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)
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.
|
Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.
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 consensusparticularly 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]
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) This case concerns editing around Venezuelan politics, with particular focus on the conduct of WMrapids (talk · contribs) and NoonIcarus (talk · contribs).
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)
3) While the case was open, WMrapids (talk · contribs) was CheckUser-blocked. WMrapids has edited in ways that violate the policy on sockpuppetry.
4) WMrapids has engaged in edit warring, battleground behaviour, and personalisation of disputes (SandyGeorgia's evidence and NoonIcarus's evidence).
5) WMrapids and NoonIcarus have repeatedly failed to engage constructively with each other. (Vanamonde93's preliminary statement)
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.
7) Since the expiration of the 2020 restriction, NoonIcarus has engaged in edit warring and battleground behaviour (WMrapids's evidence and NoonIcarus's evidence).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
|
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.
