User talk:WMrapids

Appeal request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

WMrapids (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well, seeing how things are developing, it may be more appropriate to provide a public explanation since other users may be skeptical or have lost trust in me. After discussing the situation with an administrator and reviewing some policies on the appeal process, I wanted to wait about a week before making an appeal as I did not want to be disruptive. It's true, I had a second account (with a little over 100 edits) that I initially used for privacy reasons believing it was a legitimate use, though when I was drawn into controversial topics on this main account, I stopped editing with the second account to avoid inappropriate interactions. After some discussions and reviewing policy, I now know that what I did was inappropriate and understand why my account was blocked out of caution. While a block was a valid decision, I want to appeal for an unblock and guarantee to you all that I have learned my lesson that having a second undisclosed account was a mistake.

When the block occurred, I was initially confused since I did not participate in acts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban or sanction" (see "This page in a nutshell"). I reviewed my main interactions between my two accounts; they were primarily due to a category being placed in a range of related articles and some prose additions that were not made in any deceitful manner to affect consensus or edit conflicts whatsoever. Confused by this, my first UTRS appeal request was a failure and denied because I was primarily asking what had happened since I genuinely didn't understand what I had done improper. After discussing the situation with the administrator that denied the first appeal, they explained that any interaction whatsoever between the accounts was a violation and that I could have disclosed the links privately to administrators. All of this was new to me and I now comprehend this clearly. Since I did not have any malicious intent with having two accounts, I did not know that such behavior was a policy violation or that I could have made a private disclosure. This is still no excuse and it truly was my ignorance of policy which caused me to be blocked. On my part, I want to explain that my original intention was to use my second account for sensitive topics (politics, etc.) and my main account for local editing since I did not want individuals who disagreed with any edits knowing where I live (just look at my username...), believing that a second account for legitimate use was appropriate for privacy. While some may question this motive, it was not done to avoid scrutiny in any way either since the edits on my second account were quite limited in number.

So, now that this can of worms has now been opened, I'm a little bit more comfortable with addressing all of this publicly with the community. To sum things up, I made a mistake and should have reviewed sockpuppet policy more thoroughly before having two accounts. I’m not here to excuse my actions at all, I only wanted to provide my rationale concerning my own privacy. I apologize for this disruption and can promise that this will not happen again as I take pride in being accountable for my actions. If this main account were to be unblocked, I want my second account to remain blocked and I agree to not edit the articles where these interactions occurred. While also seeing another user recommended a clean start, I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time; it really is the last place I want to be (see section "Thanks for the tag" on my talk page since a link here creates an error). The evidence really does suggest that Venezuelan politics should be recognized as a contentious topic.

Hopefully these requests demonstrate that I have learned my lesson and that the previous interactions had no deeper motive nor have any future motive. Since warmer weather is approaching here, I also want to share that I really want to only focus on local topics for awhile and contribute with more location images moving forward (I'm over the drama). While this request may be procedurally declined (I'm not sure if a UTRS request is the same as this), this request still helps me feel better since I want to ensure to the Wikipedia community that I am being as transparent as possible for you all. I have nothing to hide and if any other user has questions or concerns, feel free to comment here on my talk page. WMrapids (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Well, seeing how things are developing, it may be more appropriate to provide a public explanation since other users may be skeptical or have lost trust in me. After discussing the situation with an administrator and reviewing some policies on the appeal process, I wanted to wait about a week before making an appeal as I did not want to be disruptive. It's true, I had a second account (with a little over 100 edits) that I initially used for privacy reasons believing it was a [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]], though when I was drawn into controversial topics on this main account, I stopped editing with the second account to avoid inappropriate interactions. After some discussions and reviewing policy, I now know that what I did was inappropriate and understand why my account was blocked out of caution. While a block was a valid decision, I want to appeal for an unblock and guarantee to you all that I have learned my lesson that having a second undisclosed account was a mistake. When the block occurred, I was initially confused since I did not participate in acts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban or sanction" (see [[WP:SOCK|"This page in a nutshell"]]). I reviewed my main interactions between my two accounts; they were primarily due to a category being placed in a range of related articles and some prose additions that were not made in any deceitful manner to affect consensus or edit conflicts whatsoever. Confused by this, my first UTRS appeal request was a failure and denied because I was primarily asking what had happened since I genuinely didn't understand what I had done improper. After discussing the situation with the administrator that denied the first appeal, they explained that ''any'' interaction whatsoever between the accounts was a violation and that I could have disclosed the links privately to administrators. All of this was new to me and I now comprehend this clearly. Since I did not have any malicious intent with having two accounts, I did not know that such behavior was a policy violation or that I could have made a private disclosure. This is still no excuse and it truly was my ignorance of policy which caused me to be blocked. On my part, I want to explain that my original intention was to use my second account for sensitive topics (politics, etc.) and my main account for local editing since I did not want individuals who disagreed with any edits knowing where I live (just look at my username...), believing that a second account for [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]] was appropriate for privacy. While some may question this motive, it was not done to avoid [[WP:SCRUTINY|scrutiny]] in any way either since the edits on my second account were quite limited in number. So, now that this can of worms has now been opened, I'm a little bit more comfortable with addressing all of this publicly with the community. To sum things up, I made a mistake and should have reviewed sockpuppet policy more thoroughly before having two accounts. I’m not here to excuse my actions at all, I only wanted to provide my rationale concerning my own privacy. I apologize for this disruption and can promise that this will not happen again as I take pride in being accountable for my actions. If this main account were to be unblocked, I want my second account to remain blocked and I agree to not edit the articles where these interactions occurred. While also seeing another user recommended a [[WP:CLEANSTART|clean start]], I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time; it really is the last place I want to be (see section "Thanks for the tag" on my talk page since a link here creates an error). The evidence really does suggest that Venezuelan politics should be recognized as a [[WP:CTOP|contentious topic]]. Hopefully these requests demonstrate that I have learned my lesson and that the previous interactions had no deeper motive nor have any future motive. Since warmer weather is approaching here, I also want to share that I really want to only focus on local topics for awhile and contribute with more location images moving forward (I'm over the drama). While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Composing_your_request_to_be_unblocked this request may be procedurally declined] (I'm not sure if a UTRS request is the same as this), this request still helps me feel better since I want to ensure to the Wikipedia community that I am being as transparent as possible for you all. I have nothing to hide and if any other user has questions or concerns, feel free to comment here on my talk page. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids#top|talk]]) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Well, seeing how things are developing, it may be more appropriate to provide a public explanation since other users may be skeptical or have lost trust in me. After discussing the situation with an administrator and reviewing some policies on the appeal process, I wanted to wait about a week before making an appeal as I did not want to be disruptive. It's true, I had a second account (with a little over 100 edits) that I initially used for privacy reasons believing it was a [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]], though when I was drawn into controversial topics on this main account, I stopped editing with the second account to avoid inappropriate interactions. After some discussions and reviewing policy, I now know that what I did was inappropriate and understand why my account was blocked out of caution. While a block was a valid decision, I want to appeal for an unblock and guarantee to you all that I have learned my lesson that having a second undisclosed account was a mistake. When the block occurred, I was initially confused since I did not participate in acts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban or sanction" (see [[WP:SOCK|"This page in a nutshell"]]). I reviewed my main interactions between my two accounts; they were primarily due to a category being placed in a range of related articles and some prose additions that were not made in any deceitful manner to affect consensus or edit conflicts whatsoever. Confused by this, my first UTRS appeal request was a failure and denied because I was primarily asking what had happened since I genuinely didn't understand what I had done improper. After discussing the situation with the administrator that denied the first appeal, they explained that ''any'' interaction whatsoever between the accounts was a violation and that I could have disclosed the links privately to administrators. All of this was new to me and I now comprehend this clearly. Since I did not have any malicious intent with having two accounts, I did not know that such behavior was a policy violation or that I could have made a private disclosure. This is still no excuse and it truly was my ignorance of policy which caused me to be blocked. On my part, I want to explain that my original intention was to use my second account for sensitive topics (politics, etc.) and my main account for local editing since I did not want individuals who disagreed with any edits knowing where I live (just look at my username...), believing that a second account for [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]] was appropriate for privacy. While some may question this motive, it was not done to avoid [[WP:SCRUTINY|scrutiny]] in any way either since the edits on my second account were quite limited in number. So, now that this can of worms has now been opened, I'm a little bit more comfortable with addressing all of this publicly with the community. To sum things up, I made a mistake and should have reviewed sockpuppet policy more thoroughly before having two accounts. I’m not here to excuse my actions at all, I only wanted to provide my rationale concerning my own privacy. I apologize for this disruption and can promise that this will not happen again as I take pride in being accountable for my actions. If this main account were to be unblocked, I want my second account to remain blocked and I agree to not edit the articles where these interactions occurred. While also seeing another user recommended a [[WP:CLEANSTART|clean start]], I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time; it really is the last place I want to be (see section "Thanks for the tag" on my talk page since a link here creates an error). The evidence really does suggest that Venezuelan politics should be recognized as a [[WP:CTOP|contentious topic]]. Hopefully these requests demonstrate that I have learned my lesson and that the previous interactions had no deeper motive nor have any future motive. Since warmer weather is approaching here, I also want to share that I really want to only focus on local topics for awhile and contribute with more location images moving forward (I'm over the drama). While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Composing_your_request_to_be_unblocked this request may be procedurally declined] (I'm not sure if a UTRS request is the same as this), this request still helps me feel better since I want to ensure to the Wikipedia community that I am being as transparent as possible for you all. I have nothing to hide and if any other user has questions or concerns, feel free to comment here on my talk page. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids#top|talk]]) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Well, seeing how things are developing, it may be more appropriate to provide a public explanation since other users may be skeptical or have lost trust in me. After discussing the situation with an administrator and reviewing some policies on the appeal process, I wanted to wait about a week before making an appeal as I did not want to be disruptive. It's true, I had a second account (with a little over 100 edits) that I initially used for privacy reasons believing it was a [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]], though when I was drawn into controversial topics on this main account, I stopped editing with the second account to avoid inappropriate interactions. After some discussions and reviewing policy, I now know that what I did was inappropriate and understand why my account was blocked out of caution. While a block was a valid decision, I want to appeal for an unblock and guarantee to you all that I have learned my lesson that having a second undisclosed account was a mistake. When the block occurred, I was initially confused since I did not participate in acts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban or sanction" (see [[WP:SOCK|"This page in a nutshell"]]). I reviewed my main interactions between my two accounts; they were primarily due to a category being placed in a range of related articles and some prose additions that were not made in any deceitful manner to affect consensus or edit conflicts whatsoever. Confused by this, my first UTRS appeal request was a failure and denied because I was primarily asking what had happened since I genuinely didn't understand what I had done improper. After discussing the situation with the administrator that denied the first appeal, they explained that ''any'' interaction whatsoever between the accounts was a violation and that I could have disclosed the links privately to administrators. All of this was new to me and I now comprehend this clearly. Since I did not have any malicious intent with having two accounts, I did not know that such behavior was a policy violation or that I could have made a private disclosure. This is still no excuse and it truly was my ignorance of policy which caused me to be blocked. On my part, I want to explain that my original intention was to use my second account for sensitive topics (politics, etc.) and my main account for local editing since I did not want individuals who disagreed with any edits knowing where I live (just look at my username...), believing that a second account for [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]] was appropriate for privacy. While some may question this motive, it was not done to avoid [[WP:SCRUTINY|scrutiny]] in any way either since the edits on my second account were quite limited in number. So, now that this can of worms has now been opened, I'm a little bit more comfortable with addressing all of this publicly with the community. To sum things up, I made a mistake and should have reviewed sockpuppet policy more thoroughly before having two accounts. I’m not here to excuse my actions at all, I only wanted to provide my rationale concerning my own privacy. I apologize for this disruption and can promise that this will not happen again as I take pride in being accountable for my actions. If this main account were to be unblocked, I want my second account to remain blocked and I agree to not edit the articles where these interactions occurred. While also seeing another user recommended a [[WP:CLEANSTART|clean start]], I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time; it really is the last place I want to be (see section "Thanks for the tag" on my talk page since a link here creates an error). The evidence really does suggest that Venezuelan politics should be recognized as a [[WP:CTOP|contentious topic]]. Hopefully these requests demonstrate that I have learned my lesson and that the previous interactions had no deeper motive nor have any future motive. Since warmer weather is approaching here, I also want to share that I really want to only focus on local topics for awhile and contribute with more location images moving forward (I'm over the drama). While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Composing_your_request_to_be_unblocked this request may be procedurally declined] (I'm not sure if a UTRS request is the same as this), this request still helps me feel better since I want to ensure to the Wikipedia community that I am being as transparent as possible for you all. I have nothing to hide and if any other user has questions or concerns, feel free to comment here on my talk page. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids#top|talk]]) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Primefac: please could you review the request above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Re "While also seeing another user recommended a clean start, I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time"; I did not recommend a clean start. I do ask if CLEAN START has already been breached. Did you edit under another account in Venezuela politics, before the WMrapids account entered there, with prior disagreements with NoonIcarus? Also, the behaviors have also occurred in Peruvian politics, so Latin America probably would be a better target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That is the concern about the second account. Again, this second account was for privacy reasons and I would feel more comfortable discussing the details about this explicitly in a private manner with ArbCom if needed (It appears the second account was blocked without any additional tags to this account for a reason, since there are known privacy issues). As I said, I'm trying to be as transparent as possible due to my own privacy concerns and I emphasize that the second account was not used for deceptive purposes at all.

Regarding a broad Latin American political topics ban, I'm not opposed to it if necessary as I sincerely want to focus on local topics for now. However, it is clear that the serious editing issues arose with my entry into Venezuelan politics. I had actually exposed multiple sockpuppets being used in Peruvian political topics myself (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Búfalo Barreto/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armando AZ/Archive), so I recognize actual misuse of multiple accounts.

While those accounts were used for deceptive purposes, mine wasn't. You would think that I would have been more observant about sockpuppet policy details (no interactions and providing private disclosure) due to the previous sockpuppets, but I ignorantly overlooked the intricacies of such policies and this is where I'm at. However, I have now learned my lesson. I respectively request that you can all understand my circumstances, can recognize my privacy concerns and know that my only goal is to contribute with building an outstanding encyclopedia. WMrapids (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Saw your ban when checking on an article (topic unrelated to the conflict). Hope it's still appropriate to post 2 cents. From what I see about the 2 checkuser-blocked accounts: Cases where the same topic was edited (with time difference between the two accounts, but not that long time)? - Yes. Used as "support" for a disagreement/conflict with other user/s or similar hard deceive/mislead-attempts (like double voting, circumventing)? - No. You were at least careless about the 2 accounts, since there wasn't just one topic interaction and not years apart or so (can happen as freak accident). The danger then is, others may think then the 2 accounts are different people. I believe you're sincere though when you say that you did not intent to deceive (no misleading method visible, it would for example otherwise probably have been tempting to use it as a fake supporter for the conflict with another user). Since your account is attached to some personal info, to make a 2nd more private account is believable, there might be further arguments for it. Security/Privacy is a legitimate reason according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, which unfortunately here collided with the inappropriate use (contributing to same page). That's how I would weigh up the arguments. Idk how such cases have been decided here in the past. --Casra (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOCK under the privacy provision says "the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions" and "If the connection is discovered, prior notification is not a 'get out of jail free card'." While I hugely respect the need for security/privacy when editing controversial topics like Nicolas Maduro, and would easily endorse the need for an alternate account in such a case, if one continues making the same controversial edits from a new account and ends up as party to an arbcase, the behaviors of all accounts are open to examination; the policy page says "users should not expect that checkusers nor arbitrators will act to conceal the connection if it is made on-wiki". If the need for security/privacy is so great (and I suspect it is), then it's not wise to continue making the same kinds of edits that led to the need for privacy in the first place. A clean start means one doesn't go right back to the same topics, same behaviors, same battles. And if they do, examination of the behaviors of the previous account is on the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• Support unblock with conditions similar to those suggested by WMrapids and SandyGeorgia above per my comment here at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan_politics. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know where the idea that I support a clean start for WMrapids came from; my point is that if an abuse of clean start is already on the table, the return to battleground should be accounted for by increasing sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly support unblock - To piggyback on the comment by David Tornheim, I agree with conditions similar to those suggested by WMrapids. There is a legitimate security and privacy concern, especially with the present political climate in relation to Venezuelan politics. I'm not too familiar with the activity or disagreements going on currently but I was disappointed to see the block because WMrapids has made very insightful contributions and seems to have always been open to communication with other editors. Esequiba (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC) — Esequiba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  If this account is unblocked, then any identified sockmaster should be blocked or revealed, and I don't believe that outcome to be in the best interest of the person operating the accounts. WP:SOCK permits publicly revealing prior accounts created for security reasons. I have been courteous in not initiating a public SPI, but if these behaviors continue, I might re-evaluate my decision to be compassionate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a reminder that, if I understand correctly, appeal requests aren't polls.

If it is alright to ask @Esequiba:, how did you learn about this block? Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked at their contribution history to review their recent edits and noticed the block. Most of my activity is observing recent edits to articles while logged out (I've already read the articles and so I just look at the additions or changes). Out of curiosity, I sometimes look at the recent history of users who happen to modify the articles that I edit. I've looked at yours in the past also as you edit a lot of articles that I'm interested in. Most users are like me, we are just in the background. Esequiba (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: They are not a poll and are based on the decision of administrators. I leave it in their hands now that they know everything and we should respect their decision.

Same thoughts. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: My two accounts have been blocked. I respectively ask you to avoid gravedancing and to let the administrators make their decision. Don't worry, you won't see me editing in the same topics going forward (especially if I stay blocked haha).

As for the involvement of other users in this discussion, I can't explain this. I will be deliberately avoiding Latin American topics for the foreseeable future, so users shouldn't expect any future involvement on my part. I have always valued my privacy and well-being more than some political POV. WMrapids (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@WMrapids can you please clarify exactly what you mean by a privacy reason for having the second account? Do you mean that because others wouldn't have known that it was you that was making the edits that they wouldn't subjected the edits being made by your second account to the same level of scrutiny as they would have if they would have known it was you? Is that what you mean by privacy? TarnishedPath^talk 14:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: It was related to this account being used for local editing and the second account shortly being used for political topics. As I became more interested in political topics, my intention was to have my main account for local edits only where I could be less careful about who I am and the second account that was separate from where my location is in order to maintain privacy. I do not have any other active account. ArbCom has since been notified about all of the details and I'm leaving it in their hands, respectively. Honestly, if I continue to be blocked, I understand and recognize ArbCom's decision since after reviewing all of the details provided, they have reached that this would be the best outcome for the project. WMrapids (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Metro Health, University of Michigan Health.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Metro Health, University of Michigan Health.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Retagged as {{PD-textlogo}}, should be SVGified and moved to Commons. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 21:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted

Hi WMrapids, in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on your talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Response to proposed decision

@Dreamy Jazz: Thank you for doing your best to include me in this strenuous process. I'm grateful that you all have taken the time to review this complicated matter and sincerely apologize if my behavior has ever been disruptive towards your decisions or to the project in general. In my response, I no longer want to speak on the behavior of others as I have already shared what was necessary and do not want to perpetuate conflict. I will, however, respond to the proposals regarding my account and comment on each point that mentions my account name. Also, I will share my opinion on why I now believe Venezuelan political topics should be considered a contentious topic.

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

Locus of the dispute: I do not believe that edit warring and similar conflicts regarding Venezuelan politics began with NoonIcarus and I. You can see the discussions, ANIs and other warnings from the past, all prior to this more recent dispute, evidences that Venezuelan politics is clearly a contentious topic with its highly-polarized nature and the war of truths/untruths being waged by both sides. The conflict between NoonIcarus and I was only a more-severe symptom of the illness that Venezuelan political topics have been suffering for nearly two decades now.

Dispute resolution: It seems that we have all made attempts at dispute resolution at some point. On my part, I have attempted using the third opinion process ([1]), used the dispute resolution noticeboard ([2]) and personally plead for an agreement on a talk page ([3]). Moving forward, if unblocked, I assure the community that I will do my best to utilize every appropriate measure of dispute resolution in order to avoid disrupting the project.

Use of multiple accounts: Yes, I had a second account that violated sockpuppet policies. Even if my intentions were only for privacy and the account was not used for malicious reasons, it does not excuse such behavior. Personally, I take this as a learning experience and assure the community that I will not use a second account.

WMrapids' behaviour: I will acknowledge that my behavior was not acceptable in some circumstances, especially in my initial interactions with users while discussing Venezuelan topics during my first few months editing on the subject. Especially regarding SandyGeorgia, I ignorantly overlooked some of their personal issues in discussions and did not know about their editing difficulties with a keyboard (when I made this suggestion for us to both take a break to lower the temperature). Regarding both NoonIcarus and SandyGeorgia, I vented to both of them in November 2023 about my concerns with their editing behavior (NoonIcarus and SandyGeorgia. Looking back, of course they would be defensive and be offended, but at that time I was genuinely trying to get these feelings off my chest and share my concerns. Telling them I meant no offense does not excuse the matter and I hope both of them accept my apology. These cases provided are some of the bigger missteps that I made with these two and in no way was I trying to intimidate as some have suggested. I apologize for any offensive behavior committed by me towards other users and I believe that my use of the dispute resolution processes above shows that I have been attempting to be increasingly collaborative more recently.

PROPOSED REMEDIES

Contentious topic designation: I do believe that Venezuelan politics should be a contentious topic due to its highly-polarized nature, its history of edit warring, its subjection to misinformation and other concerns that were shared in private correspondences with the Arbitration Committee and the English Wikipedia CheckUser team. After initially rejecting the proposal, it is clear that a contentious topic designation would provide more rigid sanctions that would heighten the topic's standards, set expectations on behavior/interactions and would encourage dialogue amongst users, promoting collaboration instead of conflict.

WMrapids banned: After reflecting on my behavior and my unintentional violation of having a second account, I believe that I can still be beneficial for the project by avoiding contentious topics. As shared previously, I want to focus more on local topics and put all of this behind me.

WMrapids unblocked with a one-account restriction: I have no problem with being restricted to only one account and you can proceed to enact this restriction if you believe it is necessary.

WMrapids topic banned: Again, I have no problem with being topic banned from Venezuelan topics and even if I am not topic banned, I do not foresee participating in the topic moving forward.

WMrapids revert restriction: The main edit warring/reverting concerns were between NoonIcarus and I. While I personally do not believe that I will engage in edit warring since I will avoid controversial topics, if you believe this would support my editing behavior and the project, then I will accept the restriction. My main concerns with the 0RR would be me reverting obviously inappropriate edits and disagreements on topics with very limited editor involvement, though I suppose I could reach out with dispute resolution procedures for the latter and cross that bridge when it comes for the former.

Interpersonal issues/Interaction ban: I have no problem with the interaction ban. I even proposed a more lax version of the interaction ban for NoonIcarus and I months ago in an attempt to deter edit warring. For the record, if this is the last time I can mention NoonIcarus on the project, I want them to know that I don't hold any negative personal feelings or animosity towards them and I apologize if my participation in past disputes with them caused any disruption. NoonIcarus is a knowledgable editor and even if we have disagreements, I want them to know that.

CONCLUSION

In summary, I apologize for my misbehavior and the use of a second account; my exit from controversial topics should resolve both of these problems (no edit warring and no need for a second private account without controversy, even though the cat is out of the bag). I have no desire to continue editing Venezuelan topics since it has only resulted in negative consequences. Recognizing that I am currently indefinitely banned, I want ArbCom to know that they will not regret the decision of unblocking my account. Again, thank you ArbCom for doing your best to remedy this messy situation, for taking your time to be thorough and for allowing me to be somewhat involved in this process. Recognizing that your main focus is on the future of Wikipedia, I will accept and respect any decision you make.

Thank you --WMrapids (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I have copied your comments to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Proposed decision. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

More comments by WMrapids

While I don't see myself editing the same topics as NoonIcarus in the future, I agree with what @Robert McClenon: says about the "first-mover advantage" when it comes to interaction bans. Additional restrictions should always be considered if an interaction ban is enacted.--WMrapids (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, @Dreamy Jazz:, not sure if this was intentional due to the talk page process and since it was a reply to David Tornheim, but should you change the section title of "Comments by David Tornheim" over Allan Nonymous' comments to "Comments by Allan Nonymous"? Just trying to help!--WMrapids (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice statement

Hi I just wanted to say I think your statement at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Proposed decision was very nicely, thoughtfully and graciously written. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Moving forward

As it seems that I will remain blocked for the time being, I want to share that I accept ArbCom's decision. No matter my rationale of maintaining privacy, my actions were inexcusable and disruptive. If I were truly concerned about my privacy, I should not have participated in such a controversial topic in the first place, so this is on me and I apologize for consuming their time.

During this time, I will reflect on whether or not I want to appeal my indefinite account block. Regarding my other blocks (topic and interaction), I will never appeal those blocks and will never make any other account to participate in such topics. Moving forward, I am going to be focusing on providing images and files on Wikimedia Commons, trying to be as useful as possible for the project in a less controversial manner.

Overall, I believe ArbCom made the best decision they could make given the evidence presented and I am hopeful that things will begin moving in the right direction.--WMrapids (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Questions

@Dreamy Jazz: I am pinging you since it appears that ArbCom may be assuming my ban?

I do have a question; will I be able to ping other users on my talk page to suggest images or files for them? For instance, to place a certain image in an infobox or to provide an update, would I be able to contact a recent editor or a member of a WikiProject? I only want to be making appropriate contributions, so I would appreciate an answer on this.--WMrapids (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)