Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by David Tornheim

I believe the most significant problem has been resolved with the closing of this 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) 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding S. Marshall's contention that the AN/I was unfairly closed because NoonIcarus's (fka Jamez42) "defenders" were late, I believe these defenders side with NoonIcarus primarily because they agree with his editing that is more reflective of U.S. State Department propaganda disseminated through Western mainstream media[2] than is truly WP:NPOV--when one considers academic scholarship and world opinion.

Quite a few editors mentioned the POV problem at the AN/I. It's my understanding that ArbCom does not handle content disputes. If so, S Marhall's argument for appealing the AN/I appears to be in the wrong venue.

This is not just about failed verification tags. It's primarily about how NoonIcarus games the system with reverts, block deletions, and failed verification tags to eliminate views he does not like rather than work collaboratively to build an encyclopedia that is WP:NPOV:

WMRapids has tried to include academic quality information only to be immediately reverted by NoonIcarus without discussion on the talk page. This kind of behavior by NoonIcarus is nothing new and sanctioning made no difference.

--David Tornheim (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Evidence presented by S Marshall

The FV diffs

Evidence:

• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (which I collectively call "the FV diffs", because in all of these NoonIcarus added {{failed verification}} or removed information he thought was uncited)
• 9

Narrative: This is a content dispute that's become a conduct dispute. Of WMrapids and NoonIcarus, I think NoonIcarus' conduct was the worse, and on the issues at the 2024 AN/I Callanecc closed ("the AN/I"), I mostly side with WMrapids. But.

NoonIcarus is topic-banned because that was the consensus at the AN/I. Callanecc's close followed the consensus, so I don't fault Callanecc, but the outcome was extreme and unreflective of the diffs.

In the FV diffs, NoonIcarus added {{failed verification}} to, or removed information backed by, citations that didn't directly verify the disputed content. WMrapids meant them to verify the disputed content and, with some investigation work, it was possible to find the correct information. In fairness to WMrapids, WMrapids has learned a lot about how to cite sources since he added these.

Few of the disputed citations met the standard in core content policy ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.") In some cases this was due to technical errors in formatting (diff #9), and in others the source's wording had arguably been stretched. By this I don't necessarily mean that I think it had been stretched. I mean that NoonIcarus thought it had and I feel his case was arguable.

Strictly speaking {{failed verification}} was the wrong template. NoonIcarus should have used {{verify source}}. NoonIcarus has learned a lot about how to challenge poorly cited sources since he did this. I've also personally learned more from reading that discussion, and a sysop has since updated the documentation for {{failed verification}} to make it clearer.

The AN/I was largely a consensus of involved editors. This was the ~dozenth time the matter had come before the community (Vanamonde93's preliminary statement), and this time around, NoonIcarus' usual defenders SandyGeorgia and Bobfrombrockley arrived late for various reasons and couldn't participate fully (their preliminary statements). Taking the dozen discussions as a whole, the AN/I was an outlier that occurred because NoonIcarus' defenders were late.

Arbitrators, ask yourselves: if we keep on repeating the same discussion until one side gets there late, what happens?

Should you accept the AN/I as a true reflection of what the community thinks? Could there be circumstances where Arbcom overrules AN/I?

If you think about those questions as I do, then I ask you to consider converting NoonIcarus' topic ban to a more nuanced sanction that tries to limit disruption but frees him to challenge poor citations in this topic area.

The curious case of the careless citations

WMrapids is relatively new to Wikipedia, and everyone gets to make mistakes at first. But WMrapids edits quickly, and he doesn't go back to check what he's written.

When I edit, I go back and click the links I've added, so as to check that my citations point to a place that directly supports what I've written. Most editors do this. Of the FV diffs, diffs 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 happened because WMrapids didn't.

This makes work for people checking WMrapids' contributions, and WMrapids' writing does need checking. Please will the arbitrators consider:

• Measures to encourage WMrapids to cite sources with proper care and then check what he's written for himself; and
• Measures to protect or exempt editors who revert WMrapids when his citations are defective.

Later

WMrapids asked me about this and I replied. I was struck by the fact that although WMrapids knows how to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint at AN/I, he didn't know that his citations should have page numbers. This isn't a judgment on WMrapids. It's a judgment on us. How could someone new spend six months editing in a contentious topic area without anyone taking the time to explain the first section of our first core content policy?

@Boynamedsue

Sorry you're confused about this. I mean this AN/I and not any RfC. We know what others would have said if they had got there on time from statements like Bobfrombrockley's. I am discussing NoonIcarus' behaviour. My case is that a trigger for that behaviour is frustration about the low standard of citations in the topic area. I think NoonIcarus is wrestling with the constant workload of finding the wording in the sources WMrapids (and, perhaps, certain others) use. There is, of course, a lot more to the dispute than that, but I only have 1,000 words and I choose to spend them on one topic.

Evidence presented by NoonIcarus

Talk page sections related to the FV: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: reverted (...) without discussion. False, see Talk:Caracazo#POV tag. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Re Boynamedsue: This reply ([1]) and diffs such as [2][3][4] show that the claims about the POV are misleading. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Boynamedsue

I am confused at what is going on here. I assume we are reviewing Noonicarus' behaviour? The community decided that they were editing in a deliberately biased way in articles on Venezuelan politics, and were not here to build an encyclopaedia but specifically to promote a political point of view. SMarshall has asserted that they have a "side" who did not turn up for an RfC, this seems a strange assertion, how do we know what people who weren't at the RfC would say?

Incompatibility with policies on sources

In terms of difs, on this page the experienced user stated ...the content largely depends on English language academic papers, instead to mainstream media outlets, which suggests that the majority points of view are currently not being reflected. This attitude is again found here: The difference is that we don't use the journalists opinions. There also seems to be a false balance by saying that papers can be more reliable only for being peer reviewed, as newspapers have other means for editorial oversight, and that's the reason why the majority of sources that we use is from media outlets. Our policies clearly state peer-reviewed sources must be considered superior to news, this has been pointed out to them many times but no change in editing has occurred.

This attitude was repeated in a talkpage on the Caracazo, an incident in which a thousand or more people were killed by Venezuelan security forces during the pre-Chavez period. Several academic sources used the term "massacre" to describe this, but Noonicarus strongly objected, again discounting sources that used the term on a spurious basis, that Springer Nature had retracted papers in the past, therefore all sources published by it were dubious.

In [this discussion] they completely failed to hear advice that statements of a committee the Organisation of American States should be attributed to them.

More false edit summaries

In terms of the "failed verification" edit summaries, misuse was documented by WMrapid at ANI, but I would just like to add this example. Noonicarus edited the page to remove the OAS' positive comment on Venezuela's work to eradicate poverty and illiteracy, as it "failed verification" when in fact the report states: In terms of economic, social, and cultural rights, the IACHR recognizes the State's achievements with regard to the progressive observance of these rights, including, most notably, the eradication of illiteracy, the reduction of poverty, and the increase in access by the most vulnerable sectors to basic services such as health care.

On the same page, another edit tagged "failed verification" removed a denial by President Maduro that torture has occurred in Venezuela since the beginning of Chavismo, when in fact the source it is attributed to (Reuters) states: The president says torture ended in Venezuela with the arrival of President Hugo Chavez, his socialist predecessor and mentor, in 1999. This is literally the first and only page I checked, just now, and both edits show tendential editing intended to create a stronger anti-government line in the article using a misleading edit summary.

Noonicarus is not here to build an encyclopaedia, they are here to fight against the Venezuelan government and attempt to present a positive view of the pre-Chavez period. If we rescind their topic ban, we are allowing them to continue to do this, and doing a disservice to our readers by allowing the site to be used for propaganda purposes. Whether we agree with the goals of that propaganda or not should not be an issue, and I hope it will not be.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Response to SMarshall

Thanks for clearing that up. Just to clarify, the page I link where Noonicarus made misleading edit summaries has never been edited by WMrapids and was immaculately sourced, with clear links to the relevant text which still work. This is a general problem, not specific to Noonicarus' interaction with any other user. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence presented by WMrapids

NoonIcarus' editing

NoonIcarus' battleground editing brought us here, which I outlined here (apologies for wall of text). In every discussion we have had about their poor editing behavior, mud has been slung back at me. I have accepted that I have made mistakes and will always hold myself accountable. The mudslinging may return as some users have said they have apparently stored targeted diffs specifically for this instance. I have no intention to target anything or anyone except for behavior that may be detrimental towards building an encyclopedia. As I and others shared in the ANI, NoonIcarus' behavior in Latin American topics is disruptive.

Information removal

NoonIcarus' first sanctions were in January 2020; they removed information from this article and possibly canvassed. Not learning from sanctions, they stonewalled the article for over four years.([5]) As Boynamedsure noted, NoonIcarus used the "failed verification" tactic to remove BADPOV information since at least 2022. Another tactic used was the "stable version" method, which may have been used inappropriately. Finally, another method used was citing the WP:VENRS advice page as policy.

Battleground behavior and personal targeting

NoonIcarus persistently engages in edit warring([6][7][8]) (even reverting bots[9][10][11]). They also have a penchant for movewarring. After the rename of Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute in December 2023 (NoonIcarus' opposition failed), they edit warred for a split against consensus [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] (promoting the Venezuelan POV term "Guayana Esequiba") and then continued demands for a split using the term. By January 2024, after their push failed, NoonIcarus targeted an article I created for deletion (Never being involved in this article before) and performed driveby tagging that was contested. NoonIcarus then move warred to change the title ([20][21][22][23]). After the January 2024 ANI fizzled, I became hopeful that NoonIcarus and I could work together after a significant compromise. By February 2024, I made recommendations for future collaboration to avoid future conflict. My hopes were dashed after NoonIcarus' "failed verification" edits, which resulted with the March 2024 ANI. During this ANI while others were distracted discussing NoonIcarus' behavior, NoonIcarus opened an unnecessary move proposal after their move proposal failed a few months prior, again showing that they do not respect consensus nor concerns about Venezuelan RfCs overwhelming the community.

My suggestion of a topic ban was based on the ANI decision of El_C.

Contentious topic designation

My opinion on this is here.

Community decision

S Marshall made the unsubstantiated accusation that brigading had occurred. Speaking for myself, if I were involved in brigading, I wouldn't be raising this issue again. I already established a boundary against creating some sort of "solidarity" even if edits may have been in agreement. Wikipedia is not a place to pick sides.

While I can't speak for others, this is how it appears interactions with NoonIcarus began:

• JCW555: ANI evidence
• David Tornheim: At least since 2020
• Boynamedsue: Here in January 2024
• Number 57: "over several years"
• JML1148: At the ANI, watching "for a long time"
• The Grid: After reviewing ANI evidence
• Goldsztajn: At an AfD nomination and after reviewing evidence
• Lavalizard101: After reviewing ANI evidence
• Simonm223: At least since 2020
• Mbinebri: At least May 2023.
• Jusdafax: After reviewing ANI evidence

Only 2 of the 11 who suggested some sort of block may have been previously involved with one another. The majority made their decision based on the evidence provided or reviewing years of misbehavior.

S Marshall, nothing against you at all; I sincerely thank you for discussing citation issues with me. But, your statements are... confusing? You suggest brigading, say you agree with my assessment while calling the community's decision "unjust" and then suggest this may have been because "NoonIcarus' usual defenders ... arrived late". While it may seem unjust, I have shown that the community has been affected by NoonIcarus or reviewed the evidence in their decision, not just users who have a "usual" position, suggesting that the community made their decision justly. Again, thank you for organizing all of this and keeping the discussion on track, but I would like some clarifications.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.