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)

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 ([2]). 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)