Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Target dates: Opened 6 April 2024 • Evidence closes 20 April 2024 • Workshop closes 27 April 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 4 May 2024

Scope: Conduct in the topic area of Venezuelan politics, with a specific focus on named parties.

Case clerks: ToBeFree (Talk) & Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Firefly (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk) & Sdrqaz (Talk)

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

Arbitrators active on this case

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

Active:

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

Inactive:

1. CaptainEek (talk · contribs)
2. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
3. L235 (talk · contribs)
4. Moneytrees (talk · contribs)

Possible delay

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note from the drafters: there is the possibility that the proposed decision will be posted late (by a maximum of 72 hours, hopefully). Sorry for the delay. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Sdrqaz said that hopefully the delay would be no more than 72 hours. We can no longer hope that the delay will be no more than 72 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom wouldn't have noticed without the comment :) But thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, this ArbCom is doing somewhat better about being nearly on time with proposed decisions than ArbComs several years ago, which were sometimes very late with no comment or acknowledgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the nudge, Robert. There was/is an issue that required further discussion; we are working to get this posted as soon as possible. Sorry again for the delay. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for hurry; it seems prudent for the Committee to take all the time they need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Trimmed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if part of the delay is that they are troubled by how SandyGeorgia continues to gravedance a blocked editor (above) and continues to cast aspersions--without evidence--against unnamed editors first after Worshop closed, calling those whose editing she disagrees with "anti-US, pro-Maduro and pro-authoritarian/socialism/deprecated sources"[1] and claiming--again without evidence--that there are "more pro-authoritarian editors than Venezuelans or pro-democracy" and opining about "a cult-like ideological zealotry by those using Venezuela as a proxy for anti-US rhetoric".[2] --David Tornheim (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool it David, WP:NPA applies here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I feel that this comment is unhelpful (see "Behaviour on this page" at the top). Please remove it or rephrase it. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Trimmed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• We are getting close. We have a path forward for the issue that was the main sticking point --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• ZzzzZzzzZZZz.—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  MeMeMeMeMeMeMe Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe ArbCom is waiting for news from another planet, and that has been disrupted due to the geomagnetic storm. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Surely 2.1.9 is what caused the delay.—S Marshall T/C 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• While I'm naturally holding my breath for the proposed decision, I just wanted to drop by and say as a party that I, too, think that the arbitrators should take the time needed to deliberate on the resolution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• These motions seem generally reasonable. I do hope the eventual assumed remedies include the topic bans of both the named parties and the mutual i-ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments by Robert McClenon

Interaction ban

I would recommend that an interaction ban be used only if the editors are also subject to appropriate restrictions or topic-bans. When an interaction ban is not appropriately supplemented by topic restrictions, it is very likely to result in preemptive editing to gain a first-mover advantage. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Privacy Argument

This is the second case in three months in which a party has made an unconvincing argument why preservation of privacy was an excuse for failure to disclose a connection, either a conflict of interest, or the use of two accounts. I tried to understand what WMRapids said was the reason for the use of two accounts, and didn't find what even looked like an attempt to make such an explanation. Maybe I don't want to know what their reasons were.

I don't know whether either ArbCom or the community should draw any conclusion from two cases in which preservation of privacy has been an excuse. Maybe some of the policies and guidelines need to be restated or amplified, but maybe it is just a coincidence that a similar (at least superficially similar) excuse was offered twice in three months for different breaches of policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by David Tornheim

 Clerk note: in reply to Robert McClenon

I agree. I had the exact same concern when I read the proposal. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Robert McClenon's comment, I felt the various posts WMrapids made on his/her talk page explained the privacy intention, especially here. I understand other editors' skepticism towards that explanation due to the two accounts working on a number of the same articles. My WP:AGF guess is that overlap was probably due to carelessness and having not read and understood the rules fully. We all know there are countless rules here and new editors have a hard time distinguishing what does and does not matter. From observing WMrapids's editing behavior on Venezuelan articles, I saw quite a few newbie mistakes in handling conflict--mistakes I have seen by countless new editors (including myself)--editors who don't really understand the difference between acceptable behavior and behavior that could easily have severe consequences right around the corner.

The main reason I am responding is about the possible explanation for the two editors with weak privacy explanations for second accounts. I believe indeed new editors probably don't realize that socking is such a major wiki-crime with no quarter given. They probably don't realize a weak argument and carelessness in differentiating the accounts is not going to fly and being indeffed would be the likely result if caught and that the probability of being caught is high.

Maybe some of the policies and guidelines need to be restated or amplified I agree. The rules should make it clear that if you get caught inappropriately socking, all the accounts will probably be indeffed and you might also be tarred and feathered.  ;) --David Tornheim (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topic designation--unnecessary

@Barkeep49:

I’m confused why you think a short or long-term contentious topic designation would be beneficial.

I hope you are not influenced by SandyGeorgia’s continued casting of aspersions and numerous conspiratorial allegations lacking evidence mentioned here such as the unprovable claim that NoonIcarus is the only Venezuelan editor, that all other Venezuelans are too scared to edit, or the latest unfounded claim that NoonIcarus’s topic ban has anything to do with upcoming elections, when the triggering dispute had to do NoonIcarus’s misuse of “failed verification” tags in countless articles unrelated to the election. As you may recall, it was not election coverage but the sourcing regarding the failed attempt to violently overthrow Maduro (Operation Gideon) that brought the AN/I proceeding to SandyGeorgia’s attention, where she requested this ArbCom proceeding.

Although it is true that editors who have not edited substantially in the topic area have requested contentious topic designation, they have not provided evidence of ongoing contentiousness that originates by anyone other than NoonIcarus or WMrapids. Every case mentioned in Vanamonde93’s initial filing had either NoonIcarus as plaintiff or defendant. NoonIcarus is the common variable. I also believe that almost any time when NoonIcarus has been properly accused of doing anything wrong, TL;DR has exhausted non-involved editors.

The community recognized the long-term problem with NoonIcarus’s behavior and acted accordingly to topic ban him, and I believe ArbCom sees the logic there. It is true most of us at the AN/I did not call for sanctions or warnings against WMrapids for unnecessary drama in interacting with NoonIcarus (or with SandyGeorgia). As Simonm223 and Boynamedsue mentioned, I too saw problems with WMrapids behavior, but my focus at the AN/I was on making sure that NoonIcarus was held accountable. I did not want to see WMrapids punished for bringing the case—and deterring others who might stand up to NoonIcarus’s long-term problematic editing. The upcoming election had zero to do with my decision.

My feeling then was that if NoonIcarus was held accountable, then WMrapids’s behavior would have improved. And although I agree with S Marshall that WMrapids’s sourcing had mistakes, those could all have been ironed out with collegial editing rather than the aggressive tactics used by NoonIcarus. There has been no substantial drama since NoonIcarus was topic banned and WMrapids has been blocked, so there’s really no justification for a contentious topic designation in my opinion. I believe ArbCom is headed in the right direction on this issue.--David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible breach of NoonIcarus’s topic ban

Shortly after being topic banned on 4/2/24 from Latin American politics broadly construed, Goldsztajn warned NoonIcarus to be mindful (permalink) about edits that are close to the topic ban. Callanecc determined that the edit in question was not a breach.

I am seeing another edit that is concerning, that I believe is a breach of the t-ban: This edit adding Carlos Rangel to the List of suicides. According to our article:

Carlos Rangel (17 September 1929 – 15 January 1988) was a Venezuelan liberal writer, journalist and diplomat.

Rangel served as First Secretary of the Embassy of Venezuela in Brussels in 1959…. He assume[d] the position of Chief Ambassador of Venezuela's mission to the Dominican Republic for the inauguration of President Joaquín Balaguer.

[Rangel] criticises Latin American socialists and nationalists for undue hostility to the West and for deviating from the model of Western liberalism. In the latter, he argues against the view that the West exploits the Third World and is to blame for its poverty.

If any of the Arbs believes this should have instead been reported on NoonIcarus’s talk page instead of here, please let me know and I will move it. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Coments by Just Step Sideways

Something that really jumps out at me from this PD is the proposed remedy to take over a community sanction of a user and immediately rescind it. I would expect to see an FoF explaining why the original implementation of the sanction was so deeply flawed that the committee would take it upon itself to basically void it, but I'm seeing the opposite of that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

While I'm glad to see the remedy is so far being opposed, I feel like we're still in the dark as to why it was proposed in the first place. It would be highly unusual for the committee to rescind a community-imposed sanction for any reason other than concluding that the proccess that led to is was grossly unfair, and I don't see even a hint of a suggestion that this was the case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It was proposed by a sock(master) -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That... doesn't make a lot of sense. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not a drafter and am not sure I am going to support it but have laid out my thinking for why it doesn't strike me as completely outrageous at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan_politics/Proposed_decision#NoonIcarus'_community_topic_ban_assumed. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I initially parsed out Guerillero's comment corectly, i took it to mean that the proposal in the case was made by a sock and of course that was very confusing to me. I take it now to be basically a fruit of the poisonous tree argument, implying the tban was invalid soleley because WMrapids proposed it. I can at least understand that line of arguement, but looking at the ANI thread, I don't think I agree with it as plenty of other users who did not turn out to be socking particpated in good faith. This is the same reason we don't delete pages started by socks if other users came along and improved them. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Now that some light has been shed on the thinking here, I see this was teed up in the principles section, but without an accompanying FoF. I don't know who needs to hear this, but traditionally, each proposed remedy is suggested by at least one FoF. Proposing a remedy without the slightest hint as to why you are proposing it, and needing it dragged out of you on the talk page is a bad look. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Allan Nonymous

 Clerk note: in reply to Just Step Sideways

That may be due to section 9.4? I know there was some private information involved. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI by NightWolf1223

WMrapids has posted a statement in response to the proposed desicion. Should this be carried over to this page? NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I have asked the arbitrators what they would like to do (whether the arbitrators would like to copy it over to here, link to it from here, or just read the comments directly from the talk page). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by WMrapids

Copied from User talk:WMrapids

Thank you for doing your best to include me in this strenuous process. I'm grateful that you all have taken the time to review this complicated matter and sincerely apologize if my behavior has ever been disruptive towards your decisions or to the project in general. In my response, I no longer want to speak on the behavior of others as I have already shared what was necessary and do not want to perpetuate conflict. I will, however, respond to the proposals regarding my account and comment on each point that mentions my account name. Also, I will share my opinion on why I now believe Venezuelan political topics should be considered a contentious topic.

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

Locus of the dispute: I do not believe that edit warring and similar conflicts regarding Venezuelan politics began with NoonIcarus and I. You can see the discussions, ANIs and other warnings from the past, all prior to this more recent dispute, evidences that Venezuelan politics is clearly a contentious topic with its highly-polarized nature and the war of truths/untruths being waged by both sides. The conflict between NoonIcarus and I was only a more-severe symptom of the illness that Venezuelan political topics have been suffering for nearly two decades now.

Dispute resolution: It seems that we have all made attempts at dispute resolution at some point. On my part, I have attempted using the third opinion process ([3]), used the dispute resolution noticeboard ([4]) and personally plead for an agreement on a talk page ([5]). Moving forward, if unblocked, I assure the community that I will do my best to utilize every appropriate measure of dispute resolution in order to avoid disrupting the project.

Use of multiple accounts: Yes, I had a second account that violated sockpuppet policies. Even if my intentions were only for privacy and the account was not used for malicious reasons, it does not excuse such behavior. Personally, I take this as a learning experience and assure the community that I will not use a second account.

WMrapids' behaviour: I will acknowledge that my behavior was not acceptable in some circumstances, especially in my initial interactions with users while discussing Venezuelan topics during my first few months editing on the subject. Especially regarding SandyGeorgia, I ignorantly overlooked some of their personal issues in discussions and did not know about their editing difficulties with a keyboard (when I made this suggestion for us to both take a break to lower the temperature). Regarding both NoonIcarus and SandyGeorgia, I vented to both of them in November 2023 about my concerns with their editing behavior (NoonIcarus and SandyGeorgia. Looking back, of course they would be defensive and be offended, but at that time I was genuinely trying to get these feelings off my chest and share my concerns. Telling them I meant no offense does not excuse the matter and I hope both of them accept my apology. These cases provided are some of the bigger missteps that I made with these two and in no way was I trying to intimidate as some have suggested. I apologize for any offensive behavior committed by me towards other users and I believe that my use of the dispute resolution processes above shows that I have been attempting to be increasingly collaborative more recently.

PROPOSED REMEDIES

Contentious topic designation: I do believe that Venezuelan politics should be a contentious topic due to its highly-polarized nature, its history of edit warring, its subjection to misinformation and other concerns that were shared in private correspondences with the Arbitration Committee and the English Wikipedia CheckUser team. After initially rejecting the proposal, it is clear that a contentious topic designation would provide more rigid sanctions that would heighten the topic's standards, set expectations on behavior/interactions and would encourage dialogue amongst users, promoting collaboration instead of conflict.

WMrapids banned: After reflecting on my behavior and my unintentional violation of having a second account, I believe that I can still be beneficial for the project by avoiding contentious topics. As shared previously, I want to focus more on local topics and put all of this behind me.

WMrapids unblocked with a one-account restriction: I have no problem with being restricted to only one account and you can proceed to enact this restriction if you believe it is necessary.

WMrapids topic banned: Again, I have no problem with being topic banned from Venezuelan topics and even if I am not topic banned, I do not foresee participating in the topic moving forward.

WMrapids revert restriction: The main edit warring/reverting concerns were between NoonIcarus and I. While I personally do not believe that I will engage in edit warring since I will avoid controversial topics, if you believe this would support my editing behavior and the project, then I will accept the restriction. My main concerns with the 0RR would be me reverting obviously inappropriate edits and disagreements on topics with very limited editor involvement, though I suppose I could reach out with dispute resolution procedures for the latter and cross that bridge when it comes for the former.

Interpersonal issues/Interaction ban: I have no problem with the interaction ban. I even proposed a more lax version of the interaction ban for NoonIcarus and I months ago in an attempt to deter edit warring. For the record, if this is the last time I can mention NoonIcarus on the project, I want them to know that I don't hold any negative personal feelings or animosity towards them and I apologize if my participation in past disputes with them caused any disruption. NoonIcarus is a knowledgable editor and even if we have disagreements, I want them to know that.

CONCLUSION

In summary, I apologize for my misbehavior and the use of a second account; my exit from controversial topics should resolve both of these problems (no edit warring and no need for a second private account without controversy, even though the cat is out of the bag). I have no desire to continue editing Venezuelan topics since it has only resulted in negative consequences. Recognizing that I am currently indefinitely banned, I want ArbCom to know that they will not regret the decision of unblocking my account. Again, thank you ArbCom for doing your best to remedy this messy situation, for taking your time to be thorough and for allowing me to be somewhat involved in this process. Recognizing that your main focus is on the future of Wikipedia, I will accept and respect any decision you make.

Thank you --WMrapids (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

While I don't see myself editing the same topics as NoonIcarus in the future, I agree with what @Robert McClenon: says about the "first-mover advantage" when it comes to interaction bans. Additional restrictions should always be considered if an interaction ban is enacted.--WMrapids (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Simonm223

I think a contentious topic designation is an appropriate remedy. With regard to WMrapids and NoonIcarus, I do agree with most of the proposed remedies; in particular WMrapids being prohibited from editing from multiple accounts should be a precondition of any consideration of their current block. One thing which would be a mistake would be withdrawing the topic ban on either of them. I do think it would be to the detriment of the project to let either of these editors work on Latin American politics articles any time soon. Frankly, though WMrapids has edited in disruptive ways, and while I do think it's appropriate to maintain their current sanctions and to adopt many of the measure proposed above here for them, I feel there is a much greater long-term disruption from the comportment of NoonIcarus over the years. As such I am concerned that remedies at arbcom might overturn the appropriately generated consensus that the project would be best be served by excluding them from this article topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Clerk note: in reply to Boynamedsue

I saw that after I posted my comment. And it's a relief. Nothing WMrapids did was OK but that doesn't vindicate NoonIcarus. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Reply to SandyGeorgia: I would like to note that many independent editors, like myself, stopped editing in the Venezuela article area specifically because of NoonIcarus' involvement. As in I found any attempt to pursue article neutrality hampered by their obvious double-standards regarding reliable sourcing, extreme battleground perspective, general tendentiousness and willingness to push content disputes right to the edge of WP:3RR if they thought it'd get them their way. I think it's somewhat dangerous for us to go, "well because WMrapids gave NoonIcarus the bait it wasn't really their fault" when, no, they have a long history of doing just this. The only difference is that, this time, NoonIcarus pushed just a hair too far and actually faced sanctions. They are, in my opinion, about five years overdue. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Boynamedsue

 Clerk note: in reply to Simonm223

I wouldn't worry, the community sanction on Noonicarus has already been upheld. They will be able to appeal their ban from Latin American politics in 12 months, when they will have a chance to show understanding of the problems with their editing and a clear explanation of how they can avoid them in the future.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Clerk note: in reply to Simonm223

Yes, I tend to agree with all your points over both posts.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we are arriving at a "reds under the beds" situation here. SandyGeorgia is alleging an off-wiki conspiracy to influence our coverage of the Venezuelan elections, without any evidence. WMRapids has been banned, but yet here are his hypothetical future socks sabotaging the windmill like snowball. --Boynamedsue (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As for WMRapids bad behaviour, his editing was better than Noonicarus, and his sock didn't seem to interact with Noonicarus. There are not reasonable grounds to overturn the consensus here, as the arbitrators pointed out.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Re the contentious topic designation, it seems that the main problem has been two editors bickering. A CT is a massive step, we should wait to see whether any genuine problems emerge without them.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by SandyGeorgia

I am generally and woefully underinformed about how contentious topics and arb enforcement works, so I don't know exactly what I'm asking or suggesting, but the underlying issues that led to this case aren't necessarily resolved by the remedies passing so far.

There is some misunderstanding expressed on this page, probably because some of the evidence was kept private – not because SOCK policy requires it, but out of a concern for human decency and to protect other editors from State persecution, [6] along with complications that could result from earlier legal matters.

Barkeep49 best summarized the response from WMrapids, and anyone who remains confused can find all they need to know in these two posts (emphasis mine):

I completely disagree with the way WMrapids characterized their socking. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This editor has been disruptively editing this topic area for a while and their use of socks enabled them to edit disruptively for longer than if they had not socked. It strikes me as wildly inappropriate to unblock them given the facts behind the socking and the way that they attempt to brush off responsibility for the genuine harm and disruption they've caused to the Wikipedia community. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing WMrapids "attempt to brush off responsibility" makes me wish I had submitted a public SPI, but I hope I'm correct to resist letting my humanity be eroded by the internet. The harm and disruption extends beyond the obvious to:

1. the impression the broader Wikipedia community has about edits surrounding Venezuelan politics,
2. leaving a taint on the entire content area,
3. with independent editors being unwilling to weigh in at noticeboards, and
4. most Venezuelan native editors silenced by persecution and intimidation, and
5. resulting unbalanced dispute resolution with
6. a good likelihood that the scenario that unfolded here over several years will repeat, along with
7. valid concerns for the physical safety and livelihood of editors in or with family in Venezuela.

Where I see the issues not being resolved by remedies passing so far:

a) As Venezuelan politics became tainted by a sustained campaign over a longer period than publicly identified, independent editors stopped weighing in at noticeboards, effectively ending independent dispute resolution. Concurrently, almost all native Venezuelan editors stopped weighing in as persecution and intimidation were effective, so what DR did happen became unbalanced. It seems unlikely editors will resume weighing in, for example, at the BLP and NPOV noticeboards simply because two editors were removed from the mix – so if Venezuelan politics is not designated a contentious topic, where/how will dispute resolution be able to move forward effectively?

b) If the Committee does not assume this case, how will all the background information the Committee now has – kept private for security reasons – be factored in to future dispute resolution or appeals?

c) As to the community-imposed topic ban of NoonIcarus, considering the amount of confidential information the Committee now has, how can a just verdict on appeal be served if the Committee doesn't take on the case? Affecting the community ban were:

1. The fact that I'm partially resposible for NoonIcarus' topic ban is a strong motivator for me. If I hadn't used DNAU in the way I did, that thread would have been archived without closure. And the outcome was unjust. It was vastly out of proportion to the diffs. A sanction should have happened but a topic ban was wildly excessive. I hate that outcome and I really do feel the need to correct it.—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Had I not had real-life tragedies, and had I understood correctly how CLEANSTART applies and submitted my evidence at SPI when it came to my attention many months ago, the situation would not have escalated to the March ANI; that is, like S Marshall, I feel partly responsible for the ANI outcome, because I wasn't paying close enough attention. I don't excuse edit warring, and wish NoonIcarus had not taken the bait, but an unjust and disproportionate outcome resulted from an unbalanced ANI discussion of what was a targeted campaign.

Unless something besides what is on the page now is enacted, S Marshall's mala fide was effective (the last-standing Venezuelan native editor was silenced in the area of Venezuelan politics), and per my private evidence, I'm fairly certain we will see similar activity down the road, with no clear idea how dispute resolution will be able to work in a tainted and unbalanced environment.

I have gone back and forth on this, but now think the area should be named a contentious topic because of off-Wikipedia efforts affecting the content area, and the amount of private information the arbs now have, along with the severity of the implications to living people. If the Committee decides not to name the topic contentious, I hope they will at least assume this case so that all of the now-known facts can be factored in to future dispute resolution and appeals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that making this a contentious topic improves editor safety going forward. I think whether or not CT would be helpful all hinges on just how much the WMRapids/NI conflict is really the center of what we've seen in terms of conduct issues that ArbCom can correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep49 that makes sense to me, but what worries me is that they may have become the center only temporarily as everyone else (involved or uninvolved, independent, Venezuelan or anything else) gave up or was deterred for security reasons, and what is our recourse after the case closes if we find that the broader community still won't engage, while the same external factors that could have driven this immediate conflict continue to have the same effect ... that is, if the case closes and we can't come back for arb enforcement, but the community continues to ignore BLP or NPOV noticeboard posts as the topic has been tainted, then what? We will have two less editors, but a problem that persists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Re S Marshall's post at 20:28, 15 May 2024; it's even more than that. The "bad faith behavior" included convincing the community that biased Venezuelan content was the responsibility of other (eg, Venezuelan) editors, which was deceptive and continued the theme of tainting the entire content area. That part of the problem goes away with WMrapids being banned.

On the Venezuelan election concern, it goes without saying that was the goal, but I don't think that aspect will matter much in the long run; yes, the State will quote falsehoods still in BLPs and cite Wikipedia to incriminate living persons, but as things have evolved, whatever is going to happen there will be well beyond anything on Wikipedia or that Wikipedia can address.

I'm not only concerned that the WMrapids sockmaster starts another account; I carefully chose my words above -- "off-Wikipedia efforts affecting the content area" are beyond any individual sockmaster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Re Barkeep49's proposal for a contentious topic designation that sunsets; I did not follow the Horn of Africa case, so don't know the relative merits of such a proposal, but offhand, I don't see a reason to not give it a try. In the case of the Medicine/Drug prices case, it was known in fairly short order that the problem was confined to a few editors, and the issues never recurred, yet it took years to get the designation removed, so this seems like a worthwhile approach. As to how long before it sunsets, the most problematic issues (which could be election driven) are edits that defame living politicians by parroting content from deprecated sources via SYNTH from primary sources, or cherry picking from other poor sourcing (eg this one). That is why I used my precious word count and diffs to single those out in my evidence. That is precisely what this entire POV article was about and where the gist of this editing was aimed. Whether that issue will subside after the theoretical July 2024 election is debateable, because election timelines and outcomes in Venezuela can be subject to arbitrary or extra-legal changes. So at least 18 months, because July can't be counted on? Is a Finding of Fact about BLPs out of the question here to make that aspect more enforceable? It's still odd to me that the BLP issues continued after a contentious topic first alert was issued, and that egregious BLP issues were ignored. This would at least provide a way to get admin eyes on BLP issues when posts to the BLP or NPOV noticeboards are ignored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Follow up

Several things:

1. Two new "sources", related to the editing in this case as covered in my private evidence, were published after the closing of evidence -- even after the closing of the Workshop. I only found them last night; they augment the information about linkages and motive given in my private evidence re why Venezuela should be a contentious topic. As it's obvious which way this is going, I will rest my case rather than put the Committee through another round of late evidence (partly because it would take so much typing to explain the background and big picture), but should the decision not to make Venezuela politics a contentious topic return to bite us in the rearends via continued cases, I'm at least on record as saying there is already more. I don't know how one goes about re-approaching the Committee about re-opening the case should issues recur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
2. David Tornheim I have returned several times to re-read my posts, trying to discover my "continued casting of aspersions"; I'm not understanding what you see as an aspersion, and at whom it is aimed. Re "lacking evidence", I realize you can't be aware of the private evidence, but to my knowledge, I have not cast aspersions without evidence. Perhaps you are misreading because of my private evidence or my writing is unclear; I would need to know what, where and at which editors I am "casting aspersions" "lacking evidence" so I can correct any misimpressions or misstatements.
3. As NoonIcarus has pointed out in his section, "Venezuela politics" is broad and could be interpreted to include just about everything Venezuelan these days; if ArbCom is not going to assume NI's topic ban, perhaps at least some kind person could explain to NI how and where to get clarification on the scope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

S Marshall

In this I wholeheartedly endorse and support every single word that Sandy says above. I am less than overjoyed to see the committee coming to a decision that rewards socking in this way. I think that yet another incentive to sock is the absolute last thing Wikipedia needs. I urge you all to engage in some serious thinking about what you're doing. The decision in this case needs to be more than just expedient and effective. It needs to be just.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall I'm not interested in rewarding socking as I think the comments Sandy has quoted from me make clear. However I am also not sure what in this decision is doing so. Is it merely that we're not taking over and/or rescinding NI's topic ban or is it something else? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Because the community's decision to tban NoonIcarus was made in ignorance of WMrapids' bad faith behaviour. The tban was obtained by deception. But the committee's adopting the tban with an appeal after twelve months, so NoonIcarus goes away without possibility of appeal in any venue until after the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election. Which was obviously the desired outcome. Meanwhile, equally obviously, the WMrapids sockmaster starts another account. Socking wins.—S Marshall T/C 20:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by NoonIcarus

Besides the circunstamces of how the community ban was adopted (which were also discussed at the Workshop), I think I haven't commented how restrictive the TBAN is.

I wasn't able to create the articles that I planned for Women in Red's April Alphabet run due to the current restrictions. The ban affects areas unrelated to the main dispute, but that can be tangentially related to politics, including films, video games, culture, etc, and it likewise affects editing about translations, categories, templates, and other pages.

With this I don't mean to dismiss my own behavior. One of my main points during the process, as well as others', is that either I changed my conduct because of previous ANIs or that previous restrictions have been effective at addressing the issues at hand. The situation is even more complicated knowing that the community is not fully aware of the private and off-wiki information.

Of course, I understand that this is a different matter from whether the Committee assumes the TBAN or not. Whichever the decision is, I'm looking forward to know about how to move onwards. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Re David Tornheim: This article (List of suicides) should further be a good illustration of how broad the current restrictions are. I cannot add any other entries about politicians or related to politics (eg in this case: Alirio Ugarte Pelayo), and even in that case there can always be a even a tangential relation. As another example, after the TBAN, in this edit ([7]) I took care to avoid adding in the Simón Bolívar University (Venezuela)#Notable alumni section any biography from Category:Simón Bolívar University (Venezuela) alumni that could be related to politics. Even in that case, Tornheim complained about this in his preliminary statements ([8]), alledging that I was violating the restrictions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

ANI decision

Re: "The community recognized the long-term problem with NoonIcarus’s behavior and acted accordingly to topic ban him" and "appropriately generated consensus that the project would be best be served by excluding them from this article topic": I'm not sure to whom this might be most useful for, but I should comment regarding the recent accusations made here and comment more thoroughly on the ANI decision.

As I explained in my message to Callanecc ([9]), the March 2024 dealt with two main topics: failed verification and POV pushing. The former accusations were mostly based in 8 diffs (2 of which were tags) from 6 articles (to which I responded to in the same thread), while the latter remained mostly without diffs. WMrapids repeatedly sought a topic ban, specifically asking for it at least thrice, one of the reasons why S Marshall was concerned about brigading. In this last case, out of 10 editors that supported the TBAN (without including WMrapids), 4 had participated at the 2020 ANI (including David Tornheim and Simonm223): mostly editors with whom I had editorial disputes in the past but largely did not interact with them ever since, over 4 years ago.

This is why I fear their position had already been formed beforehand, and I have already commented on how WMrapids' notifications to Tornheim could have influenced the outcome. This, along with lack of diffs, is also why I'm concerned that the discussion was mostly a poll. Other editors have already expressed their concerns about the closure even before it was disclosed that WMrapids abused from socks, and that's without accounting editors that weighed in the discussion but didn't support or propose any measures. The ANI discussion was flawed, and saying that the consensus was "generated appropriately" is deceptive.

Like I mentioned before, this is not a dismissal of my own behavior, but rather a question about the process and its decision.

Last but not least, it shouldn't hurt to remind about WP:CIVIL. Some language used here is simply uncalled-for. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dustfreeworld

Re David:

"I too saw problems with WMrapids behavior, but my focus at the AN/I was on making sure that NoonIcarus was held accountable." I don’t think anyone here can agree with your… “focus”.

"I did not want to see WMrapids punished for bringing the case" From the “Finding of facts” and the whole page of “Proposed decision” that we now have, I don’t think our arbitrators will agree that someone is now “punished for bringing the case”.

(Just a quick quote FYI: “4) WMrapids has engaged in edit warring, battleground behaviour, and personalisation of disputes 3) … WMrapids has edited in ways that violate the policy on sockpuppetry.”)

It seems to me that what they have done are more serious violations of our P&G and they should have been brought to ANI and indeffed a long time ago, instead of being able to bring another user (Noonlcarus) to ANI and pushing a topic ban against the later. I don’t know why it turns out to be like this. Brigading as others have said? Or their “opponents” are just too kind/patient/polite? I don’t know.

S Marshall said:

“Because the community's decision to tban NoonIcarus was made in ignorance of WMrapids' bad faith behaviour. The tban was obtained by deception … But the committee's adopting the tban with an appeal after twelve months, so NoonIcarus goes away without possibility of appeal in any venue … Socking wins.”

This is not what I want to see. I’m not familiar with the procedures and I don’t know how can it be resolved. I only know that it leaves me (a not-so-involved editor) an impression of … unfairness …

BTW, I remember S Marshall had said that they felt guilty because they placed the { { do not archive until } } template to the ANI discussion, resulting in the tban of Noonlcarus. I think this is also a source of the tban’s unfairness (it’s just like “do not archive until … they are tbanned”) which has been neglected. IMO, leaders are those who will admit and correct (their) mistakes, as soon as possible.

You earned my respect, S Marshall :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)