: Clerk notes

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

Venezuelan politics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • I started reading this thread last night and was surprised that the community was indiciating that it needed to come to ArbCom. It seems, ultimately, a dispute between two editors and the community has shown capacity to handle those disputes in nearly all cases. The issue, as much as anything, seems to be why I didn't finish reading the thread: a bunch of long posts. And if that's truly the case, I'm wondering if we couldn't find a way to handle this outside of a case if it's really true that the community can't on its own resolve this. I also can't help but wonder if the community would be interested in GS allowing uninvolved administrators to impose word counts (and perhaps sectioning?) at noticeboards on INVOLVED parties. I look forward to reading more feedback from editors about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector (and others) to be clear I'm not suggesting ArbCom pass any kind of ANI restrictions. It's why I pondered it as GS; something that the community would choose for itself. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of those posts where I started writing anticipating I'd do one thing but in laying out my thinking I find that I've convinced myself to do something else. I have now looked at (but not comprehensively read) all of the threads linked to by Vanamonde93. My read is that most of them are really about WMrapids and NoonIcarus. The remainder seem to be things working as designed if passionately so (e.g. RSP disucssion) or older and not particularly hard for admin to have sorted out. I am reasonably convinced from what I've read that the threshold of "the community cannot handle this" has been reached with regards to those two editors. If that's all this was, I would lean against a full case given that "TBAN and/or iBAN" is on the table and could be passed by motion here. However, this would lead to a potentially unfair outcome that is easy but perhaps not just. I might be willing to live with that - my duty isn't to the parties but to the encyclopedia - were it not for the deeper question some have posed. That is "has this not been resolved because of administrator concerns such that would justify adding Venezuelan politics as a contentious topic?". As such I'm at an accept to answer the two questions of how to address the conduct of these two parties and is there sufficient evidence to justify a contentious topic designation. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I sort of indicating at the ANI discussion, I've been predicting this dispute would end up in front of us for the last year or so. Dispute resolution background wise, I see way more than enough to accept a case. But I'm wondering if there are any last minute steps that could be taken. Other than enacting the TBAN consensus at the ANI (although I'm aware that might not completely "solve" the issue here), I think Barkeep's idea about general sanctions limiting word count is a really good idea. I'm also wondering how the community feels about a proposal for general sanctions in the topic area, instead of Arbcom level Contentious topic designation? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaacl, I'm wondering if the community should/wants to have a discussion about GS. Responses so far seem against that, and Vanamonde93 makes a good point about the dispute resolution process not working. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ready to accept this given the responses here and the several previous attempts as resolution. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have multiple experienced editors and administrators telling us that community dispute resolution processes have not worked, along with a list of examples. I find Vanamonde93's comment that Venezuelan topics have been consuming a disproportionate share of airtime at the noticeboards for a long time, with a lot of discussions finding problems but not reaching consensus particularly persuasive; it seems regardless of the number of actors involved at present, this issue is sucking up community time without any meaningful improvement to behaviour in the topic area. At present I am leaning toward acceptance. firefly ( t · c ) 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Firefly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1216743838"