Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Expression error: Unexpected mod operator

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. I think this encompasses the salient points more than proposed principles 3 & 4. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. I think that elaborating further on this principle is not a bad thing. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. There are some key exceptions when finding "common ground" is inappropriate, such as BLP violations, but in general I agree with this statement. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC
7. firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

9a) In certain circumstances, the Committee may overturn or reduce a sanction imposed by the community. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, cases where (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or CheckUser data, is relevant to the decision.

Support:

1. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I agree ArbCom can take over a community restriction in some circumstances. However, I find this to be a poor principle explaining way we'd do so here and don't find the case it originated with - Betacommand - a particularly close parallel. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. While this is not a novel principle (being used in Shakespeare authorship question in 2011 and Betacommand 3 in 2012), this wording does not reflect how extraordinary the circumstances should be in order for the Arbitration Committee to usurp and recind a decision made by community consensus, particularly with regard to (3) and changing circumstances. The community is able to assess and address changing circumstances with regards to prior community-imposed sanctions, and the example in (3) is not in and of itself enough to warrant the Arbitration Committee stepping in. - Aoidh (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. I disagree that we have would review a community sanction because of a change in circumstances since the sanction was imposed. The arbitration policy does list "hear[ing] appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users" as one of the committee's responsibilities, although that's substantially been reduced in its practical extent over the years. It is not unreasonable that we would help out if the discussion or sanction was somehow blatantly unfair/excessive/overbroad, but that is documented more in WP:UNBAN than in arbitration-space (and I suspect that nowadays, a committee would do more good in such a case with soft power instead of an edict). Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. While not wrong, I think explicitly including this principle isn't necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. While we technically have the ability to overturn/modify sanctions imposed by the Community thanks to the policy, I do not think that this proposal sufficiently captures the situations in which we would do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cabayi (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. This is not an unreasonable Principle but those opposed make reasonable arguments against it. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

9b) In certain circumstances, such as when non-public information is involved or the issue at hand is subsumed by Arbitration proceedings, the Arbitration Committee may assume or modify a sanction imposed by the community.

Support:

Oppose:

1. I don't think the Arbitration Committee's subsumption of an issue is a sufficient reason to assume or modify a community-imposed sanction. - Aoidh (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. While not wrong, I think explicitly including this principle isn't necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with Aoidh. I would need truly extraordinary circumstances for us to do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. A true statement, but one that ultimately does not have bearing on this case. Primefac (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cabayi (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed as an alternative taking into account the (entirely valid) views of Barkeep49 and Aoidh above. firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly, I did a general copyedit of your proposal, but it's a bit more substantial than I anticipated, so please revert if you disagree. Maxim (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim much better - no objections at all! firefly ( t · c ) 09:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support:

1. While I am sympathetic to WMrapids comment about the locus of the dispute, the text itself does strike me as accurate. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cabayi (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. If I may, perhaps the locus of the case became so due to our designation of case scope (in other words, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy). Either way, this was the way the case unfolded. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)

Support:

1. I agree with this, though I remain unsure about whether it is to the degree necessary to support contentious topic restrictions and plan to more comprehensively review the evidence before voting on that. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cabayi (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. I completely disagree with the way WMrapids characterized their socking. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Like Barkeep, I reject WMrapids' reasoning for socking. Interacting with the same people with several undisclosed accounts is wrong. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cabayi (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. I agree with the text of the finding, but disagree with Barkeep's reading of their intentions. The WMrapids account was created in 2014 and began editing in Venezuelan politics in 2023. I do not think that the account was created with the intention of violating our sockpuppetry policy and do not think that the edits in Venezuelan politics were done because they wanted to deceive others: perhaps this was a case of things snowballing. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. The list of edit warring diffs at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive470 § User:WMrapids reported by User:NoonIcarus (Result: No violation), provided by WMrapids themselves, was particularly interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. In addition to Vanamonde93's statement, I have also seen several diffs in the evidence phase that demonstrate this to be true. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cabayi (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Maxim (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

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.

1a) The domestic and international politics of Venezuela are designated as a contentious topic.

Support:

Oppose:

1. I am not seeing enough disruption to merit a CTOP designation; very little of the presented evidence includes editors other than NoonIcarus and WMrapids. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. The case's evidence phase focused on the conduct of two editors: I would want to see evidence of sustained significant disruption by several editors before placing this designation. I am not convinced by arguments for CT presented in Robert McClenon's workshop or SandyGeorgia's workshop analysis (and am more convinced by Sandy's arguments against CT) because there is no indication that significant disruption in this topic area would continue if these editors were not present. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. After re-reviewing the evidence from the FoF, I agree with Primefac. Giving a full chance for evidence to be presented that there is a deeper problem is half of why I didn't awnt to just deal with this via motion (the other half being that some deeper look into the two main players felt appropriate) and for there not to be doesn't mean this case was a failure. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. The FoFs suggest a dispute that is generally between two users. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Two editors do not make the topic contentious. Cabayi (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I take seriously the comments of two editors who've been active in this topic area who are not party to this case that ArbCom is making a mistake by not making this a CT. I'm not convinced yet, but had been noodling on a remedy (based off the Horn of Africa motion) along the lines of

This would give time for us to gather evidence that it's not about the two central people, while sunsetting it should there not be a need. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 I would support a remedy along these lines. firefly ( t · c ) 18:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could be reasonable -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, Guerillero I have proposed this. firefly ( t · c ) 10:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1b) The domestic and international politics of Venezuela are designated as a contentious topic for a trial period of 18 months. After 12 months any editor may ask the Committee to make this designation permanent; if no such decision is made, the designation will lapse at the end of the 18 month period. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures if the trial ends without the designation being made permanent.

Support:

1. firefly ( t · c ) 10:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. One the one hand, I'm not convinced it is needed because this case seemed to centre on two editors. On the other hand, having a CTOP that sunsets allows the community and arbitrators to deal with issues while expiring the CTOP if it is not needed. Since several editors in this topic area have indicated that this might help on the PD's talk page, I am willing to defer to their judgment and monitor the situation. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The evidence in this case shows issues primarily with two editors, both of which are currently barred from editing this topic area, but does not demonstrate that there is any outstanding issue outside of those two editors that would warrant making this a contentious topic. - Aoidh (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have been bouncing back and forth between abstention and opposition for a few days now. This is not an unreasonable proposal, and might "do no harm" as Barkeey49 has implied, but as Aoidh has stated there is no real indication that the issues affecting this topic area spread beyond the two named parties. I can sympathise with the concerns expressed on the talk page about possible issues, but I do not think ArbCom should be passing remedies based on hints, allegations, and things yet to be said. If the talk page predictions prove to be true we can always amend the case by motion. Primefac (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Two editors are insufficient reason for a CTOP. Per PF. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. My thinking is similar to Primefac's; I'd rather revisit the issue at ARCA should it come up. Maxim (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I don't know that the case for this is all that strong. But there is a case for it and if it turns out to really have been about the two editors rather than the topic area (as I suspect) this does no harm. So while I don't want to support it I also don't oppose it and thus here I am. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm not opposed to this and I like the idea of a trial period for a contentious topic designation, but the case is mostly about issues between two users and both can't edit about the topic anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

2a) NoonIcarus' topic ban from Latin American politics is assumed by the Arbitration Committee and rescinded.

Support:

Oppose:

1. There are no extraordinary circumstances in this case that would warrant the Arbitration Committee overriding community consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per #Recidivism, I don't see this as viable. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. I see no extraordinary reason to do this. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. I don't understand why this was even proposed. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. firefly ( t · c ) 19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cabayi (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

2b) NoonIcarus' topic ban from Latin American politics is assumed by the Arbitration Committee. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. Per #Recidivism, I think this is our only option --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Iff Remedy 1 passes, otherwise opposed, per Barkeep49's comment below. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. As we're leaning to passing an interaction ban for NoonIcarus, I'm not a fan of having him have to appeal one sanction in the topic area at one venue, and then another sanction in the same topic area in a different venue. I don't want to make a habit of assuming community sanctions, but in this case, it is the more procedurally fair approach. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Maxim. firefly ( t · c ) 18:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm here for now, in order to keep appeals in one place. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my and Barkeep49's comments below. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't believe there's a compelling reason for this, particularly the 12 month moratorium on appeals. - Aoidh (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. The principle laying the spadework for this isn't passing. That, and there being no pressing need for the committee to step in, leads me to oppose. Cabayi (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per my and PF's comments below. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Aoidh (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

At the moment I am leaning towards opposing this; the community has imposed a restriction, and it has not yet been in place long enough to indicate whether NoonIcarus will be able to abide by it. In other words, despite the recidivism I am not seeing a reason why we need to take it over. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It makes appeals cleaner --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided at the moment. I am interested in reading what my colleagues think. Is allowing a "cleaner" appeals process through ArbCom worth removing this from the community review? Z1720 (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided as well but I think an intersection of ArbCom imposed contentious topics, ArbCom imposed 1 or 0 rr, and community imposed topic ban is a quagmire of enforcement that places an unfair burden on NI, administrators wishing to sanction, and any community member who might wish to request a sanction. Now neither of those arbcom pieces is definitely happening and if either one doesn't happen (especially CT) I become a little less concerned about the interaction pieces. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BK's point above. I will want to see what happens with remedy 1 before voting on this as that will determine my vote for this. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3a) NoonIcarus is placed under a zero-revert restriction. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Oppose:

1. There might be enough evidence to write an FoF that would support a revert restriction (more likely, as noted below a 1rr) but I don't think the current findings of fact support this restriction. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Evidence for edit warring as described in the NoonIcarus' behaviour FoF appears to be entirely within the scope of Latin American politics, which they are currently indefinitely topic-banned from. - Aoidh (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Aoidh. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Too extreme for the evidence presented. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. NoonIcarus has already been topic banned by the community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I am torn between this 0rr or a potential 1rr --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3b) NoonIcarus is placed under a one-revert restriction. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. I see evidence that 1RR is needed, as 3RR was violated and made this situation worse. I would rather that this be imposed now, and later NoonIcarus can submit a request to remove it that outlines their understanding of what they did wrong and how it will be avoided in the future. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my comment above at 3a. - Aoidh (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Aoidh. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm a weak oppose here. Feels like 1RR would be appropriate as a condition for removing any topic ban but maybe isn't needed on its own. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per BK. A 1RR in the topic area might be useful if a TBAN were not already in place. A 1RR across the board? No. Cabayi (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. NoonIcarus has already been topic banned by the community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I am adding this as a proposed remedy due to the discussion above. I am still considering how I will vote in the remedies. I also renamed 3a to differentiate between that and 3b Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still deciding if this is necessary. On the one hand, the disruption happened in one area of the project: the problem might be solved if they are topic banned from that area. On the other hand, when editors do actions in contravene to our policies and guidelines, I would like them to demonstrate that they know what they did wrong and how to prevent it happening again (usually done in the form of an appeal). I think 12 months is too long before appealing, but I would entertain a shorter timeframe. Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. only choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aoidh (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Z1720 (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. There is no way, based on the evidence we have, that WMrapids block should remained one imposed by a single checkuser. That block needs to be assumed by the committee and since this is the option on the table I am supporting this. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. firefly ( t · c ) 19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4b) WMrapids is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Oppose:

1. This editor has been disruptively editing this topic area for a while and their use of socks enabled them to edit disruptively for longer than if they had not socked. It strikes me as wildly inappropriate to unblock them given the facts behind the socking and the way that they attempt to brush off responsibility for the genuine harm and disruption they've caused to the Wikipedia community. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Absolutely not. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Aoidh (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'd want to see evidence that WMrapids understands why they were blocked, and how they would prevent the behaviour from happening again, before considering this. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not entirely sure why we'd even consider this given the evidence we have. firefly ( t · c ) 19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cabayi (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. At a minimum. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. firefly ( t · c ) 19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Very mild support. I'm very sympathetic to Guerillero's thinking here, but I also think that the set of circumstances justifying a site ban are similar but not identical to the circumstances justifying to a topic ban. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. I would rather this be on the books for if/when WMrapids successfully appeals their block; I have been in the position of asking whether a topic ban should be imposed at the time of unblocking for a case I was not a part of, and I would rather not foist that responsibility on a future Committee given how clear the evidence is against them in this case. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. While I agree with Guerillero's comment that the unbanning committee can figure this out they can do so just as easily from the starting point that this topic ban is in place and notes this committee's opinion. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The unbanning committee can figure this out --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

6) WMrapids is placed under a zero-revert restriction. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. Second choice to 4a. - Aoidh (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This should be considered if/when WMrapids is unblocked, but not now. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Without prejudice against making this an unban condition one day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Not an inappropriate striction but also one that could be agreeded to if/when WMrapids is ever unblocked. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. The unbanning committee can figure this out --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think imposing a topic ban concurrently with a site-ban (assuming both pass) is reasonable, however I think that revert restrictions can be handled at a future unblock if we get to that point. firefly ( t · c ) 19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. A general 0RR for a topic area issue, when a topic ban, and a ban is already in place. Seems too much & unnecessary. Cabayi (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Even with the ban, stopping sniping by NI about WM would be a good path forward --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Aoidh (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'm not normally much of a fan of passing an iban for someone indefinitely blocked as a sockmaster, but this does feel appropriate given the desire among some to see that block reversed. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Barkeep49. firefly ( t · c ) 19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. I'd rather set the first appeal date for this remedy at 12 months from a successful appeal any editing bans, but yes, it'll do. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

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

Comments:

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Primefac (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 15:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) by Maxim.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	10	0	0		·
2	Standards of editor behavior	10	0	0		·
3	Edit warring	9	0	0		·
4	Tendentious editing	9	0	0		·
5	Sockpuppetry	10	0	0		·
6	Recidivism	10	0	0		·
7	Building consensus	10	0	0		·
8	Ideological disputes	10	0	0		·
9a	Review of community sanctions	2	5	1		·
9b	Review of community sanctions (alt)	0	4	0		Cannot pass
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of the dispute	10	0	0		·
2	Dispute resolution	9	0	0		·
3	Use of multiple accounts	9	0	0		·
4	WMrapids' behaviour	8	0	0		·
5	Interpersonal issues	9	0	0		·
6	NoonIcarus' sanction history	9	0	0		·
7	NoonIcarus' behaviour	5	0	2		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1a	Contentious topic designation	0	8	0		Cannot pass
1b	Contentious topic designation (alt)	3	2	2		·
2a	NoonIcarus' community topic ban rescinded	0	9	0		Cannot pass
2b	NoonIcarus' community topic ban assumed	4	4	0		·
3a	NoonIcarus zero-revert restriction	0	7	0		Cannot pass
3b	NoonIcarus one-revert restriction	1	6	0		·
4a	WMrapids banned	8	0	0		·
4b	WMrapids unblocked with a one-account restriction	0	9	0		Cannot pass
5	WMrapids topic banned	8	0	1		·
6	WMrapids revert restriction	1	3	4		·	1 second choice to 4a
7	Interaction ban	9	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default

Notes

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

1. I think we're ready to close. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Maxim (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments