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

Case clerks: ToBeFree (Talk) & Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Firefly (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk) & Sdrqaz (Talk)

Case opened on 23:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Case closed on 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.

Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

Case information

Involved parties

NoonIcarus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

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.

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/0)

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 with a scope along the lines Barkeep49 outlines. firefly ( t · c ) 19:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Firefly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per the others; we should not take the easy route with quick topic bans only to circle back in 6 months because it did not fix the issue. Primefac (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per everybody. Cabayi (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Maxim (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Standards of editor behavior

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

3) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

4) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

5) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed generally may not be used in discussions internal to the project subject to certain narrow exceptions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Recidivism

6) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behavior are expected to improve their behavior, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Building consensus

7) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. Finding common ground is essential when editors disagree, and editors should be willing and able to actively do so. Editors' participation in discussions should not simply be reiterating their own positions. Editors' own positions should be represented concisely to allow room in the discussion for consensus to develop.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ideological disputes

8) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around political or ideological conflicts. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints. Such editors are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) This case concerns editing around Venezuelan politics, with particular focus on the conduct of WMrapids (talk · contribs) and NoonIcarus (talk · contribs).

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

2) There have been multiple attempts at dispute resolution in this topic area in recent years. These have included threads at administrator noticeboards, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the reliable sources noticeboard, and various RfCs. These have not been successful in resolving ongoing issues between the parties or in the wider topic area. Some of these attempts have suffered from repetitive topics and/or low participation. (Vanamonde93's preliminary statement; SandyGeorgia's, NoonIcarus', WMrapids' evidence)

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of multiple accounts

3) While the case was open, WMrapids (talk · contribs) was CheckUser-blocked. WMrapids has edited in ways that violate the policy on sockpuppetry.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids' behaviour

4) WMrapids has engaged in edit warring, battleground behaviour, and personalisation of disputes (SandyGeorgia's evidence and NoonIcarus's evidence).

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Interpersonal issues

5) WMrapids and NoonIcarus have repeatedly failed to engage constructively with each other. (Vanamonde93's preliminary statement)

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus' sanction history

6) In January 2020, NoonIcarus (talk · contribs) was placed under a one year personal "consensus required restriction" at ANI due to edit warring. In April 2024, he was topic-banned at ANI from Latin American politics, broadly construed.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus' behaviour

7) Since the expiration of the 2020 restriction, NoonIcarus has engaged in edit warring and battleground behaviour (WMrapids's evidence and NoonIcarus's evidence).

Passed 5 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

WMrapids banned

4a) WMrapids is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 8 to 1 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids topic banned

5) WMrapids is topic banned from Venezuelan politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstentions at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Interaction ban

7) NoonIcarus and WMrapids are prohibited from interacting with or commenting on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.