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

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

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)

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:

It seems to me that Verifiability and citing sources on ARBPRINCIPLES does cover the core of this idea and that the "making up stuff" is actually a different idea that we have plenty of principles about. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Barkeep, those pre-existing principles don't talk about vague citations. I feel that an issue in this case was frustration about vague citations: not really false ones, but ones so lazily cited that it took an unreasonable amount of work to check them.—S Marshall T/C 07:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Mala fide

2a) Sockpuppetry ought to fail.

2b) If we allow socking to influence our decisions, we're creating an incentive to sock. This is not in the encyclopaedia's interests

2c) Where a sockpuppet has waged a sustained campaign to achieve an end, make a change, or sanction or unsanction a user, that campaign should come to nothing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The idea is interesting --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A second novel principle. I'm dividing these up into subparagraphs for convenience -- so for example someone could say "I support 2a and 2b but object to 2c" -- but I intend these, if accepted, to be condensed to conventional one paragraph Arbcom principles.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

To the people saying there's only one other sock: there's pretty obviously more. Look at User talk:WMrapids#Appeal_request. It goes:

SandyGeorgia: Did you edit under another account in Venezuela politics, before the WMrapids account entered there, with prior disagreements with NoonIcarus?

WMrapids: I would feel more comfortable discussing the details about this explicitly in a private manner with ArbCom if needed...

If the answer was no, he'd have said no. Arbcom likely know more and won't tell us. The Workshop phase isn't really for coming up with solutions. It's just here to be a container for the ongoing squabbling while Arbcom work it out via email.—S Marshall T/C 08:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I concur with this principle, at least if it has the effect that I think it does. But its author hasn't taken this principle to its conclusion (hasn't yet). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's an interesting idea as a principle, and suggest the extent of the extended (and possibly surreptitious and coordinated) campaign should be weighted in terms of any sanctions applied to those hounded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could include a list of users you feel have been involved in a surreptitious coordinated campaign against Noonicarus alongside evidence of such? Otherwise it might be in the interests of all concerned for you to strike that, as I certainly interpret it as possibly being an unsubstantiated attack by aspersion.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

#Is there more to Simón, el Silbón, the sock? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As a genuine question on this, did WMrapids sockpuppet account contribute to the discussion at ANI, or as a separate "character" at any discussion with Noonicarus? If the answer is yes, then I feel this is relevant to our discussion of Noonicarus behaviour and is a factor that should be reflected in principles and findings.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: No. It never contributed to WP:AN/I. I see no evidence that WMrapids, the sock, and NoonIcarus all interacted on the same talk page or forum, except In the News.

The sock only had 147 edits total. There are 18 locations of overlapping edits between WMrapids and sock account.[1]:17 articles + In the News. No overlap on talk pages, other forums, etc. Breakdown:

• For 13 of the 18, the sock only had 1 edit.
• For 3 of the 18, the sock only had 2 edits.
• The remaining two are the most concerning:
  • Madrid Forum (4 with sock; 31 with main account; 5 days min. between) [2]
  • María Corina Machado (7 with sock; 6 main account; 129 days min. between) [3].

I have not analyzed carefully enough to see if WMrapids + sock participated in concert in an edit-war to restore or revert the same material.

Regarding the interaction that included WMrapids, sock, and NoonIcarus [4], there are 13 locations, 12 mentioned above + In the news. Nothing on a talk page or any other forum.

Overlaps between sock and NoonIcarus occurred at 27 locations: numerous articles, but only two talk pages:

• Talk:2021 Cuban protests [5]
• Talk:2024 general strike against Javier Milei [6]

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Poor quality citations

1) The person operating accounts including User:WMrapids ("the WMrapids sockmaster") introduced poor-quality citations into articles about Venezuela's politics and recent history. Issues with these citations included imprecision (i.e. where it took a lot of work to find the original citation), mistranslation (SandyGeorgia's evidence), and misrepresentation by selective use of the source (SandyGeorgia's evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry

2a) The WMrapids sockmaster acted to skew Wikipedia's coverage of Venezuelan politics and recent history towards a stance that favours Nicolás Maduro.

2b) Their method was firstly, to edit articles directly; secondly, to engage in civil POV-pushing and sealioning in talk-space and project-space; and thirdly, to seek to topic-ban or sanction users who disfavoured Nicolás Maduro.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

David, I refer you to SandyGeorgia's evidence, which exhaustively shows the WMrapids sockmaster was there to skew Wikipedia's coverage of Venezuelan politics. I've rarely seen such a thorough takedown.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to remind David about WP:FORUM, it possible. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

(2a) There is no evidence to support this conclusion that the use of a sock to negatively influence Venezuelan politics. Only evidence that a sock existed.

(2b) You said topic ban user(s). He tried to topic-ban and sanction one user NoonIcarus, who was rightfully topic-banned by the community for his behavior. Who else?

(2a) and (2b) The articles are already biased against Maduro focusing primarily on anti-Maduro, pro-opposition and pro-Guaido sources and material and by the elimination of sources sympathetic to Chavez and Maduro's goals of the Bolivarian Revolution to free Venezuela from U.S. domination (Monroe Doctrine) and shift the economy to be more socialist and less neoliberal. The animosity of the U.S. to the democratic election of Chavez and Maduro was almost immediate and continuous regardless of Democrat or Republican control of administration or Congress echoed by the U.S. and Western mainstream media and support for the opposition all along, especially Juan Guaido. WMRapids was correct to balance the articles against the bias introduced aggressively by editors like NoonIcarus, who is shown to be closely associated with the opposition (considering he images posted to Wikimedia) and was part of the edit-war to proclaim Juan Guaido the President of Venezuela on Spanish Wikipedia. WMrapids was trying to make the articles more WP:NPOV with heavy opposition by NoonIcarus.

WMrapids obviously made mistakes, became overly frustrated and inappropriately lashed out, but they were far less detrimental than NoonIcarus's long-term years of behavior to eliminate certain material that portrayed the opposition negatively or socialism in Latin America positively. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

S Marshall, the only Silbon diffs I entered are in this section; there was more at Maria Corina Machado, but I didn't present exhaustive evidence since I ran out of word count and diff count. There's certainly evidence that both were using marginal sources to skew BLPs, and in similar ways with poor sourcing. (Sorry I can't keep up; I will enter analysis after my sutures are removed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Campaign to sanction

3a) The WMrapids sockmaster took a lead role in at least ten noticeboard threads aimed or partially aimed at topic-banning or sanctioning NoonIcarus, amounting to a sustained campaign to topic ban NoonIcarus. They persistently proposed topic bans, and were often the first person in the thread to do so (Vanamonde93's preliminary statement).

3b) Most of these threads were archived without result. In the latest of these threads, S Marshall intervened, using {{dnau}} to prevent premature archiving.

3c) The outcome of the thread was to topic ban NoonIcarus. This outcome reflected the view of several good faith users, but it was also affected by S Marshall's unusual intervention, and unrelated circumstances that prevented NoonIcarus' usual defenders from participating to the full, and the exceptional persistence of the WMrapids sockmaster.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The fact that I'm partially resposible for NoonIcarus' topic ban is a strong motivator for me. If I hadn't used DNAU in the way I did, that thread would have been archived without closure. And the outcome was unjust. It was vastly out of proportion to the diffs. A sanction should have happened but a topic ban was wildly excessive. I hate that outcome and I really do feel the need to correct it.—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Marshall :) The intervention also allowed more attention to the situation and the opening of this case, this evidence phase was definitely and badly needed. Even when pointing out my own responsibility, I believe that you've strived for addressing with neutrality, which is something that I appreciate from the bottom of my heart (just as the fact that you're dedicating this time to the matter, which is something that not every collaborator would be interested in doing). --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Once again, I'll link a summary I provided about the main problem with scholar opinions in the recent months ([7]), which can be found at Talk:Guarimba#Tags, where WP:WEIGHT is the main policy that needs to be considered. SandyGeorgia sums it up very neatly too at #Analysis by SandyGeorgia of David Tornheim evidence. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tornheim above cites an article published in a Frontiers journal (highlighted by Headbomb's reliability script as less than reliable) and written by Alan MacLeod, a senior staff writer for the deprecated outlet MintPress News that "publishes conspiracy theories and disinformation". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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:

As WMrapids is currently asking for a block appeal (User talk:WMrapids#Appeal request) and per SandyGeorgia's comments, the matter still pretty much needs a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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 Guerillero

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standards of editor behavior

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring

3) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

5) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry

5) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Stolen from OccultZone and others. The last line needs some retooling due to the change in PROJECTSOCK since 2015, but Courcelles did such a good job on this one, that I didn't want to reinvent the wheel. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recidivism

6) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behavior are expected to improve their behavior, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Guerillero could this principle be expanded to include previous instances of poor editing that resulted in office actions, that is, when there were no sanctions, but problematic editing had to be actioned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Building consensus

7) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. Finding common ground is essential when editors disagree, and editors should be willing and able to actively do so. Editors' participation in discussions should not simply be reiterating their own positions. Editors' own positions should be represented concisely to allow room in the discussion for consensus to develop.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ideological disputes

8) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around political or ideological conflicts. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints. Such editors are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Based on The national and territorial disputes principle but reworked for ideological disputes by the drafters. We hope that this may join the list of principles arbs pull from in the future --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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 NoonIcarus

Proposed principles

Criticism and casting aspersions

1a) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

1b) Casting aspersions inflames content disputes, derails discussions, hampers consensus building and besmirches the reputation of editors. As such, accusations should be raised at the appropriate venues, such as the editor's talk page or administrative noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The first paragraph is borrowed from the War of the Pacific case, while the second one is inspired in WP:ASPERSIONS and other related policies. This is my first time participating in an ARBCOM process, so I'm unfamiliar on how to write or propose principles too. Any improvements are welcome.

That being said, I want to express my support for the verifiability, civility, and sockpuppetry proposed principles, and I'm not including them to avoid repetition. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Sockpuppetry

1a) Their method (...) included changing the community's consensus on the reliability of sources.

1b) WMrapids was indefinitely blocked on 11 April 2024 after a checkuser to prevent multiple account abuse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The first paragraph is meant to compliment S Marshall's proposed finding of fact on sockpuppetry. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 5

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:

No, Boynamedsue, I've clearly acknowledged that NoonIcarus has an angle. In the evidence phase I showed that 0RR is effective in managing NoonIcarus' behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I feel this ignores the strong evidence of consistent surreptitious deletion of sourced content in order to introduce POV by Noonicarus. Noonicarus has not acknowledged any fault in the content of their editing, and, if their block is rescinded, they will continue their political work on wikipedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

ORR would require someone to constantly follow Noonicarus around to ensure they are not POV-pushing and deleting sourced content as they have done up to now. Seems an unreasonably labour intensive solution to a problem that has already been solved.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both comments above by Boynamedsue. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

0RR, seems to have worked before, no sign it won't work again. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet we are here. Following sanctions we would expect an improvement in behaviour, but we have seen a deterioration. Noonicarus is not here to build an encyclopaedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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:

This is also my view, though I don't have any opposition in principle to general sanctions on Venezuela, I do not see the need.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by SandyGeorgia

A socking editor [8][9] with a pronounced POV hounded those he disagreed with, corrupted collegiality across many discussions, slanted BLPs, and sapped community time, [10] while creatively and persistently pinging in supporters to discussions,[11] until Venezuelan topics appeared contentious and the community stopped weighing in to bludgeoned discussions, resulting in application of uneven sanctions,[12][13] partly because canvassing and pinging of supporters did not occur equally by both parties.

This appeared as a long-term vendetta to goad one editor and get them topic banned. Yet, the WMrapids account has engaged in the same behaviors they accuse NoonIcarus of, and more, including more serious BLP vios and casting of aspersions across discussions on multiple pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of David Tornheim evidence

I was very late in coming to realize that NoonIcarus was Jamez42 renamed – well after I looked into an August 2023 ANI to try to understand why Venezuela content was suddenly dominating my watchlist, where I found what looked like a personal vendetta driving poor editing by the WMrapids account.

Tornheim correctly notes a reason I have supported NoonIcarus (like Jamez42 in the past) – he respects WP:RS and is knowledgeable about both English and Spanish-language sources. Tornheim refers to those sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia as

"U.S. State Department propaganda disseminated through Western mainstream media"

and cites that opinion to an article published in Frontiers journal (highlighted by Headbomb's reliability script as less than reliable) and written by Alan MacLeod, a senior staff writer for the deprecated MintPress News that "publishes conspiracy theories and disinformation".

This interpretation of reliable sources precisely illustrates and sums up the problems documented with WMrapids' editing and the views often shared by those he pings to discussions for support. Further, NoonIcarus also has command of the non-English and the non-US sources in addition to those mislabeled by conspiracy theories.

Tornheim also mentions that ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes; it does, when content disputes demonstrate a conduct pattern (eg frequent breach of BLP policy) to negatively slant content about individuals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of Boynamedsue evidence

Boynamedsue misstates the contents of WP:SOURCETYPES (emphasis added):

When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context.

along with the contents of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG. Similar misinterpretations have been spread across multiple discussions, creating a cumulative aspersion against NoonIcarus, who works in a content area (Venezuelan politics) that already suffers under a) a lack of local press freedom, and b) proponents of fringe and deprecated sources seeking to gain traction by getting their content on Wikipedia.

This and this are typical of how I observed the WMrapids account cherry picking from marginal "scholarly" sources. I don't know if misinterpretation of NoonIcarus on this matter is because English is not his native language, but I observed and documented on talk the problem with the WMrapids account in action many times, for example, in misrepresenting and overusing content sourced to Things Are Never So Bad That They Can't Get Worse and others.

Unsurprisingly, in the Caracazo example, an obscure 2010 book (from a sketchy-looking publisher with no author listed and a faulty ISBN, making one wonder if this one of those Wikipedia mirror books, how do these kinds of sources come in to articles or serious discussion?) which focused on labeling events as massacres was used, and NoonIcarus explored other scholarly sources, which is exactly what we should do. As perhaps the only person on this page who lived through the Caracazo, up close and personal, I would personally call it a massacre, but that's not the point: NoonIcarus is allowed to argue favorability of reliable sources without being smeared again. [14]

Looking at "Further diffs", the first example provided is not an adequate summary of the source:

• Source says "Though the CD integrated Chávez’s most important adversaries, it did not represent an ‘institutionalised’ or ‘formal’ space for collective opposition strategy-formation or decision-making.20 In fact, its members did not elaborate any formal coordination mechanisms (i.e. decision-making rules/conflict resolution mechanisms). Instead, the factions with the largest material resources within the CD, predominantly the media and business sector (Globovision, Venevision and Fedecámeras), the so-called ‘de facto powers’, largely imposed their views and strategies onto the weaker ones (parties and social movements).21 Even though internal disagreements within the CD about how to confront Chávez existed (i.e. electoral vs insurrectional routes), the latter ‘quietly’ supported the extra-institutional actions put forward by ‘de factor powers’ to not weaken the platform (García-Guadilla and Mallen, 2013). Non-partisan actors strategized on behalf of the whole opposition and recurred to ‘extra-institutional strategies with radical goals’ (Gamboa, 2017) to oust Chávez."

I stopped there: if ArbCom doesn't do content disputes, some of these failed verification claims are just that; NoonIcarus has understood he may be using the wrong tags (the failed verification template does not exist on es.wikipedia). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I feel that the text you cite is a reasonable paraphrase of what the article states. And make no bones, Globovision was a leading light in the CD and did support the coup attempt, Noonicarus knows this. If Noonicarus had reworded the text, I would have had no problem, that is reasonable editing. However, deleting a sourced claim because you don't like it is POV-pushing. All of these diffs show deletion of sourced content with a misleading edit summary. It stretches credulity to believe that Noonicarus applied this tag scores of times, but not once clicked on it to see what it was for.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of S Marshall evidence

S Marshall mentions that I "arrived late for various reasons"; I also had indicated and posted to my preliminary statement that I was unsure where to enter evidence, and was awaiting advice. Had I known the ANI would close independently of an arbcase being opened, I would have made an entry at ANI, opposing the uneven topic ban. Like S Marshall, I don't fault Callanecc for the close, but agree with Amakuru that "I and others would have opposed the tban measure had I known such a closure was on the cards, as it misses half the picture", and note that Callanecc states that "ArbCom will decide whether to keep or vacate the topic ban as part of the normal case process". Now that fuller evidence has been posted, and socking has been revealed, I suggest alternate sanctions at #Proposed decision possibilities.

I disagree with S Marshall's statement that "WMrapids is relatively new to Wikipedia". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of WMrapids evidence

Another example of a charge of "failed verification": this source is not adequately summarized. The source does not say

• the plan had already been applied during the visit of Pope John Paul II to Venezuela without shooting against the population

The source says:

• "The president certainly activated the Avila Plan when the Pope came too, the intention was never to try to shoot against the population and any number of things have been speculated about that."

which is a subtly different thing. Perhaps NoonIcarus should have rewritten the content to conform instead, but having done that legions of times in Venezuelan content, and in particular with just about everything the WMrapids account wrote, one tires. The "failed verification" claim has been overplayed here; there is a problem with NoonIcarus's removal of content, but it's not as black-and-white as painted, and can be managed with sanctions short of a topic ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Since the edit is over two and a half years old ([15]), I can't remember if I failed the archived source link (which was added by WMrapids later), since El Observador's source didn't mention that the plan was applied before. Responding to WMrapids, I provided a series of diffs showing how I try to rescue sources or rephrase content if it doesn't reflect the cited material faithfully, which I leave here if needed. In this case, the nuance of changing the weasel wording of "Supporters of Chávez" to "General in Chief Lucas Rincón and National Assembly President William Lara" should show the care I try to have with sourcing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is there more to Simón, el Silbón, the sock?

There are inconsistencies regarding the sock account, User:Simón, el Silbón; is there more to this story?

1. Both accounts have used obscure, primary or marginal sources, even on BLPs, to parrot content from generally unreliable or deprecated sources (WP:TELESUR, Venezuelanalysis, and WP:RUSSIATODAY). WMrapids has gone to persistent lengths to press for Venezuelanalysis to be recognized as reliable.
2. Venezuelanalysis – that WMrapids endorses – often parrots the deprecated WP:TELESUR, and its editors may be following Wikipedia discussions.
3. The Silbón references a unique bit of Venezuelan folklore, suggesting deeper knowledge of Venezuela than an editor of Peruvian topics from Michigan who coincidentally stumbled upon Venezuelan topics. The use of obscure non-English sources, that even an experienced Venezuelan editor would have a hard time finding, raises the possibility that there is more to these accounts. The reference to the 14 May 1813 Admirable Campaign is another indication of intent to POV via a campaign; some of my evidence suggests that could be a coordinated campaign.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SandyGeorgia I'm not sure if I follow. Do you mean if there are further behavior similarities and/or if there are more sock accounts? --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: I understand better what you mean and I totally agree with you. Personally, I leave to the arbitrators' discretion how much information about the subject is made public. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Re NoonIcarus, socks tend to sock, so all options, including paid editing, are on the table. Although WP:SOCK permits the revealing of prior accounts that may be connected to new accounts that were created for privacy or security reasons, as per S Marshall's analysis here, I strongly believe further public discussion should be curtailed. Regardless of all that Wmrapids has done, our actions as compassionate human beings should not be determined by the lesser behaviors of others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of NoonIcarus and NoonIcarus evidence

NoonIcarus is a native Spanish speaker, who frequents the Spanish Wikipedia, where he has almost double the amount of edits he has on en.Wikipedia. [16] His English userpage indicates multiple Good articles and ITN/DYK contributions; he frequently translates articles from Spanish to English, works in content areas beyond Venezuelan politics, and comprehensively answers sourcing queries for others (something I have found to be an invaluable time saver).

The Template:Failed verification does not exist on the Spanish Wikipedia.[17] Template:Verify source does exist there; as an experienced editor, I have never used that template nor do I recall seeing it used, so NoonIcarus's misunderstanding of template use may be understandable. Per the recent ANI, the documentation on the FV template has been adjusted, and NoonIcarus has acknowledged better template usage. He is a good faith and productive editor who has been smeared by aspersions for well over a year, and held up with a mostly pleasant disposition in spite of the onslaught.

NoonIcarus, although I have watched the poor editing from the sock accounts and experienced it myself resulting in great frustration to me, leading me to stop editing, your evidence statements stop short of acknowledging that your response to WMrapids' poor editing was to revert too often. I, too, became exhausted and let my buttons be pushed by the interminable goading and gaming of the system, but I didn't edit war and I constantly (repetitively and exhaustingly) explained the problems to WMrapids and with his sources and citations on talk. And cleaned up citations to the point of exhaustion as well. Unless you acknowledge that you shouldn't take the bait or allow your conduct to be influenced by others, and that reverting too often is never the solution -- even as WMrapids' constantly edit warred to reinstate non-consensual content in articles -- this arbcase will not conclude favorably for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed decision possibilities

I am not accomplished at drafting arb principles, findings of fact, or remedies, but suggest the following are needed:

1. An accurate interpretation of how to apply scholarly sources
2. Something about the perennial problem since the advent of the pingie-thingie being used to creatively skirt WP:CANVASS: NoonIcarus did not bring in the other editors who dealt extensively with WMrapids (who are still likely unaware of this arbcase or the ANI), while WMrapids worked over time to ping in and line up like-minded supporters.
3. The importance of editing BLPs with great care, particularly for individuals in a country with dire consequences (Fernando Albán, Rafael Acosta Arévalo)
4. Do the arbs want/need further evidence re the sock accounts? If they do, then history becomes relevant, and the conditions for a full site ban might be contemplated, as accounts are likely to return; the notion expressed by several above that this case is now settled is short-sighted. And parity in sanctions is called for (unless a full site ban for the socking is issued instead), as NoonIcarus's editing was not worse than the WMrapids' account. I've stated since August 2023 that I don't believe WMrapids should be editing BLPs, at minimum; the POV is too great and the offenses not tolerable if we value live human beings.
5. There are (and have always been) exceedingly few Venezuelan editors working on political articles with command of the language, the history, and the reliable sources in both English and Spanish – probably no more than four at any given time since I’ve been editing. Venezuelan politics is not overrun by new Venezuelan editors, because of cultural reasons and fear of reprisals (noting that the vast majority of Venezuelans are anti-Maduro[18] yet they aren't editing in any noticeable numbers). Those few have to deal with considerably higher numbers of editors wanting to introduce fringe or deprecated sources or UNDUE content for reasons related more to anti-US political stance; such editors frequently have no to limited knowledge of the history and Spanish-language sources (having gained their views of Venezuela from reading popular English-language deprecated sources and conspiracy theories), and NoonIcarus's more thorough knowledge is key to maintaining balance.
   Eliminating one of the very few who can "wave the red flag when there's bias" will not benefit Wikipedia (indeed, was probably the goal in a long and targeted campaign).
   Perhaps something like this will work for NoonIcarus: either 0RR again, or a time-limited topic ban on article/mainspace editing in the Venezuelan politics realm, while allowing participation in talk page discussions. NoonIcarus has not demonstrated the problems on talk that WMrapids has (eg aspersions), and bludgeoning was not a serious problem until he had to start answering WMrapids' bludgeoning, where he took the bait early on (but later got wiser and stopped taking the bait).
6. Depending on what information the arbs have about the sockmaster, a WP:CLEANSTART principle might be in order, along with findings about prior warnings issued. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior ... if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly.
7. Contentious topic: benefit is unclear. Arguing against CTOP, Venezuelan politics was not a contentious area until WMrapids, and applying CT might result in the same situation that occurred in ARBMED (the sanctions were never used because the problem was only a few individuals). Arguing in favor of CTOP, there is the possibility of continued socking, there is also the possibility that a coordinated campaign exists, and Venezuela content has always been a hard area to edit because discussion is dominated by anti-US, pro-authoritarianism or pro-socialism editors who prevail by sheer numbers, often with marginal sources, over the very few Venezuelans who do edit. I'm unsure CTOP will provide a way to address that problem, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

An additional argument against contentious topic designation is whether it works at all; WMrapids was given a BLP contentious topics first alert, and yet continued to slant BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I support the sentiment of #6 for a cleanstart, especially given that WMrapids has offered similar terms to that proposed here.[19][20] This would hopefully allay the valid concerns raised here, such as making accusations against editors at article talk pages, being overly confrontational and accusatory during disagreement (e.g. WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:Casting aspersions) rather than being more congenial and working towards building consensus--focusing too much on editor behavior rather than content--even asking an editor to stop editing in an area, and, of course, socking. WMrapids has, in my opinion, shown sufficient remorse and has taken responsibility for untoward actions and promised not to repeat the behaviors. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid my sentiment has been misread; I'm not suggesting a CLEAN start for WMrapids-- I'm suggesting that if a new account has returned to the same articles to continue battleground behaviors, then the behaviors of all accounts should be on the table, and the opportunity for a clean start has already been missed. And when the reputation of a fellow editor has been thoroughly besmirched over months of disputes across many fora, that's hard to recover from, and I've seen no remorse yet, much less commensurate to the deed. And should the WMrapids accounts be linked to a previous account, with privacy/security needs used as the reason, then it should not escape us that WMrapids did not afford the same security need to NoonIcarus when he bludgeoned NoonIcarus's legitimate account renaming across multiple dispute resolution fora. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by NoonIcarus

I'll continue expanding this section and other comment by piecemeal due to time constraints.

In any case, I'd like this analysis to be complemented by the private information I sent to the Committee. I'm leaving to the arbitrators' discretion how much of said information is made public, if any. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

SandyGeorgia evidence

This diff provided by SandyGeorgia perfectly illustrates how harmful the personalization and aspersions casting was overall. At Talk:Lima Consensus#Disputed tag, Ultranuevo (a relatively new editor to the English Wikipedia) and I were calmy discussing about the cleanup tag in the article before WMrapids' comment. Their comment was a needless escalation and derailed said discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

S Marshall evidence

Regarding WMrapids' question about sources format (User talk:S Marshall#Venezuelan politics opened), I wanted to point out to this explanation they provided: I admittedly may have become lazy (...) since I thought that detailed citations did not really matter to [NoonIcarus] ([21]). I fail to see how this can be the case when for months editors and I asked for the original cited text or how the source material did not reflect their edits, as I explained in the evidence phase (Third phase: Venezuelan politics (October 2023-present)). I want to bear in mind WP:AGF and I really don't want to do a stretch on intentions, but the vague referencing format and the use of obscure journals (sometimes available only with paid subscriptions), sometimes led me to believe even that it was an attempt to make content verification even more difficult.

I want to stress with this, as well as the information that I emailed to Arbcom, that WMrapids is not a new editor. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis by TarnishedPath

Whatever else happens here I don't think ArbCom should be reconsidering topic bans. I believe that would be out of process with the community process that occurs between WP:AN/I and WP:AN. TarnishedPath^talk 14:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Multiple accounts abuse was confirmed during the course of this case, there should be a reconsideration at the very least. The closing admin (and former arbitrator) mentioned that it is common practice for the ARBCOM to evaluate these measures. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No multiple account abuse seems to have been involved in the ANI thread. Whatever WMRapids is guilty of, it does not seem to have any connection to the activities you were topic blocked for.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: