Target dates: Opened 6 April 2024 • Evidence closes 20 April 2024 • Workshop closes 27 April 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 4 May 2024
Scope: Conduct in the topic area of Venezuelan politics, with a specific focus on named parties.
Case clerks: ToBeFree ( Talk) & Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Firefly ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) & Sdrqaz ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Editors should follow WP:RS which states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP) These are preferable to mainstream media and news reports by journalists. Mainstream sources covering Venezuelan politics are susceptible to propaganda. [1] [2] -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
References
2) Attribution is important for Venezuelan politics. WP:RS states:
See WP:BIASED. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2) {text of Proposed principle}
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)
2) WMrapids was indefinitely blocked on 11 April 2024. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) None necessary. This case can be closed without further action. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) None necessary. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) 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. Stricken due to repetition --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
1) On 24 May 2023, after the closure and move of the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article, the WMrapids account shifted from editing mostly in Peruvian topics to those about Venezuela. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 14:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
2a) Their method (...) included changing the community's consensus on the reliability of sources. 2b) WMrapids was indefinitely blocked on 11 April 2024 after a checkuser to prevent multiple account abuse.
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.
1) NoonIcarus' topic ban from Latin American politics, broadly construed, is rescinded.
2) NoonIcarus is warned against behavior related to this dispute, including but not limited to edit warring, content removal and bludgeoning. Repeated misbehavior will be subject to enforcement by the Arbitration Committee.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of the sockpuppetry policy. Multiple accounts for privacy reasons are allowable under some circumstances, but editors should not expect that checkusers nor arbitrators will act to conceal the connection if it is made on-wiki.
2) Disruptive editing, which can include making deceptive statements at dispute resolution noticeboards, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, is cause for blocking an account. Repeated violations of Wikipedia behavioural and editing policies may lead to indefinite blocks which become de facto bans when no administrator will consider unblocking, particularly if the editor uses multiple accounts to behave disruptively. Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.
3) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in related discussions in support of external groups or to circumvent generally unreliable or deprecated sources – especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in Wikipedia or the underlying dispute – it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions.
4) A paid editor has a potential conflict of interest with any article or subject related to one they have been retained to edit or in exchange for personal benefit, even if they were not directly paid to take action in relation to that specific article or subject.
5) 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 or off Wikipedia, and in countries where human rights violations are frequently documented and could be directed at Wikipedia editors, or that involves generally unreliable sources about those countries and enterprises involved with those countries, 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.
6) Contributors should try to write citations correctly, but what matters most is that they provide enough information to identify the source and verify the information, and others can improve the formatting if needed. Experienced editors are expected to write complete citations, and respond with improvements if other editors indicate they cannot locate the cited information in the source given. Repeated failure to improve the quality of citations can be disruptive.
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
7) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. These include pinging editors from similar articles or disputes where they have not been previously involved, when such pinging may influence the outcome. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus.
1) The WMrapids account was used simultaneously with another account for privacy reasons. After one of those accounts was abandoned, the WMrapids account continued the same behaviors so as to be recognizable, and also created a third sock account.
2) The WMrapids account has posted deceptive information about their account history to at least two noticeboards (ANI [11] and RSN [12]) in a way that impugned other Venezuelan editors and implied those others had riddled Venezuelan content with biased information while hiding their own prior involvement, edits and timeline of editing history.
3) WMrapids has edited in a such a way to create reasonable suspicion that their edits are coordinated or compensated.
4) WMrapids and other accounts operated by the same person have engaged in biased editing and used poor or misrepresented sources to besmirch living persons and entities. Such edits continued after a contentious topics BLP alert was issued and after prior office actions.
5) Over the long-term, the accounts operated by WMrapids have engaged in a sustained campaign to besmirch other editors, and have cast aspersions, hounded, failed to assume good faith, bludgeoned dispute resolution noticeboards, and created a battleground. This behavior was not confined to the Venezuelan politics content area.
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.
1) The person operating the WMrapids and other accounts is site banned.
1) NoonIcarus was sanctioned in 2020 with a custom revert restriction. The admin closing the March–April 2024 ANI indicated ArbCom would revisit, and others have raised concerns about the leadup to and circumstances of that ANI resulting in uneven evidence. Subsequently, deceptive posts to noticeboards, and motives, have been revealed to ArbCom. NoonIcarus's topic ban on Latin American politics is removed. NoonIcarus is instead restricted to one year of no main space editing in the realm of Latin American politics, broadly construed, but is allowed to participate in talk page and noticeboard and other dispute resolution discussions. Admins may impose word limits or daily posting limits if bludgeoning becomes a problem.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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)
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.
I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the AnglosphereHeck: I even was unaware that my biographies at eswiki had a gender gap until I counted them manually and actively sought to reduce said gap by creating biographies about women.
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)
Most of SandyGeorgia's claims of bias boil down to and are underpinned by: A disagreement on content founded on a disagreement on the reliability of sources.
SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus/JamezG have both singly and together helped assure the deprecation of a number of sources that report Socialist, Leftist, or Pro-Maduro content, and/or challenge U.S. foreign policy re: Venezuela by contributing to RfC’s (e.g. TeleSUR 31 March 2019 [both], VenezuelaAnalysis March 2019 [both], Mint Press 4 July 2019 [Jamez42], Grayzone closed 3/2020 [both], HISPANTV 19 May 2019 [both]). Some of the key deprecations came shortly after opposition figure Juan Guaido declared himself President of Venezuela in January 2019—those sources were all critical of Juan Guaido. In those proceedings (as in this one), SandyGeorgia often argued that a source she wanted deprecated “parrots content from [another source Wikipedians deprecated]” [15], [16] . The focus is not whether the content parroted is accurate. Many of the claims made to deprecrate the sources were not grounded in scholarly opinions about the overall reliability of source—but seem to be based on editors’ beliefs about the reliability of the source relying on individual examples of unreliability.
And, as I have stated, the same problem can be found in U.S. mass media, where AP stories circulate—like the WMDs used to justify the Iraq War (see Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War, [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]) and the countless images of mushroom clouds suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of launching ICBMs at the U.S. Does that mean that every media outlet that parroted “conspiracy theories” to advance the war are unreliable? I do not argue that.
Instead, we must rely on our WP:RS guideline, as I outlined here in this proceeding.
I have and will continue to respect the community’s decision on these RfC’s—I am not trying to “overturn” those decisions, but simply draw attention to the double-standard applied to foreign sources that do not ally with U.S. foreign policy goals. Other editors have made similar observations in those RfCs, but were outweighed by the majority.
While deprecating sources that align with Maduro’s government, SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus have fewer problems with the bias of sources that are pro-opposition, pro-capitalist, anti-Socialist, anti-Maduro, etc. (e.g. Pan Am Post [26], La Patilla [27], El Nacional, and a good part of the U.S. and western mass media). If any of the the pro-Opposition entities parrots deprecated source—e.g. Breitbart—that apparently is not a problem for NoonIcarus at those RfCs.
Even when a left-leaning source such as The Nation, which Wikipedia deems generally reliable,
was used, SandyGeorgia accusedusing mostly marginal or partisan sources”
.
What this comes down to primarily is a dispute about sourcing and content based on that sourcing. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I have seen allegations about “overusing one source”, especially by NoonIcarus. SandyGeorgia has edited 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt 115 times from 2006 until 2023 [28], NoonIcarus did too, yet neither seems to have no problems that Nelson was cited about 95 times in the article (by my count). This was mentioned by WMrapids here. Yet she takes exception to an edit by WMrapids in her Evidence. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Nelson actually received US government funding to write Silence and the Scorpion through the Fulbright Program of the United States Cultural Exchange Programs), but when Bobfrombrockley asked if they had any other reasons to question his reliability ( [33]) they never responded back.
A socking editor [35] [36] with a pronounced POV hounded those he disagreed with, corrupted collegiality across many discussions, slanted BLPs, and sapped community time, [37] while creatively and persistently pinging in supporters to discussions, [38] until Venezuelan topics appeared contentious and the community stopped weighing in to bludgeoned discussions, resulting in application of uneven sanctions, [39] [40] 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)
7. Grave dancing and well poisoning 148, but isn't that exactly what you (and others) are doing and continue to do here? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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. [45]
Looking at "Further diffs", the first example provided is not an adequate summary of the source:
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)
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)
S Marshall writes in his evidence:
I was struck by the fact that although WMrapids knows how to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint at AN/I, he didn't know that his citations should have page numbers. This isn't a judgment on WMrapids. It's a judgment on us. How could someone new spend six months editing in a contentious topic area without anyone taking the time to explain the first section of our first core content policy?
My apologies for the lateness of this response (I've spent weeks looking for the relevant discussion.) That WMrapids did not know about page numbers (or timestamps for videos [46]) is not the case, and someone did take the time and he certainly did know; he typically either dug in or didn't respond/ignored the citation cleanup, usually until someone else responded. With videos and timestamps, there were several discussions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Another example of a charge of "failed verification": this source is not adequately summarized. The source does not say
The source says:
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)
There are inconsistencies regarding the sock account, User:Simón, el Silbón; is there more to this story?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
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. [48] 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. [49] 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)
I am not accomplished at drafting arb principles, findings of fact, or remedies, but suggest the following are needed:
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.
That RfC close is nowhere near as clear cut as this report seems to imply. The discussion focused on a specific proposed addition for which no consensus to add was found and Jamez42's concerns about NPOV were specifically noted in the close. Topic ban would be massively premature. And really, some of the people complaining about POV editing probably need to take a look in the mirror.
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)
Quotes that I linked at the evidence but was unable to cite due to word limit:
An obscure Brazilian paper cited by one other publication( SandyGeorgia on obscure sourcing, 29-Oct-2023)
Gain consensus on talk if you want to add an opinion from a very obscure paper, which no one else thinks worthy of citation( Ibidem)
Similarly, this is an obscure Nigerian lecture cited by none( SandyGeorgia on obscure sourcing, 1-Nov-2023)
You can find an obscure journal or author to promote any POV; journal publication doesn't render content DUE and doesn't guarantee peer review. (...) just because one author's opinion can be dug up in a journal, doesn't mean it should be given weight in an article (see WP:UNDUE)( SandyGeorgia on obscure sourcing, 23-Nov-2023)
I would say it again, scholarly articles are only as good as you can demonstrate that the journal is good, the authors is notable and that it has been cited by others extensively. If I wanted to find scholarly articles saying that Earth is flat or that Einstein was wrong with relativity I can find them very easily, but that does not make them due.( ReyHahn on obscure sourcing, 25-Nov-2023)
As an uninvolved editor, may I ask what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing WP:Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian? Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day.( Dustfreeworld on aspersions, 28-Mar-2024)
You can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion.( SandyGeorgia on aspersions, 28-Mar-2024)
Keep on describing a message expressing Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian as “gamey behavior” and/or “unconventional canvassing”, and that they’re *more concerned* about that than another Wikipedian’s real life tragedies ... is just a totally unacceptable explicit example of failure to AGF. If this kind of mentality persists during their interaction with other involved editors who’ve views different from them, I can imagine how exhausting and disheartening it can be.( Dustfreeworld on aspersions, 29-Mar-2024). -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 01:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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]
(
[66]). 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)
I talk about the issue with the use of scholar opinions at Third phase: Venezuelan politics. at Talk:Guarimba#Tags (" A recap on WP:WEIGHT"), I explain how editors such as SandyGeorgia and ReyHahn were worried about the use of obscure sources to support a minority or fringe point of view. I personally gave the examples of the Lancet MMR autism fraud and a paper published by the deprecated MintPress News senior staff writer Alan MacLeod. I explained the problem with the use of "massacre" for the Caracazo at Talk:Caracazo#POV tag: it is a loaded term (which violates the NPOV principle) and I gave other academic sources that don't use the term Talk:Caracazo#Sources. What to do when sources differ on the same topic is the gist of neutrality.
Secondly, to demonstrate the misuse of edit summaries, not only a pattern should be demonstrated, but intent as well. To counter this I provided diffs at the ANI how I prefer rewording or rescuing dead links instead of removing content when I have the chance: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71], but I can provide more if needed. That doesn't mean that there haven't been mistakes, and other editors have been able to verify the content when I wasn't, but that is not the same as deliberately and consistently removing content. Boynamedsue even mistakenly shared an accurate removal during the evidence phase: [72].
Last but not least, it's false that I failed to hear advice that statements of [the OAS] should be attributed to them
, which is easily demonstrable. I offered attribution for the organization in this edit:
[73] and WMrapids
even thanked me for it: Every incidence of someone being described as a "guarimbero" is not always notable and can be undue. Thank you for attributing the information, though.
What I opposed in the discussion was deeming the OAS as unreliable only based on character instead of substance ("The OAS is an anti-socialist organization and it deliberately chose a lawyer for an opposition leader to lead this investigation
").
I'm disheartened that Boynamedsue has such a negative impression of me since we mostly know each other from this thread that I started in January at the reliable sources noticeboard: WP:RSN#OAS Panel of Independent International Experts precisely to have more input from the community on the given source. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Since the transition and consolidation of democracy in 1958, the Venezuelan polity had historically been legitimated by state-led developmentalism and economic nationalism (Coronil, 1998), with centralized rent-deployment patterns controlled by the executive and brokered by two hegemonic and highly centralized and clientelist political parties.There is lots more sourced material you delete in this edit, it is a masterwork of POV introduction.
On 14 February 2019, a group of UN delegates, including delegates of Venezuela and several other countries, declared they would fight what they called the "illicit, US-led effort" to change the government of Venezuela. They accused the US of "using sanctions and emergency aid as political weapons against Venezuelans"the NYT says that this claim was made by the Venezuelan foreign minister who said
a new coalition of nations would fight what he called an illicit, American-led effort to topple his governmentand that he was
flanked by ambassadors of several countries that have joined the group, which includes China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia and Syria. Diplomats said the group totaled about 50 nations. I can see that you might want to rephrase this slightly, though again, it is reasonable to think that the minister was speaking for the coalition that was stood next to him. However, there is no way that you can justify deletion here.
Caracas and Bogota have also announced intentions to restore military relations. Venezuelan Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez said Maduro had ordered him to immediately establish contact with Colombian Defence Minister Ivan Velasquez for this purpose. The governments also agreed to “boost security and peace” on their shared border. We will continue step by step and at a safe pace to advance towards the restoration and reconstruction of political, diplomatic and commercial relations,” Maduro said on state television.Yes, if you wish to delete "guerrillas, paramilitaries and drug traffickers" that is fine. But you didn't do that, because your goal is to minimise any recognition of Maduro by any other government, as above. And this is not, in any way, crystal ball.
The new sanctions are an attempt to close a number of loopholes Venezuela has used to sell off assets and raise money. They restrict the ability of Venezuela and state-owned oil company PDVSA to issue new debt or stock in U.S. dollars, or engage in other financial dealings with U.S. citizens.This is a reasonable paraphrase of "lose access to credit markets". Again, you know this to be true, but you are looking for a loophole to delete a suggestion that the economic sanctions might be a factor in Venezuela's problem.
When Tornheim says that Western mainstream media
disseminates U.S. State Department propaganda
, he seems to be expressing a wide perceived issue about Wikipedia's concept of reliability, rather than just a specific one about me: the idea that the sources that the community considers realiable are unrealible because they supposedly disseminate "U.S. State Department propaganda".
This is also a straw man, because a lot of the sources that I use are domestic and Venezuelan, unrelated to the "Western mainstream media", just as well as Venezuelan academics (including prominent leftists themselves, such as Manuel Caballero and Teodoro Petkoff).
David also supported the deprecated
Grayzone to be categorized as a reliable or non-consensus source (
[110]) (a position that, judging from this exchange:
User talk:Allan Nonymous#Comment from David Tornheim, seems to not have changed). This, along with the opinions expressed during this process and others such like these: Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo.
and he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a "dictator" to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change.
(
[111]) should give content on Tornheim's idea of neutrality.
It's false that I haven't explained my opposition with the use of loaded language, such as with the term "massacre". The reasons can be found here: Talk:Caracazo#POV tag, where I asked whether it was appropriate to call the 1992 Los Angeles riots a "massacre" to illustrate the point to Western editors. At Talk:Caracazo#Sources I provided academic sources with different definitions after he asked for them, to which he didn't reply and doesn't acknowledge in his Evidence section. After around four years without editing, and without interacting with me, it's unfair for Tornheim to still support such a draconian measure against me. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'll have enough time to expand on this on these last minutes, but let's try:
The many times I have cited the restoration of a stable version in articles basically meant that WMrapids performed changes without consensus. They likewise started calling the use of cleanup tags in articles to prevent edit warring as " driveby tagging", quite improperly since a) said tags were explained, b) I was often part of the article's development and c) these were clearly not "easily fixed problems". They paint my editing in the worst light possible, describing a splitting proposal (which was a suggestion at the related move proposal) as a "demand". An equally pertinent question is to ask how removing all the redirects to Guayana Esequiba, a title that had existed for over ten years, benefits the encyclopedia. [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] (among many, many others). -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 16:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
Target dates: Opened 6 April 2024 • Evidence closes 20 April 2024 • Workshop closes 27 April 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 4 May 2024
Scope: Conduct in the topic area of Venezuelan politics, with a specific focus on named parties.
Case clerks: ToBeFree ( Talk) & Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Firefly ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) & Sdrqaz ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Editors should follow WP:RS which states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP) These are preferable to mainstream media and news reports by journalists. Mainstream sources covering Venezuelan politics are susceptible to propaganda. [1] [2] -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
References
2) Attribution is important for Venezuelan politics. WP:RS states:
See WP:BIASED. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2) {text of Proposed principle}
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)
2) WMrapids was indefinitely blocked on 11 April 2024. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) None necessary. This case can be closed without further action. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) None necessary. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) 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. Stricken due to repetition --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
1) On 24 May 2023, after the closure and move of the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article, the WMrapids account shifted from editing mostly in Peruvian topics to those about Venezuela. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 14:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
2a) Their method (...) included changing the community's consensus on the reliability of sources. 2b) WMrapids was indefinitely blocked on 11 April 2024 after a checkuser to prevent multiple account abuse.
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.
1) NoonIcarus' topic ban from Latin American politics, broadly construed, is rescinded.
2) NoonIcarus is warned against behavior related to this dispute, including but not limited to edit warring, content removal and bludgeoning. Repeated misbehavior will be subject to enforcement by the Arbitration Committee.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of the sockpuppetry policy. Multiple accounts for privacy reasons are allowable under some circumstances, but editors should not expect that checkusers nor arbitrators will act to conceal the connection if it is made on-wiki.
2) Disruptive editing, which can include making deceptive statements at dispute resolution noticeboards, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, is cause for blocking an account. Repeated violations of Wikipedia behavioural and editing policies may lead to indefinite blocks which become de facto bans when no administrator will consider unblocking, particularly if the editor uses multiple accounts to behave disruptively. Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.
3) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in related discussions in support of external groups or to circumvent generally unreliable or deprecated sources – especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in Wikipedia or the underlying dispute – it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions.
4) A paid editor has a potential conflict of interest with any article or subject related to one they have been retained to edit or in exchange for personal benefit, even if they were not directly paid to take action in relation to that specific article or subject.
5) 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 or off Wikipedia, and in countries where human rights violations are frequently documented and could be directed at Wikipedia editors, or that involves generally unreliable sources about those countries and enterprises involved with those countries, 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.
6) Contributors should try to write citations correctly, but what matters most is that they provide enough information to identify the source and verify the information, and others can improve the formatting if needed. Experienced editors are expected to write complete citations, and respond with improvements if other editors indicate they cannot locate the cited information in the source given. Repeated failure to improve the quality of citations can be disruptive.
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
7) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. These include pinging editors from similar articles or disputes where they have not been previously involved, when such pinging may influence the outcome. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus.
1) The WMrapids account was used simultaneously with another account for privacy reasons. After one of those accounts was abandoned, the WMrapids account continued the same behaviors so as to be recognizable, and also created a third sock account.
2) The WMrapids account has posted deceptive information about their account history to at least two noticeboards (ANI [11] and RSN [12]) in a way that impugned other Venezuelan editors and implied those others had riddled Venezuelan content with biased information while hiding their own prior involvement, edits and timeline of editing history.
3) WMrapids has edited in a such a way to create reasonable suspicion that their edits are coordinated or compensated.
4) WMrapids and other accounts operated by the same person have engaged in biased editing and used poor or misrepresented sources to besmirch living persons and entities. Such edits continued after a contentious topics BLP alert was issued and after prior office actions.
5) Over the long-term, the accounts operated by WMrapids have engaged in a sustained campaign to besmirch other editors, and have cast aspersions, hounded, failed to assume good faith, bludgeoned dispute resolution noticeboards, and created a battleground. This behavior was not confined to the Venezuelan politics content area.
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.
1) The person operating the WMrapids and other accounts is site banned.
1) NoonIcarus was sanctioned in 2020 with a custom revert restriction. The admin closing the March–April 2024 ANI indicated ArbCom would revisit, and others have raised concerns about the leadup to and circumstances of that ANI resulting in uneven evidence. Subsequently, deceptive posts to noticeboards, and motives, have been revealed to ArbCom. NoonIcarus's topic ban on Latin American politics is removed. NoonIcarus is instead restricted to one year of no main space editing in the realm of Latin American politics, broadly construed, but is allowed to participate in talk page and noticeboard and other dispute resolution discussions. Admins may impose word limits or daily posting limits if bludgeoning becomes a problem.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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)
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.
I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the AnglosphereHeck: I even was unaware that my biographies at eswiki had a gender gap until I counted them manually and actively sought to reduce said gap by creating biographies about women.
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)
Most of SandyGeorgia's claims of bias boil down to and are underpinned by: A disagreement on content founded on a disagreement on the reliability of sources.
SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus/JamezG have both singly and together helped assure the deprecation of a number of sources that report Socialist, Leftist, or Pro-Maduro content, and/or challenge U.S. foreign policy re: Venezuela by contributing to RfC’s (e.g. TeleSUR 31 March 2019 [both], VenezuelaAnalysis March 2019 [both], Mint Press 4 July 2019 [Jamez42], Grayzone closed 3/2020 [both], HISPANTV 19 May 2019 [both]). Some of the key deprecations came shortly after opposition figure Juan Guaido declared himself President of Venezuela in January 2019—those sources were all critical of Juan Guaido. In those proceedings (as in this one), SandyGeorgia often argued that a source she wanted deprecated “parrots content from [another source Wikipedians deprecated]” [15], [16] . The focus is not whether the content parroted is accurate. Many of the claims made to deprecrate the sources were not grounded in scholarly opinions about the overall reliability of source—but seem to be based on editors’ beliefs about the reliability of the source relying on individual examples of unreliability.
And, as I have stated, the same problem can be found in U.S. mass media, where AP stories circulate—like the WMDs used to justify the Iraq War (see Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War, [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]) and the countless images of mushroom clouds suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of launching ICBMs at the U.S. Does that mean that every media outlet that parroted “conspiracy theories” to advance the war are unreliable? I do not argue that.
Instead, we must rely on our WP:RS guideline, as I outlined here in this proceeding.
I have and will continue to respect the community’s decision on these RfC’s—I am not trying to “overturn” those decisions, but simply draw attention to the double-standard applied to foreign sources that do not ally with U.S. foreign policy goals. Other editors have made similar observations in those RfCs, but were outweighed by the majority.
While deprecating sources that align with Maduro’s government, SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus have fewer problems with the bias of sources that are pro-opposition, pro-capitalist, anti-Socialist, anti-Maduro, etc. (e.g. Pan Am Post [26], La Patilla [27], El Nacional, and a good part of the U.S. and western mass media). If any of the the pro-Opposition entities parrots deprecated source—e.g. Breitbart—that apparently is not a problem for NoonIcarus at those RfCs.
Even when a left-leaning source such as The Nation, which Wikipedia deems generally reliable,
was used, SandyGeorgia accusedusing mostly marginal or partisan sources”
.
What this comes down to primarily is a dispute about sourcing and content based on that sourcing. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I have seen allegations about “overusing one source”, especially by NoonIcarus. SandyGeorgia has edited 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt 115 times from 2006 until 2023 [28], NoonIcarus did too, yet neither seems to have no problems that Nelson was cited about 95 times in the article (by my count). This was mentioned by WMrapids here. Yet she takes exception to an edit by WMrapids in her Evidence. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Nelson actually received US government funding to write Silence and the Scorpion through the Fulbright Program of the United States Cultural Exchange Programs), but when Bobfrombrockley asked if they had any other reasons to question his reliability ( [33]) they never responded back.
A socking editor [35] [36] with a pronounced POV hounded those he disagreed with, corrupted collegiality across many discussions, slanted BLPs, and sapped community time, [37] while creatively and persistently pinging in supporters to discussions, [38] until Venezuelan topics appeared contentious and the community stopped weighing in to bludgeoned discussions, resulting in application of uneven sanctions, [39] [40] 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)
7. Grave dancing and well poisoning 148, but isn't that exactly what you (and others) are doing and continue to do here? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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. [45]
Looking at "Further diffs", the first example provided is not an adequate summary of the source:
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)
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)
S Marshall writes in his evidence:
I was struck by the fact that although WMrapids knows how to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint at AN/I, he didn't know that his citations should have page numbers. This isn't a judgment on WMrapids. It's a judgment on us. How could someone new spend six months editing in a contentious topic area without anyone taking the time to explain the first section of our first core content policy?
My apologies for the lateness of this response (I've spent weeks looking for the relevant discussion.) That WMrapids did not know about page numbers (or timestamps for videos [46]) is not the case, and someone did take the time and he certainly did know; he typically either dug in or didn't respond/ignored the citation cleanup, usually until someone else responded. With videos and timestamps, there were several discussions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Another example of a charge of "failed verification": this source is not adequately summarized. The source does not say
The source says:
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)
There are inconsistencies regarding the sock account, User:Simón, el Silbón; is there more to this story?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
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. [48] 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. [49] 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)
I am not accomplished at drafting arb principles, findings of fact, or remedies, but suggest the following are needed:
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.
That RfC close is nowhere near as clear cut as this report seems to imply. The discussion focused on a specific proposed addition for which no consensus to add was found and Jamez42's concerns about NPOV were specifically noted in the close. Topic ban would be massively premature. And really, some of the people complaining about POV editing probably need to take a look in the mirror.
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)
Quotes that I linked at the evidence but was unable to cite due to word limit:
An obscure Brazilian paper cited by one other publication( SandyGeorgia on obscure sourcing, 29-Oct-2023)
Gain consensus on talk if you want to add an opinion from a very obscure paper, which no one else thinks worthy of citation( Ibidem)
Similarly, this is an obscure Nigerian lecture cited by none( SandyGeorgia on obscure sourcing, 1-Nov-2023)
You can find an obscure journal or author to promote any POV; journal publication doesn't render content DUE and doesn't guarantee peer review. (...) just because one author's opinion can be dug up in a journal, doesn't mean it should be given weight in an article (see WP:UNDUE)( SandyGeorgia on obscure sourcing, 23-Nov-2023)
I would say it again, scholarly articles are only as good as you can demonstrate that the journal is good, the authors is notable and that it has been cited by others extensively. If I wanted to find scholarly articles saying that Earth is flat or that Einstein was wrong with relativity I can find them very easily, but that does not make them due.( ReyHahn on obscure sourcing, 25-Nov-2023)
As an uninvolved editor, may I ask what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing WP:Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian? Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day.( Dustfreeworld on aspersions, 28-Mar-2024)
You can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion.( SandyGeorgia on aspersions, 28-Mar-2024)
Keep on describing a message expressing Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian as “gamey behavior” and/or “unconventional canvassing”, and that they’re *more concerned* about that than another Wikipedian’s real life tragedies ... is just a totally unacceptable explicit example of failure to AGF. If this kind of mentality persists during their interaction with other involved editors who’ve views different from them, I can imagine how exhausting and disheartening it can be.( Dustfreeworld on aspersions, 29-Mar-2024). -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 01:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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]
(
[66]). 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)
I talk about the issue with the use of scholar opinions at Third phase: Venezuelan politics. at Talk:Guarimba#Tags (" A recap on WP:WEIGHT"), I explain how editors such as SandyGeorgia and ReyHahn were worried about the use of obscure sources to support a minority or fringe point of view. I personally gave the examples of the Lancet MMR autism fraud and a paper published by the deprecated MintPress News senior staff writer Alan MacLeod. I explained the problem with the use of "massacre" for the Caracazo at Talk:Caracazo#POV tag: it is a loaded term (which violates the NPOV principle) and I gave other academic sources that don't use the term Talk:Caracazo#Sources. What to do when sources differ on the same topic is the gist of neutrality.
Secondly, to demonstrate the misuse of edit summaries, not only a pattern should be demonstrated, but intent as well. To counter this I provided diffs at the ANI how I prefer rewording or rescuing dead links instead of removing content when I have the chance: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71], but I can provide more if needed. That doesn't mean that there haven't been mistakes, and other editors have been able to verify the content when I wasn't, but that is not the same as deliberately and consistently removing content. Boynamedsue even mistakenly shared an accurate removal during the evidence phase: [72].
Last but not least, it's false that I failed to hear advice that statements of [the OAS] should be attributed to them
, which is easily demonstrable. I offered attribution for the organization in this edit:
[73] and WMrapids
even thanked me for it: Every incidence of someone being described as a "guarimbero" is not always notable and can be undue. Thank you for attributing the information, though.
What I opposed in the discussion was deeming the OAS as unreliable only based on character instead of substance ("The OAS is an anti-socialist organization and it deliberately chose a lawyer for an opposition leader to lead this investigation
").
I'm disheartened that Boynamedsue has such a negative impression of me since we mostly know each other from this thread that I started in January at the reliable sources noticeboard: WP:RSN#OAS Panel of Independent International Experts precisely to have more input from the community on the given source. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Since the transition and consolidation of democracy in 1958, the Venezuelan polity had historically been legitimated by state-led developmentalism and economic nationalism (Coronil, 1998), with centralized rent-deployment patterns controlled by the executive and brokered by two hegemonic and highly centralized and clientelist political parties.There is lots more sourced material you delete in this edit, it is a masterwork of POV introduction.
On 14 February 2019, a group of UN delegates, including delegates of Venezuela and several other countries, declared they would fight what they called the "illicit, US-led effort" to change the government of Venezuela. They accused the US of "using sanctions and emergency aid as political weapons against Venezuelans"the NYT says that this claim was made by the Venezuelan foreign minister who said
a new coalition of nations would fight what he called an illicit, American-led effort to topple his governmentand that he was
flanked by ambassadors of several countries that have joined the group, which includes China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia and Syria. Diplomats said the group totaled about 50 nations. I can see that you might want to rephrase this slightly, though again, it is reasonable to think that the minister was speaking for the coalition that was stood next to him. However, there is no way that you can justify deletion here.
Caracas and Bogota have also announced intentions to restore military relations. Venezuelan Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez said Maduro had ordered him to immediately establish contact with Colombian Defence Minister Ivan Velasquez for this purpose. The governments also agreed to “boost security and peace” on their shared border. We will continue step by step and at a safe pace to advance towards the restoration and reconstruction of political, diplomatic and commercial relations,” Maduro said on state television.Yes, if you wish to delete "guerrillas, paramilitaries and drug traffickers" that is fine. But you didn't do that, because your goal is to minimise any recognition of Maduro by any other government, as above. And this is not, in any way, crystal ball.
The new sanctions are an attempt to close a number of loopholes Venezuela has used to sell off assets and raise money. They restrict the ability of Venezuela and state-owned oil company PDVSA to issue new debt or stock in U.S. dollars, or engage in other financial dealings with U.S. citizens.This is a reasonable paraphrase of "lose access to credit markets". Again, you know this to be true, but you are looking for a loophole to delete a suggestion that the economic sanctions might be a factor in Venezuela's problem.
When Tornheim says that Western mainstream media
disseminates U.S. State Department propaganda
, he seems to be expressing a wide perceived issue about Wikipedia's concept of reliability, rather than just a specific one about me: the idea that the sources that the community considers realiable are unrealible because they supposedly disseminate "U.S. State Department propaganda".
This is also a straw man, because a lot of the sources that I use are domestic and Venezuelan, unrelated to the "Western mainstream media", just as well as Venezuelan academics (including prominent leftists themselves, such as Manuel Caballero and Teodoro Petkoff).
David also supported the deprecated
Grayzone to be categorized as a reliable or non-consensus source (
[110]) (a position that, judging from this exchange:
User talk:Allan Nonymous#Comment from David Tornheim, seems to not have changed). This, along with the opinions expressed during this process and others such like these: Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo.
and he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a "dictator" to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change.
(
[111]) should give content on Tornheim's idea of neutrality.
It's false that I haven't explained my opposition with the use of loaded language, such as with the term "massacre". The reasons can be found here: Talk:Caracazo#POV tag, where I asked whether it was appropriate to call the 1992 Los Angeles riots a "massacre" to illustrate the point to Western editors. At Talk:Caracazo#Sources I provided academic sources with different definitions after he asked for them, to which he didn't reply and doesn't acknowledge in his Evidence section. After around four years without editing, and without interacting with me, it's unfair for Tornheim to still support such a draconian measure against me. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'll have enough time to expand on this on these last minutes, but let's try:
The many times I have cited the restoration of a stable version in articles basically meant that WMrapids performed changes without consensus. They likewise started calling the use of cleanup tags in articles to prevent edit warring as " driveby tagging", quite improperly since a) said tags were explained, b) I was often part of the article's development and c) these were clearly not "easily fixed problems". They paint my editing in the worst light possible, describing a splitting proposal (which was a suggestion at the related move proposal) as a "demand". An equally pertinent question is to ask how removing all the redirects to Guayana Esequiba, a title that had existed for over ten years, benefits the encyclopedia. [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] (among many, many others). -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 16:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
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)