Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop: Difference between revisions
→Proposed enforcement: add title |
→Attribution: add more to the quote |
||
| Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
====Attribution==== |
====Attribution==== |
||
2) Attribution is important for Venezuelan politics. [[WP:RS]] states: |
2) Attribution is important for Venezuelan politics. [[WP:RS]] states: |
||
::[R]eliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. |
|||
::Common sources of bias include political...beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". |
::Common sources of bias include political...beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". |
||
<p>See [[WP:BIASED]]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
<p>See [[WP:BIASED]]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
| Line 247: | Line 248: | ||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
:: |
:: |
||
====Template==== |
====Template==== |
||
2) {text of Proposed principle} |
2) {text of Proposed principle} |
||
Revision as of 02:03, 21 April 2024
Target dates: Opened 6 April 2024 • Evidence closes 20 April 2024 • Workshop closes 27 April 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 4 May 2024
Scope: Conduct in the topic area of Venezuelan politics, with a specific focus on named parties.
Case clerks: ToBeFree (Talk) & Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Firefly (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk) & Sdrqaz (Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
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.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
- Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.
Proposed final decision
Proposals by S Marshall
Proposed principles
Citing sources
1a) Under Wikipedia's verifiability policy, editors are expected to add citations. The purpose of a citation is to help readers and other editors verify that the information in Wikipedia articles is based on reliable sources. A good citation is one that directs the reader to a specific place in a reliable source that fully supports the article text.
1b) A citation is poor if it doesn't direct the reader to a specific place, or if the source isn't reliable, or if the source doesn't fully support the article text.
1c) Good citations are important everywhere that appears on a rendered page in the mainspace, but particularly important in contentious topic areas.
1d) Poor citations make needless work for other editors. Frequently adding poor citations can amount to misconduct.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I looked in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles for a pre-existing principle that says this, but I didn't see one, so I wrote this from scratch.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:David Tornheim
Proposed principles
Use Reliable Sources
1) Editors should follow WP:RS which states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP) These are preferable to mainstream media and news reports by journalists. Mainstream sources covering Venezuelan politics are susceptible to propaganda.[1] [2] --David Tornheim (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ MacLeod, Alan (2019). "A Force for Democracy? Representations of the US Government in American Coverage of Venezuela". Frontiers in Communication. 3. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2018.00064. ISSN 2297-900X.
- ^ Macleod, Alan (2018-04-12). Bad News from Venezuela: Twenty years of fake news and misreporting. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351038263/bad-news-venezuela-alan-macleod. ISBN 978-1-351-03826-3.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Attribution
2) Attribution is important for Venezuelan politics. WP:RS states:
- [R]eliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
- Common sources of bias include political...beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
See WP:BIASED. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Neither party can edit in the topic area
1) NoonIcarus was topic-banned from the topic area by the community in this AN/I thread on 2 April 2024. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
2) WMrapids was indefinitely blocked on 11 April 2024. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
No remedy necessary
1) None necessary. This case can be closed without further action. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
No enforcement necessary
1) None necessary. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Example 3
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Analysis of WMrapids's evidence by Robert McClenon
It appears that User:WMrapids is "slightly opposing" the designation of Venezuelan politics as a contentious topic based on a reasonably mistaken understanding of what is an essential feature and what is an optional feature of the contentious topics procedures. WMRapids writes: CT would prevent involvement from our necessary, newly-interested users
. They are probably thinking of the application of contentious topics to Palestine and Israel, which is even more difficult than other contentious topics. Palestine and Israel articles are subject to Extended-Confirmed protection, which excludes new users, in order to prevent brigading and sockpuppetry. The Extended-Confirmed protection is not a built-in or automatic feature of contentious topics, but an optional feature that is necessary for an area that is even more problematic than Venezuelan politics. What the contentious topics designation would do is to authorize disruptive editing to be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement. New users should be able to participate, as long as they are here to improve the encyclopedia, and as long as they honor neutral point of view.
I recommend that ArbCom designate Venezuelan politics as a contentious topic, so as to enable Arbitration Enforcement, without imposing extended-confirmed protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Moved from the evidence page --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis by S Marshall
The view from 30,000 feet is this:
Although NoonIcarus is miscalled a "pro-opposition" editor in various places, in fact on Venezuela his position is actually anti-Maduro. WMrapids, or (now we know WMrapids is a sock) more accurately the person running the WMrapids account, is strongly pro-Maduro. Many other people editing Venezuelan articles are generally tolerant of Maduro, but usually less so than WMrapids. I think this underlies the annoyance at NoonIcarus.
Mainstream news sources in first world democracies converge on a position that's generally skeptical towards Maduro, although far less skeptical than NoonIcarus. Scholars and academics tend generally to be somewhat more pro-Maduro than the news sources.
The person running the WMrapids account is adept at civil POV-pushing and sealioning. They're able to advance their agenda within Wikipedia's behavioural constraints. NoonIcarus is less so, and NoonIcarus takes the bait, so some kind of editing restriction on him is definitely beneficial -- but we do benefit from skeptical eyes on our coverage of recent Venezuelan politics. It's definitely in the encyclopaedia's best interests to allow NoonIcarus to wave the red flag when there's bias.
Indications on my talk page suggest that the person running the WMrapids account is unlikely to go away just because that one account got CU-blocked.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence and situation by David Tornheim
The original AN/I solved the problem of NoonIcarus's editing by a community decision. Now that WMRapids has been blocked, no further action is necessary. I suggest closing this with no action, but in the event that WMRapids is unblocked, the evidence provided against him/her could be re-opened.
I see no need for general sanctions. The evidence is almost entirely focussed on only these two editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: