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

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

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.

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 purging the cache.

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. Moneytrees (talk · contribs)
10. Primefac (talk · contribs)
11. Sdrqaz (talk · contribs)
12. ToBeFree (talk · contribs)
13. Z1720 (talk · contribs)

Inactive:

1. L235 (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:SOCK policy does not require it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

To ask the clerks (or arbitrators): I have removed sockpuppetry as a proposed principle since it is repeated ([4]). 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)[reply]

On a related note, @David Tornheim: I removed the "User:" prefix in your proposals section title for consistency with the other titles ([5]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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 ([6]): 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)[reply]

I answered there, and I supplied private information to the arbs about other images (which as far as I know, you couldn't obtain because you weren't "closely associated"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I'll add that these aren't aspersions without consequences; for WMrapids to make such statements when he knows well the ramifications to real human beings and has read the sources and written content, is repugnant, and should be a factor in contemplating a site ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: I have revised my comment to include your objection and additional information about Evidence of advocacy provided by WMrapids that seems clear enough. In this image you were standing adjacent to Miguel Pizarro an opposition leader. If you are an objective reporter of events and protests, where are your similar close-up images of high ranking pro-government officials and organizers, rallies and protests? If the opposition is in as much danger as Sandy Georgia reports [7], Under arrest has no meaning in Venezuela, where human rights violations, including throwing people in prison with no trial for crimes they didn't commit, are thoroughly documented by humans rights organizations. And, the person "under arrest", if they shot the right kind of person (anti-government) is released or never charged as soon as the hubbub dies down. If that is true, I seriously doubt the opposition would let you get close enough to photograph them unless you were deeply trusted and/or part of their inner circle. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That only shows you don't know anything about the humility of Miguel Pizarro and the area of Caracas he represented. Further, the idea that anyone could get close to any high ranking pro-government officials is just outlandish; more than half the country wants them all gone for corruption, and they have an abundance of security. How'd that work out for Jorge Ramos of Univision news? [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a stroll through my Commons uploads and other pictures I took that day:[9][10][11][12][13][14][15], they're public. They're not party rallies, meetings or whatsoever, and anyone that year was bound to find politicians in the street because they frequently attended marches. Do I need to remind of the deputy pushed by a water cannon or the many others injured by rubber pellets?

I wrote the ArbCom about the possible conflicts of interest I might have and how I have tried avoiding editing about them, but I can assure you that political parties aren't one of them. Suggesting that I'm part of Pizarro's "inner circle" is ludicrous. Accusations such as these should have way stronger evidence, and I ask the Committee once again to take into account the doubling down of these claims. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus the worst abuses during the protests typically happened in just a few locations, and most often in the afternoon when the Guard and colectivos came out. If one was, for example, joining in at the entrance to Santa Fe Norte, it was more like a block party. Of if you walked the few blocks from your apartment in Altamira just to have a look and got home quickly, you could usually just meet up with your friends (work was always shut down so marches were widely attended). I don't mean to downplay the deaths and abuse, but I also don't want those who don't know Caracas to have the wrong impression about the impact on most citizens, who knew to avoid the hot spots and get home early. And my other concern is that we don't really know everyone who might have damaged or intimidated to whom, do we? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. You got it right. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your images: from Bello Monte, one can easily see the worst of the protest hotspots on the Fco. Fajardo freeway from the balcony of one's apartment. That's why it's called "bello" "monte" :) :) Using these images as evidence against you is just outrageous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I finally spent some time reading some of the comments here. I agree with SG that “these aren't aspersions without consequences ... should be a factor in contemplating a site ban”. I’ve removed the aspersions from the page. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dustfreeworld you can't do that on an arbcase page (much less one that has been closed by an arb clerk); I recommend you self-revert post-haste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? But per

WP:PA: ”Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans”. PAG conflicts? Anyway I’ve self-reverted as recommended. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

If the arbs judge it an attack (and the doubling-down that followed after NoonIcarus requested it be removed), that would go in to their findings. If they are still reading the page. You do raise an interesting dilemma about a P&G conflict. And point out an egregious personal attack that originated elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted most of the comments that I needed to. However, today an important part of principles, findings of fact and remedies has been proposed.

As such, I wanted to ask if the Committee if they could consider at least a 24-hour extension on the deadline, so that the Workshop closes tomorrow 28 April. I'm sure there can be more input with Sunday's free time.

Other editors can comment if this seems enough either for more messages or to offer comments. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the deadline applies to the talk page, but just noting that we're currently unable to answer further comments due to the deadline: Analysis by David Tornheim of SandyGeorgia's evidence. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus, until a clerk closes the page, you can continue to respond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The stage should have been closed, but I was busy 0 UTC so did not add the banner. Unless an extension is granted, the stage is closed and should have been closed already.

I cannot approve or deny such a request (as an arbitration clerk), but the drafting arbitrators may choose to do this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly @Dreamy Jazz:. I personally think more time isn't needed, unless other editors disagree. Cheers, --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, I am so sorry for posting after the close. I misread your statement above, as it says you could not make the decision to approve or deny, so I thought the page was still open. I will repost below my late additions, which included changing my sanction suggestion. I was just returning from church, and posted too quickly without reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My after-the-deadline post to General discussion (self-reverted) (slightly expanded) was :

There were references in the case request to the "usual defenders". This page demonstrates that what is basically a content dispute, turned into a conduct issue by one editor, has uneven defenders. While only one regular editor of Venezuelan content showed up besides NoonIcarus (moi), the anti-US, pro-Maduro and pro-authoritarian/socialism/deprecated sources always outnumber Venezuelan editors in content, at noticeboards, and in dispute resolution, because Venezuelan editors are forced to silence by intimidation that extends to real world consequences with important safety and security implications. I urge the arbs to consider the private evidence I sent, and ask themselves who/what might be behind abuses of human rights in Venezuela, silencing of Venezuelan Wikipedians, and who are those parties whose interests are served by allowing S Marshall's mala fide to succeed. (I am not implicating anyone who has posted to this page as all was done in the good faith interest of dispute resolution from those with different viewpoints, but most of those posting to this page have knowledge gaps regarding the extent of the full picture.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of this matter is probably hidden here. You suggest that any pro-Maduro source is unreliable. That is simply not true, and is the basic problem that Noonicarus has in their editing. For Noonicarus, by definition, any source which does not oppose the Venezuelan government is unreliable. Hence the constant introduction of bias into articles.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is mischaracterizing the situation here a bit. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue, re "You suggest that any pro-Maduro source is unreliable", I don't think I said that, I didn't mean to say that, and if that's how it came across, then I apologize for my (typically) sloppy expression.

The deprecated sources I speak of and am familiar with do things like misreport that someone "fell to their death", when it is well known and widely reported that they were thrown from a building with water on their lungs (ie, tortured). Those sort of sources would be laughable if the subject was not torture and death, and because they are in English, plenty of innocent people are reading and believing them. I have certainly seen pro-Maduro sources that are credible, and I know NoonIcarus has used them as well.

I'm talking here about something entirely different; torture and human rights abuses are well documented in Venezuela, and we have now reports that assure that the voice of Venezuelans won't be reflected in Wikipedia's Venezuelan content, for reasons of safety and security which are becoming worse, and on display in this case. Those who hold a different point of view are able to continue showing up, resulting in uneven discussions (and in this case, according to my evidence, one that was manipulated to be uneven). I'm one of the few editors able to show up to discuss these matters because I don't have to worry about jeopardizing family. Others are forced to silence by real world threats, false charges and intimidation. I was pointing out that I was the only editor (the "usual defender") to show here for NoonIcarus, and there's a reason for that, which is demonstrated in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And at the same time, I may be the only editor on the page, besides NoonIcarus, who knows you could literally watch someone die while filming a protest from the balcony of your apartment in Bello Monte, which overlooks the Francisco Fajardo freeway, where much of the violence occurred -- so that using the photos taken by NoonIcarus as evidence against him is an example of editors not knowing the territory, the culture, the history, the geography, etc ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly possible for a pro-Maduro source to be unreliable, of course. But throughout this process, Noonicarus and to a lesser degree yourself have suggested academic peer-reviewed publications and books published by respectable publishing houses are unreliable because of their (in some cases perceived) bias. You yourself suggested that a book published by Gregory Wilpert is unreliable because of the author, despite it being published by a reputable academic publisher and having no questions re its factual content. Noonicarus simply eliminates any source he doesn't like, for example his mass elimination of a biography of Hugo Chavez, and constant suggestion that academic papers do not represent a "mainstream view" and therefore claims sourced to them should not be included. Again, this is based usually on opinion not factual error (which itself is not enough to render a source unreliable), and no similar scruples are applied to pro-opposition media.

The situation in Venezuela is terrible, and both sides are engaged in lies and dirty tricks. Neither respect democracy, and various outside powers use the country as a venue for their rivalry. I understand that this is a difficult area to edit in, which is why I generally avoid it myself. I recognise your good intentions here, but unfortunately, due to the larger contributions and prolificacy of anti-Maduro editors, especially Noonicarus, our articles are seriously biased in favour of the opposition. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'll be excoriated, maligned, and lied about (again) in the blog-o-sphere for having called some shots in this case; next time, someone can bring my Wilpert edits for scrutiny at ArbCom. I usually find it best to recognize and apologize when one has made a mistake, and I'm encouraged to find hopeful signs that there is humanity among us, in spite of differences of opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a huge bone to pick with the claim made here that "neither respect democracy, and various outside powers use the country as a venue for their rivalry." This sort of bothsidesing is am almost completely

WP:FRINGE view, and that's exactly the problem. A major governments can, and do, use their influence to promote fringe views, often aided by unwitting (and witting) accomplices. Academics are often the ones most susceptible, since they lack journalistic training, the kind of training necessary to weed out puffery from truth and report impartially, especially when the facts they are presented with seem to be "too good to be true". One need only look at Chomsky's genocide denial (or bangers like this: [16]), to see the tragic consequences of this sort of manipulation. Assessing academics on Wikipedia is made more difficult by the fact that, unlike journalists, they are not responsible to a wider entity. Hence, the concerns about the use of academic sources in news coverage is, at least partially, founded. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I wouldn't say that it is

WP:FRINGE to say that groups which have have fomented and participated in coups have a lack of respect for democracy, and that, once again, goes for both sides. Beyond that, I think we are straying well into notaforum territory.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]