From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page ( Talk) — Preliminary statements ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk)

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
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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.

Preliminary statements

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 Dustfreeworld 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
  • Where there's a consensus of involved editors to topic ban a contrarian, we ought to be thinking about how to ensure NPOV moving forward.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:56, 2 April 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.
Barkeep49's proposal on word limits would definitely help. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Leaving another link:

@ David Tornheim: Since the ANI was opened in 12 March up to today, I continued editing in the related topics and even translated several articles, without any incidents, suggesting that the topic ban is unnecessary. I'm confident that will be left clear if this case is opened, and I would appreciate you avoid any further well-poisoning. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by WMrapids

Explanation about my evolution editing controversial topics over months and my hiccup with Sandy (sorry again). Plenty of users involved (myself included) have shared their unsympathetic POV towards the Venezuelan government, so leveling accusations of POV editing towards myself and others is unhelpful. Distracting discussions opened were mainly disputes between NoonIcarus, [1] [2] Sandy [3] and I [4] [5] ( I have since stopped opening unnecessary RfCs). My RfCs were due to limited involvement in Venezuelan political topics and stonewalling.

I am slightly opposed to CT designation because:

  1. Limited involvement; CT would prevent involvement from our necessary, newly-interested users
  2. No newer users = stonewalling from POV/existing users
  3. Many dispute discussions (mainly between two users) involved events from years ago ( Venezuelan presidential crisis)
  4. We are already on top of dubious users

As users become involved, we must remember to assume good faith, since I wish this had happened with me. We should wait and see if further problems arise with Venezuelan political articles.

Finally, as for word counts on noticeboards, I'm indifferent. Maybe if I saw more discussion on this, I could make a determination.-- WMrapids ( talk) 15:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but NoonIcarus opened a move discussion in the middle of their ANI to create another Venezuela-related RfC only three months after it was previously opposed. This is similar to when they attempted to force their preferred title of "Guayana Esequiba" after the previous title was changed, attempting to use "Guayana Esequiba" throughout the project, too [6]. This went as far as NoonIcarus edit warring about maintaining "Guayana Esequiba" in links ( example), but I chose to disengage after that. Apparently, they edit warred with a bot due to double redirects too ( [7] [8] [9]). While the topic ban may not fix everything, I'm sure it will help avoid more issues like this.-- WMrapids ( talk) 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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 [10] 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 5 7 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 [11]) . 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. TarnishedPath talk 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. TarnishedPath talk 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. TarnishedPath talk 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; [12] and by one party, serious BLP vios, [13] personalization and aspersions, [14] and sourcing issues to circumvent deprecated sources and create SYNTH/OR resulting in POV [15] and [16], [17]), 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
I (almost entirely) agree with Bobfrombrockley and, still reviewing the diffs having missed almost four months, was also going to lodge a declaration when I found the ANI was closed. I am unconvinced, though, on the Contentious Topics issue. Editing Venezuelan content was always difficult for various reasons, but it did not become a personalized battleground until mid-2023. The drug pricing arbitration showed it helped little to sanction an entire content area to solve an issue furthered by very few editors; those sanctions were never used because the problem was only two or three editors. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:50, 4 April 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 Callanecc

Just noting that I have closed the ANI thread with the following sanction: NoonIcarus is indefinitely community topic banned from Latin American politics, broadly construed. The ArbCom case request and, if opened, pages directly relevant to the case are excluded from the TBAN. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Bobfrombrockley

I came here today to actually argue in the ANI against a topic ban for NoonIcarus, to discover I'd arrived too late. An indefinite topic ban for a generally diligent editor on the basis of some very minor infractions (specifically, being overly finicky in adding "failed verification" tags) seems bizarre and excessive to me. While NoonIcarus should have been sanctioned in some way to cool off the edit warring with WMRapids, it seems clear to me that this was beef between two parties who both behaved problematically while also being dedicated to the WP project. Specifically, WMRapids, who has some valuable strengths as an editor, has a tendency to rapid reverts, sloppy referencing, POV wording, and casting aspersions against other good faith editors who happen to disagree; this clearly goaded NoonIcarus who also reverted too rapidly in response, leading to deadlock. Sanctioning one party only, and indefinitely, is an unfair response to this. A far better response would be to recognise Venezuela as a contentious editing area, similar to Ukraine or Israel/Palestine, and impose more rigorous behavioural guidelines on all editors there, e.g. tighter revert limits. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Goldsztajn

No weatherman is needed to see which way the wind is blowing, so I'll not comment on acceptance or not. I concur with comments above that a CT regime is not necessarily going to resolve issues (also worth highlighting the US post-1992 politics CT regime applies to many parts of this topic already). I would, however, note that I disagree with some of the general commentary that appears here and elsewhere over the recently closed AN/I dicussion; to my reading, all participants were fully aware that there was a longer, convoluted history - this was not simply an issue of mistagged citations. What was crucial to me in terms of my support for a TBAN was the (different) ways in which the parties* in dispute reflected upon their actions, the comparative length by which their actions had been problematic and the extent to which those actions had required previous intervention. But it was the first element that I placed greatest weight upon in reaching my decision. *(Obviously, but so there is no mistake, I am not talking about S Marshall) Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan_politics/Preliminary_statements&oldid=1225583265"