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.

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:

Dustfreeworld saying we need to open a case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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:

Limited involvement; CT would prevent involvement from our necessary, newly-interested users
No newer users = stonewalling from POV/existing users
Many dispute discussions (mainly between two users) involved events from years ago (Venezuelan presidential crisis)
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]

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 [6] 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]

@Callanecc: Thank you for closing the AN/I thread. I believe that will significantly help the situation--as it did the last time the editor was sanctioned, as I explained at the thread. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a number of others [to be named] that GS and/or discretionary sanctions would not be helpful in this topic area.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that NoonIcarus is already skirting his topic ban, per Goldsztajn's observation and this edit, where he adds the label "activist" to Olga Ramos (activist)--an article he just created on March 19, 2024.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:11, 4 April 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 [7]) . 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;[8] and by one party, serious BLP vios,[9] personalization and aspersions,[10] and sourcing issues to circumvent deprecated sources and create SYNTH/OR resulting in POV[11] and [12], [13]), 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]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Venezuelan politics: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Venezuelan politics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I started reading this thread last night and was surprised that the community was indiciating that it needed to come to ArbCom. It seems, ultimately, a dispute between two editors and the community has shown capacity to handle those disputes in nearly all cases. The issue, as much as anything, seems to be why I didn't finish reading the thread: a bunch of long posts. And if that's truly the case, I'm wondering if we couldn't find a way to handle this outside of a case if it's really true that the community can't on its own resolve this. I also can't help but wonder if the community would be interested in GS allowing uninvolved administrators to impose word counts (and perhaps sectioning?) at noticeboards on INVOLVED parties. I look forward to reading more feedback from editors about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector (and others) to be clear I'm not suggesting ArbCom pass any kind of ANI restrictions. It's why I pondered it as GS; something that the community would choose for itself. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those posts where I started writing anticipating I'd do one thing but in laying out my thinking I find that I've convinced myself to do something else. I have now looked at (but not comprehensively read) all of the threads linked to by Vanamonde93. My read is that most of them are really about WMrapids and NoonIcarus. The remainder seem to be things working as designed if passionately so (e.g. RSP disucssion) or older and not particularly hard for admin to have sorted out. I am reasonably convinced from what I've read that the threshold of "the community cannot handle this" has been reached with regards to those two editors. If that's all this was, I would lean against a full case given that "TBAN and/or iBAN" is on the table and could be passed by motion here. However, this would lead to a potentially unfair outcome that is easy but perhaps not just. I might be willing to live with that - my duty isn't to the parties but to the encyclopedia - were it not for the deeper question some have posed. That is "has this not been resolved because of administrator concerns such that would justify adding Venezuelan politics as a contentious topic?". As such I'm at an accept to answer the two questions of how to address the conduct of these two parties and is there sufficient evidence to justify a contentious topic designation. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I sort of indicating at the ANI discussion, I've been predicting this dispute would end up in front of us for the last year or so. Dispute resolution background wise, I see way more than enough to accept a case. But I'm wondering if there are any last minute steps that could be taken. Other than enacting the TBAN consensus at the ANI (although I'm aware that might not completely "solve" the issue here), I think Barkeep's idea about general sanctions limiting word count is a really good idea. I'm also wondering how the community feels about a proposal for general sanctions in the topic area, instead of Arbcom level Contentious topic designation? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl, I'm wondering if the community should/wants to have a discussion about GS. Responses so far seem against that, and Vanamonde93 makes a good point about the dispute resolution process not working. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to accept this given the responses here and the several previous attempts as resolution. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple experienced editors and administrators telling us that community dispute resolution processes have not worked, along with a list of examples. I find Vanamonde93's comment that Venezuelan topics have been consuming a disproportionate share of airtime at the noticeboards for a long time, with a lot of discussions finding problems but not reaching consensus particularly persuasive; it seems regardless of the number of actors involved at present, this issue is sucking up community time without any meaningful improvement to behaviour in the topic area. At present I am leaning toward acceptance. firefly ( t · c ) 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept with a scope along the lines Barkeep49 outlines. firefly ( t · c ) 19:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Firefly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per the others; we should not take the easy route with quick topic bans only to circle back in 6 months because it did not fix the issue. Primefac (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per everybody. Cabayi (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Maxim (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki doxxing

Initiated by TheSpacebook (talk) at 22:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

TheSpacebook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
JPxG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[14]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A AN noticeboard, and an AN incident was closed down, and JPxG refused to concede, even thought most editors agree that I did not engage with doxxing.

[15]
[16]

Statement by TheSpacebook

To clarify, I am against doxxing, and I have never engaged in doxxing. I recently suggested a new BLP policy which would omit the exact location data of notable individuals Wikipedia pages, as I was concerned that musicians Beyoncé and Jay-Z both had their address written in their articles. And the article about their home was titled with their address. I have never encouraged doxxing or applauded it.

For context, I was blocked for canvassing for one week whilst the discussion was ongoing, but was quickly reverted after a few other admins on Wikipedia and some users on Wikipediocracy deemed this block to be unreasonable, so the block caused tensions to increase. I later admitted I did engage with canvassing and acknowledged what I did wrong, and said it wouldn’t happen again. Doxxing occurred on a thread that I opened which I discussed my block, but I didn’t engage in the doxxing and the doxxing was immediately met with fierce condemnation within the forum. I ignored all doxxing. I applauded a message which notified the forum that an admin had unblocked me, the post read Floquenbeam unblocked TheSpacebook. I couldn’t do anything about the doxxing, so I ignored it. It seems out of place for an applause emoji in the mists of the mass condemnation of doxxing.

I have been falsely accused of giving assistance to and applauding someone else of doxxing someone with the user I am seeking dispute resolution as they persist on this false allegation. JPxG said in a title on the Admin noticeboard: Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup when they get blocked for canvassing on Wikipediocracy, as well as assistance in doxing the admin who blocked them?

I applauded a post which said I had been unblocked by an admin, however JPxG alleges in his first post in the sub-thread: where some guy [doxxed] and TheSpacebook's reaction seems to have been to post a clapping emoji [17]

This claim has since been widely refuted as being completely false by many other editors (including other admins), and another admin has now redacted JPxG’s false statement, and warned others to not reinstate this false accusation. Here is an example of another editor confirming that this allegation was completely false, saying I can't see that TheSpacebook was involved in any doxxing. WPO member Vigilant did the doxxing.”([18]) However, later seemingly clarified that I wasn’t “explicitly” involved with doxxing someone, which suggests I may have implicitly involved. Should admins be throwing around these covert-semantics which are extremely serious and damaging allegations to make about someone? [19] Due to the serious nature of the allegation that was made about me, and the possible covert suggestion that I implicitly did it, question is this: Is this how admins are expected to behave, is it in line with their responsibilities to publicly make false accusations about other editors?

And then alleged: I do not think it is a false accusation to describe "TheSpacebook's post in the thread two posts after a post" as "TheSpacebook's reaction" to the post.” [20]

With a number of people refuting his claims: with one user saying Well, it's a fact that Spacebook's post was not reacting to the the post two previous to it. I am looking at the thread right now and Spacebook quotes the post that they are actually reacting to - which is five posts previous, and is simply a link to Floquenbeam unblocking them. [21]

and another saying Yup. We don't always realize it but we all know how this works because we've all been there: you scroll through a thread, you read something, you hit "reply" and reply to it, your reply appears at the bottom, but you haven't yet seen what is below the post you're reading -- between the post you replied to and your reply. Then when you keep reading, you realize your reply comes after something else and now it looks bad in context. [22]

I then opened this up as an admin noticeboard incident, with the closer saying, in part: yes, it is clear from the context that the accusation that you applauded doxxing is false and I would encourage people not to make or repeat any false accusations. [23]

I am seeking a resolution, as after this closed, they persisted and opened up a thread about this titled with the extremely long title Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup when they get blocked for canvassing on Wikipediocracy in which, two posts after some separate unrelated Wikipediocracy user, who is not them, and is instead a different person, doxes the blocking administrator, they post a post, in such a manner as does not necessarily entail approval or direct response, consisting of a clapping emoji, formatted as a reply to a different post in the thread, but nonetheless making the casual implication (not the strict definition of implication as employed in formal logic) that they, the user who started the thread, did not see fit to comment on the post doxing the administrator? here: [24]

The resolution I’m looking for is that JPxG is not allowed to harass me any longer about this issue and that they stop falsely accusing me of giving assistance to doxxing.

[in response to Barkeep49, 22:45, 2 April] My apologies, that’ll be all the links. Thank you for letting me know. Do I have to do anything now, or has it been granted?TheSpacebook (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

I have apparently now also been doxed in the Wikipediocracy thread under discussion, so my desire to participate in this dispute overall is waning.

It was impossibly stupid of me to post the original AN thread instead of submitting evidence privately. It was also very stupid to continue the argument for as long as I did prior to disengaging.

My general impression is that if I am in an argument, and another administrator leaves me a talk page note with the section title 'friendly advice', this means it is time for me to shut up and abandon the argument; ideally I would have stopped long before this point, and failing to do so was extremely dumb. I have no plans to interact further with the complainant, and apologize for the inconvenience.

While my phrasing may have been vague, and I was/am willing to amend my comments, I would prefer not to repeatedly accused of lying (and would appreciate if people look at the diffs of what I said and read the actual words; i.e. claiming a sentence said a thing was true when it actually said the thing was false).

If the Committee would like me to provide any additional information, I would be glad to provide it.

Statement by Hurricane Noah

I urge the committee to decline as this is premature and seems to be blown way out of proportion as a result of JPxG's frustration and unwillingness to drop the stick. I don't see how this isn't something that the community can handle. If there are continuing issues between these two editors, surely the community can solve them. We haven't really been given much opportunity to do so and I believe that a (temporary) two-way interaction ban prohibiting both parties from mentioning or communicating with each other would end this specific issue. Noah, AA^Talk 22:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acalamari

Suggest banning OP at this point, since I've seen their name come up all day at the drama boards. When even I notice someone appear in my watchlist that often in such a short space of time, it can't be a good sign. Acalamari 23:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

I have no involvement in this case, but I have been observing some of it. TheSpacebook:

You were repeatedly cautioned about excessive editing of your comments here. You were even blocked for the behavior [25]. Despite this, you posted this request to the wrong location, the talk page of this page [26], rapidly copy edited it two times, [27][28], then realized you'd posted it in the wrong place [29]. After taking 40 minutes, you then posted the request here on this page [30], and then copy edited it five more times [31][32][33][34][35]. A minute later, you replied to Barkeep49, and then copy edited that too [36]. I don't know that I would have initially blocked you for this behavior. However, your continued insistence in engaging in this behavior despite being warned, despite being blocked, is well into block territory now. For the love of all that is holy Please...PLEASE...learn to use the "Show preview" ability of the editing interface.
At 21:33 2 April 2024, you note appreciation for mediation and ask 28bytes to post similar to JPxG. 28bytes does this at 21:40 [37], but you're not satisfied and just 7 minutes later begin attempting to post this complaint here. Really?
You claim that your statement is too long because of the links. Removing the links, and it's 869 words, still WELL above the 500 allowed.
The threads regarding this incident are both less than two days old. While they are acrimonious and convoluted, there's been precious little time for this to work itself out.

TheSpacebook, I strongly recommend you disengage and walk away from this incident. To the committee, I recommend you decline this case as wildly premature. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

At this point I think we're being trolled. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first arbitrator comment below seems to question whether the reversal of TheSpacebook's block for off-wiki canvassing was correct. I stand by my grounds for recommending that the block be lifted. These included that TheSpacebook appeared to be acting in good faith to address a legitimate BLP issue, and my general opinion that in any context, a good-faith editor with no block history should generally be warned before blocking, which was not done here, unless the misconduct was both serious and obvious. Lifting the block did not require resolving the dispute over whether TheSpacebook had or had not violated the letter or spirit of WP:CANVASS. (I have opined before that our anti-canvassing policy is often problematic and could benefit from rethinking, but that is not the stuff of an arbitration case.)
Some of the editor comments below suggest that my use of the word "trolled" might have been too harsh. I think how TheSpacebook behaves over the next day or two may shed light on whether my first impression (of good-faith editor perhaps moving too quickly) or my later impression (of possibly something other than that) was correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

If this case is accepted, one aspect of it needs to be how external criticism websites and their interaction with Wikipedia has changed since MGO/ATK. (I don't consider SCE or WTC to fit here for this purpose; SCE was about a group doing its best to edit within Wikipedia guidelines and WTC revolved around Discord.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Fucking hell. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IgnatiusofLondon

I concur entirely with Hurricane Noah. I recommend that this case be speedily declined as premature, and I recommend a temporary interaction ban between the parties. Both parties are escalating this conflict; both parties need to take a walk. Having extensively interacted with the filing editor on article expansions and on their talk page, I believe they are an enthusiastic new editor with a fair grasp of policy who could have a lot to contribute to the project, but they are currently running headfirst towards an indefinite block. TheSpacebook needs to learn how to assume good faith, be patient, and only escalate disagreements to the appropriate venue (within-wiki) when absolutely necessary. They are not making new mistakes; they are repeating the same ones. To stop burning editors' goodwill, they should rush to demonstrate that they have the competence to accept and learn through their inexperience. Expressing a desire to withdraw this case, if possible, would be a good place to start. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

Levivich seems to think (possibly sarcastically, possibly not, I’m unclear) that this is my fault for undoing GN’s block of the filing party. Maybe I’m a party? But I think that, if an uninvolved admin were to be allowed to interaction ban these two editors, the problem could be solved. The spacebook is an expert in being his own worst enemy, and is becoming indistinguishable from a troll, but I don’t think they are. They should follow the advice of multiple, multiple editors to drop the stick. But just blocking the newer editor would be a mistake. JPxG has acted in a manner inconsistent with being an admin, but I’m thinking maybe this is a one off, and maybe if i-banned they would get the message. —Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall

DNFTT.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giraffer

While I don't have any thoughts on the merit of the request, I think it's pretty incredible that we're still going with the narrative that a user who's been around for less than a month, blocked twice for unrelated reasons, and is currently at the centre of canvassing and doxxing allegations relating to posts an off-wiki site known for harassing Wikipedians, is a good-faith contributor who is here to be a net positive. This is either trolling or disruptive editing to the point of being indistinguishable from it. Giraffer (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

This should be swiftly declined as it is something that can be resolved at ANI, whether it is an interaction ban between the parties, or a NOTHERE block for the OP for wasting the community's time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EggRoll97

This has to be the most ridiculous request ever heard in the halls of ArbCom. The user is clearly unable to drop the stick, but frankly that should have been something resolved with a block of the filer of this case (which still isn't a bad idea), not an ARC on JPxG, who acted, in my view, in good faith. Meanwhile, the filer of this ARC has exhausted all of the community's good faith that can be given, and should have been boomerang'ed by now. Of course, WP:DENY comes into this, like S Marshall says, and I don't honestly get why this is being seriously entertained, given the filer is clearly unduly escalating this dispute way farther than necessary. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

The committee should decline, obviously, since we've not reached "last resort" territory. That said, I don't think TheSpacebook is trolling. Their filing here was procedurally wrong, not substantively so. JPxG made some false accusations against TS and wouldn't fully back down from them. I would have been incensed, and if I had been newer I might have start a premature ArbCom case request. I'm happy to see JPxG stepping away voluntarily, and given the serious concerns on all sides (doxxing, BLP vio, etc.), I would urge us all to call these missteps what they were and move on with no further action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to be out of step with so many editors and admins I respect who see TS as a troll. If anyone is feeling generous with their time and wouldn't mind explaining their thoughts further, I'd appreciate it. Here or at my user talk would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

Few things on Wikipedia surprise me anymore, but I'm a wee bit surprised that the filer hasn't been indeffed yet. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Doxxing)

This case is all too similar to the case filed a few days ago by Thinker78 in that it is a complaint by a user who was blocked and is bitter about the block. Maybe the filing editor hasn't noticed that Thinker78 will probably be banned, and, if not, sanctioned in some way. The filing editor is in any case fortunate that Requests for Arbitration are one of the very few forums where the boomerang principle does not apply. That is, vexatious litigation doesn't result in a block by ArbCom, but vexatious filers usually wind up being blocked for their conduct anyway. ArbCom won't warn User:TheSpacebook, but they should take the comments of other editors as a warning. I respectfully disagree with editors who think that the filer is trolling. I think that the filer is being a serious vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up Comment

User:Newyorkbrad makes the distinction between a good-faith editor moving too quickly and something other than that, and also wonders whether we are being trolled. Trolling is not the only form of bad-faith editing, and I don't think that Newyorkbrad is saying that it is. I think that we are dealing with an editor who is here to Right Small Wrongs, which involves Identifying Small Wrongs and arguing about them. That isn't trolling. Whether it is considered misguided good-faith editing depends on your definition of good-faith editing. Thinker78 has been banned for fighting to Right Small Wrongs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon Courage

ScottishFinnishRadish puts it well. I think this is just a case of an admin making an oopsie and the wronged party over-milking it rather than letting it recede in the rear-view mirror.

On a side note, maybe there should be the explicit possibility of a boomerang for vexatious case requests? Recent history suggests having an apparently repercussion-free space for general grievance can invite requests that end up sucking an awful lot of time and effort. Bon courage (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LilianaUwU

So, why hasn't TheSpacebook been reblocked yet? It seems like a clear cut case that they're not here to build an encyclopedia. They're obviously wasting our time with this, and indeffing them would stop wasting our time. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

The Spacebook: Just ... stop posting about the topic now. Seriously. Someone will block you for editing indistinguishable from trolling at some point, regardless of your initial intentions, and it'll probably be indefinite this time.
JPxG: How on earth are we supposed to take you seriously as an admin when you're (a) incapable of reading a simple web page (b) make a false statement based on your error (c) need to have the title of your posting redacted by another admin (d) are then told by multiple experienced editors that you've got it wrong ... and then (e) when another experienced admin quite sensibly hats the section where you're making yourself took silly, 18 minutes later you open another one with this utterly nonsensical title and text? Frankly, you couldn't have complained if someone had actually blocked you for trolling as well. Black Kite (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nigel Ish

Neither of the parties have exactly covered themselves with glory here - but this probably doesn't really need Arbcom to sort this out. It just needs both parties to acknowledge that if they continue to demand satisfaction, then the one thing that will be guaranteed is that neither will get it. Perhaps trouts all round (and perhaps Arbcom can have a quiet chat to T&S and/or legal about off site harassment and what can be done to discourage it).Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

Per NYB, Yeah, I think we're being trolled. Per Black Kite, not only by The Spacebook. Had just this edit—this single edit—been made by any ordinary editor, who had already had a bizarrely-titled thread (which itself had already needed a redaction!) closed by an admin, they would have been blocked immediately. Feet would not have touched the ground. Not because it's harmful, but because, like most low-level trolling, it demonstrates contempt for both everyone else in the conversation and for their volunteer time and energy. ——Serial Number 54129 11:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: ...Cool. So how many words am I allowed then? ;) ——Serial Number 54129 15:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

Either we are being trolled, or they lack the competence to be here. Either way, this is disruptive to the point that it exceeds the threshold necessary for an indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector (fucking hell)

I concur entirely with ScottishFinnishRadish.

This will be the second time today that I'm going to suggest that the filer of a case request should read WP:CAPITULATE; the first was directed at an editor who shortly afterwards was banned by the community. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:QEDK

The filer needs to drop the WP:STICK. This case has no merit. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Just Step Sideways

I can see this is probably headed for a decline, and that's probably fine, but I'd just like to say that I've also been on the receiving end of someone blaming me for someone else's comments in a thread on an offsite forum. We wouldn't do that here, would we? We would hold the person who actually made the offending comment accountable, wouldn't we? It seems clear that there is a double standard at play, where comments or actions that would be acceptable if they were here are seen by some as somehow magically made very bad and sanctionable by making them on offsite forums. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: What I am saying is if someone posted doxxing in a thread at say, WP:AN, we would block that person. We wouldn't blame the person who started the thread for someone else's behavior. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Off-wiki doxxing: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

@‌TheSpacebook: your initial statement is above 500 words granted to editors (by my count 874). You are granted an extension to 1000 for replies to arbitrators. If you need more than this please request an extension first. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSpacebook I advise you to read the box at the top of the page. There are many special rules for ArbCom. One of them is you may only reply in your own section. This section can only be used by clerks and arbitrators. You have an extension to 1000 words already. That gives you ~125 more. Any more than that and you will need to ask first for an extension. Instructions on how to do that are in the box I mentioned. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSpacebook The links have been reformatted to diffs to aid readability for other users, if you wish to revert this action your welcome to do so. Amortias (T)(C) 22:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the case as a clerking action. The name of sections is an important element of this case and so rather than continue what has happened at AN, I've taken this step. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the non-filing party. Amortias (T)(C) 23:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki doxxing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I think starting jpxg starting the AN thread was a mistake by making this a much higher visibility/stakes situation than it needed to be. I think the initial rush to say that no canvassing occurred was a premature interpretation of the guideline and the later comments that have pointed out stealth canvassing is inappropriate and strongly discouraged would have helped a more fully considered decision to be reached regarding the block. I think jpxg repeatedly raising the stakes in order to make his point about canvassing and doxxing was not what I expect from an administrator. I think beyond any errors that could be forgiven as a new editor, TheSpacebook has bludgeoned that conversation and otherwise attempted to raise the stakes themselves numerous times. However, TheSpacebook is not an administrator and absent an administrator conduct case involve JPxG, I do not think TheSpacebook's conduct rises to the level of ArbCom. The only question for me is whether there is cause for an administrator conduct case against JPxG because that's all that the community would need arbcom to handle. I will wait to see if any further evidence is submitted about that, but if none does I plan to vote to decline this request as a series of mistakes in a single incident. To quote some oft used arbcom principles, occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship and administrators are not expected to be perfect and that's what would seemed to have happened here. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: my read is that people were saying "bad block because it was not canvassing" and people were saying "bad block because it is too punitive/dispropriationate" (and some people were saying both). I offer no opinion about the the second reason - which is what I read you as having advocated. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline per my previous comments. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. TheSpacebook needs to step back from this entire topic area for a bit, and as stated by Barkeep49 this singular incident does not seem to be an ADMINCOND issue that needs investigation. Primefac (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG's comment It was impossibly stupid of me to post the original AN thread instead of submitting evidence privately. It was also very stupid to continue the argument for as long as I did prior to disengaging. sums up their portion of this mess nicely, and their submission here displays the self-reflection we want to see from advanced permission holders. Floq's statement They should follow the advice of multiple, multiple editors to drop the stick. aligns with my feelings about TheSpacebook - please listen to the advice you have received - but like Barkeep49, I do not believe that aspect needs ArbCom involvement. Absent any revelatory new evidence I am planning to vote to decline this later today. firefly ( t · c ) 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. firefly ( t · c ) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Step Sideways - who do you believe is the person who actually made the offending comment we should be holding accountable? firefly ( t · c ) 21:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just Step Sideways - I agree. From what I can see, a false accusation was made at the AN thread and it was removed and redacted swiftly. While the fact the accusation was made at all is obviously not what we want to see, I don't think what we have here is enough to motivate an ADMINCOND case, absent evidence of a pattern of poor judgment. firefly ( t · c ) 21:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Jesus wept. Everyone who has commented here should be required to add the same word count in sourced content to an article before they do anything else on this site. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per Primefac. Maxim (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]