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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

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

Active:

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

Inactive:

1. L235 ( talk · contribs)

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

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

Gravedancing?

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

David Tornheim, could you please refrain from the gravedancing statements, [3] which are unfounded? WMrapids is not without defense in this case. He has access to his talk page from which he could answer or make queries regarding posts here; he could ask for an unblock to be able to post to this case (which he has not); and while two socks have been blocked, the sock master account has not been (amending: publicly) identified, or blocked, so he has full access to that account from which he could fully participate in this case. Please refrain from filling the workshop with off-topic accusations; we are where we are because I have respected WMrapids' request that some matters remain private, even though WP:SOCK policy does not require it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

To ask the clerks (or arbitrators): I have removed sockpuppetry as a proposed principle since it is repeated ( [4]). As I understand that the workshop doesn't have word limits, I wanted to know if I should format the removed text as striken text. Best wishes, NoonIcarus ( talk) 16:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

On a related note, @ David Tornheim: I removed the "User:" prefix in your proposals section title for consistency with the other titles ( [5]). I wanted to give you the heads up, feel free to restore it if you feel it's appropriate. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 09:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like @ David Tornheim: to strike the accusations that I'm "closely associated with the opposition". I have already responded to this claim before ( [6]): I don't belong to any opposition political party in Venezuela, haven't had any relationship whatsoever with them and neither do I wish to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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