Wikipedia talk: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)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Active:

1. Aoidh (talk · contribs)
2. Barkeep49 (talk · contribs)
3. Cabayi (talk · contribs)
4. CaptainEek (talk · contribs)
5. Firefly (talk · contribs)
6. Guerillero (talk · contribs)
7. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
8. Maxim (talk · contribs)
9. Primefac (talk · contribs)
10. Sdrqaz (talk · contribs)
11. ToBeFree (talk · contribs)
12. Z1720 (talk · contribs)

Inactive:

1. L235 (talk · contribs)
2. Moneytrees (talk · contribs)

WMrapids block

During this proceeding WMrapids was blocked for sockpupperty. It might be helpful to know what other accounts WMrapids used or might have used that edited in the topic area of this case--to understand any potential abuse and its short or long-term effects. I understand that the nature of identifying socks is a closely guarded secret, so there might be good reason not to reveal any other accounts at this time. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: I believe the reason the name of the other account has not been revealed is for privacy concerns as expressed by WMrapids. I have seen mention of another account that has less than 150 edits, consistent with WMrapids assertion that one alternate account has "a little over 100 edits". [1] I'm not going to name that account out of respect for privacy. I believe this is the only sock.--David Tornheim (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Gravedancing?

I posted within the Workshop my concern that continuing to make accusations against WMrapids after the accounts have been blocked with no obvious intent to unblock--making it impossible for them to defend themselves--appears to be wp:gravedancing. We see only one side of the story--especially with regard to content and sourcing disputes.[2] WMrapids requested one editor to stop.--David Tornheim (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Socking evidence

If additional evidence is needed on the sock situation, could another two weeks be added to the timeline? I have zero free time in the coming week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The underlying issue at this point

I think that the underlying question for the arbitrators at this point has not exactly been stated in so many words, but is implied by the proposals of User:S Marshall, and the alternative is what is said by User:David Tornheim. Let's see if I can state it. It appears that S Marshall is working toward a conclusion that the community topic-ban on NoonIcarus was tainted by sockpuppetry and should be set aside, and that, because the community did not resolve the issue, ArbCom should impose a sanction on NoonIcarus that may be less than a full topic-ban. I think that is the question,and maybe S Marshall is working toward it. David Tornheim has expressed the other view clearly, which is that, if the topic-ban of NoonIcarus is valid, there is nothing further to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• That's the issue that I'm personally focused on, but I'm not sure it's the only issue.—S Marshall T/C 13:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There's more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Format

To ask the clerks (or arbitrators): I have removed sockpuppetry as a proposed principle since it is repeated ([3]). As I understand that the workshop doesn't have word limits, I wanted to know if I should format the removed text as striken text. Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, @David Tornheim: I removed the "User:" prefix in your proposals section title for consistency with the other titles ([4]). I wanted to give you the heads up, feel free to restore it if you feel it's appropriate. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus just a note that arb pages are much much more strict about such changes, even minor ones, and suggest you refrain from even minor changes like that-- during an arbcase, that itself can result in a sanction. I am noticing that you are quite unfamiliar with how to process these pages (arbcases are a world unto themselves and really hard on the uninitiated), and I want to also note that if you feel you need more time, you can ask for the deadlines to be extended. You are the sanctioned editor, and the intent here is to be sure you have a fair hearing, so if you need more time to process everything on the pages, you can say so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you kindly for letting me know, I have self reverted the change for your input. I will do my best to offer all of the needed input before the deadline, but I won't doubt to ask for an extension if needed. In the meantime, I'd love to get as much advice as possible, being the first time that I participate in an Arbcom process. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus. I gave you my best advice in the third paragraph here; perhaps you haven't yet gotten to that, or perhaps I need to write my recommendation in plainer English or in Spanish? Please advise whether you have understood what I wrote there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Absolutely, that's one of the comments I remain to leave, I'm very sorry for the delay. However, I can start by saying that I'm absolutely aware of the issue and that I'm not proud either of my instances of poor behavior in the past or the sanctions that I have received as a result. Many thanks in advance, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Expanding re the citations issue

This is a new issue for me and I've never encountered anyone except WMrapids who does it. To take it to extremes, imagine if someone wrote:

Liz Truss was an unpopular Prime Minister and she didn't last very long.<ref>https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=liz+truss</ref>

Well... it's true, or at least, very widely believed; it's got a citation; and, okay, the citation will take you to information that will verify the claim. But citations need to be better than that, right? Do we even have a policy, guideline, principle, or other rule that says citations have to be clear and specific and take you directly to the place that verifies your claim?—S Marshall T/C 14:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I avoided adding my diffs of how often I had to clean up or ask for clarification on WMrapids's sources, and how long that problem persisted, out of concern that my standards may be too high, and my evidence was already pushing word limits, so I'd also like to know where we stand on this. My hunch is, at minimum, when you are repeatedly asked to clean up and clarify your citations, because others are having a hard time finding the information in the citation given, you should do so. Perhaps a finding could be worded along those lines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue in this case hasn't been limited to the referencing format per se, but rather that the cited content was frequently challenged, its persistence, and that several of these additions were controversial claims, including in BLP articles (as SandyGeorgia pointed out), sometimes amounting to personal interpretation or opinions. I remember citing WP:EXCEPTIONAL many times, and this was further complicated by the fact that the references had to be reviewed. WMrapids frequently restored disputed content and, naturally and argue that it was "referenced content", which naturally begs the question: "how does the source support the content?".

I don't think that content that isn't challenged or is uncontroversial should be held to such high standards, I believe that is covered by WP:ONUS. I've found bare URLs as references and by themselves and their main problem is mostly link rot, which is "important" but not "urgent". The problem here is that in this case it overlaps with other patterns of disruptive behavior. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Accusations

I'd like @David Tornheim: to strike the accusations that I'm "closely associated with the opposition". I have already responded to this claim before ([5]): I don't belong to any opposition political party in Venezuela, haven't had any relationship whatsoever with them and neither do I wish to.

Accusing me of this for uploading images of Venezuelan demonstrations in Wikimedia Commons, as well as part of Wikimedia Venezuela, has no bearing in this Workshop. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)