Target dates: Opened 6 April 2024 • Evidence closes 20 April 2024 • Workshop closes 27 April 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 4 May 2024
Scope: Conduct in the topic area of Venezuelan politics, with a specific focus on named parties.
Case clerks: ToBeFree ( Talk) & Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Firefly ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) & Sdrqaz ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop.
Case opened on 23:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed, however lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.
If you wish to receive updates relating to this case, you may add yourself to the update list for this case. All users except for parties may remove themselves from this list.
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 given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.
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)
- @ 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @ 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)
- 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)
- 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) - Accept per Firefly. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Accept per everybody. Cabayi ( talk) 09:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Accept Maxim ( talk) 13:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision (none yet) Information
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
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 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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
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.
Target dates: Opened 6 April 2024 • Evidence closes 20 April 2024 • Workshop closes 27 April 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 4 May 2024
Scope: Conduct in the topic area of Venezuelan politics, with a specific focus on named parties.
Case clerks: ToBeFree ( Talk) & Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Firefly ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) & Sdrqaz ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop.
Case opened on 23:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed, however lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.
If you wish to receive updates relating to this case, you may add yourself to the update list for this case. All users except for parties may remove themselves from this list.
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 given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.
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)
- @ 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @ 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)
- 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)
- 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) - Accept per Firefly. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Accept per everybody. Cabayi ( talk) 09:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Accept Maxim ( talk) 13:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision (none yet) Information
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
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 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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
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.