Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the |talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence
 * Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
 * You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
 * Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits
 * The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
 * If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the |Evidence talk page.
 * Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence
 * Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
 * Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals
 * The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
 * Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior
 * 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior
 * Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
 * Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
 * Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
 * Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by David Tornheim
I believe the most significant problem has been resolved with the closing of this AN/I thread. I believe that will significantly help the situation--as it did the last time the editor was sanctioned, as I explained at the thread. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding S. Marshall's contention that the AN/I was unfairly closed because NoonIcarus's (fka Jamez42) "defenders" were late, I believe these defenders side with NoonIcarus primarily because they agree with his editing that is more reflective of U.S. State Department propaganda disseminated through Western mainstream media [ 2 ] than is truly WP:NPOV--when one considers academic scholarship and world opinion.
 * Quite a few editors mentioned the POV problem at the AN/I. It's my understanding that ArbCom does not handle content disputes. If so, S Marhall's argument for appealing the AN/I appears to be in the wrong venue.
 * This is not just about failed verification tags. It's primarily about how NoonIcarus games the system with reverts, block deletions, and failed verification tags to eliminate views he does not like rather than work collaboratively to build an encyclopedia that is WP:NPOV:
 * WMRapids has tried to include academic quality information only to be immediately reverted by NoonIcarus without discussion on the talk page. This kind of behavior by NoonIcarus is nothing new and sanctioning made no difference.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The FV diffs
Evidence:
 * (which I collectively call "the FV diffs", because in all of these NoonIcarus added failed verification or removed information he thought was uncited)

Narrative: This is a content dispute that's become a conduct dispute. Of WMrapids and NoonIcarus, I think NoonIcarus' conduct was the worse, and on the issues at the 2024 AN/I Callanecc closed ("the AN/I"), I mostly side with WMrapids. But.

NoonIcarus is topic-banned because that was the consensus at the AN/I. Callanecc's close followed the consensus, so I don't fault Callanecc, but the outcome was extreme and unreflective of the diffs.

In the FV diffs, NoonIcarus added failed verification to, or removed information backed by, citations that didn't directly verify the disputed content. WMrapids meant them to verify the disputed content and, with some investigation work, it was possible to find the correct information. In fairness to WMrapids, WMrapids has learned a lot about how to cite sources since he added these.

Few of the disputed citations met the standard in core content policy ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.") In some cases this was due to technical errors in formatting (diff #9), and in others the source's wording had arguably been stretched. By this I don't necessarily mean that I think it had been stretched. I mean that NoonIcarus thought it had and I feel his case was arguable.

Strictly speaking failed verification was the wrong template. NoonIcarus should have used verify source. NoonIcarus has learned a lot about how to challenge poorly cited sources since he did this. I've also personally learned more from reading that discussion, and a sysop has since updated the documentation for failed verification to make it clearer.

The AN/I was largely a consensus of involved editors. This was the ~dozenth time the matter had come before the community (Vanamonde93's preliminary statement), and this time around, NoonIcarus' usual defenders SandyGeorgia and Bobfrombrockley arrived late for various reasons and couldn't participate fully (their preliminary statements). Taking the dozen discussions as a whole, the AN/I was an outlier that occurred because NoonIcarus' defenders were late.

Arbitrators, ask yourselves: if we keep on repeating the same discussion until one side gets there late, what happens?

Should you accept the AN/I as a true reflection of what the community thinks? Could there be circumstances where Arbcom overrules AN/I?

If you think about those questions as I do, then I ask you to consider converting NoonIcarus' topic ban to a more nuanced sanction that tries to limit disruption but frees him to challenge poor citations in this topic area.

The curious case of the careless citations
WMrapids is relatively new to Wikipedia, and everyone gets to make mistakes at first. But WMrapids edits quickly, and he doesn't go back to check what he's written.

When I edit, I go back and click the links I've added, so as to check that my citations point to a place that directly supports what I've written. Most editors do this. Of the FV diffs, diffs 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 happened because WMrapids didn't.

This makes work for people checking WMrapids' contributions, and WMrapids' writing does need checking. Please will the arbitrators consider:
 * Measures to encourage WMrapids to cite sources with proper care and then check what he's written for himself; and
 * Measures to protect or exempt editors who revert WMrapids when his citations are defective.


 * Later

WMrapids and I. 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?

@Boynamedsue
Sorry you're confused about this. I mean this AN/I and not any RfC. We know what others would have said if they had got there on time from statements like Bobfrombrockley's. I am discussing NoonIcarus' behaviour. My case is that a trigger for that behaviour is frustration about the low standard of citations in the topic area. I think NoonIcarus is wrestling with the constant workload of finding the wording in the sources WMrapids (and, perhaps, certain others) use. There is, of course, a lot more to the dispute than that, but I only have 1,000 words and I choose to spend them on one topic.

@WMrapids
On Wikipedia: When an editor you don't like gets dragged to AN/I, the practice of showing up to be outraged about aged or tangentially-related diffs in the hope that you can get rid of that editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs have been raised at previous AN/Is that ended without the desired ban.
 * Brigading (n):

More than a week later
Soon after I submitted the above, WMrapids was CU-banned in an action that might(?) be independent of the Arbcom case. WMrapids claimed on his talk page to have contested the ban, but quite some time has elapsed and WMrapids remains banned. I expect it's final now.

I think this ban largely resolves the case.

The case for reducing NoonIcarus' sanctions
If WMrapids was unbanned then I thought I would see evidence from others, so I meant to keep back some words to address that evidence when it arrived. But that hasn't happened and the evidence phase closes soon. It only remains for me to make the case for reducing NoonIcarus' sanctions.


 * 1. 0RR is sufficient.

In January 2020, under NoonIcarus' previous name of Jamez42, he received a custom sanction after an AN/I. The text of this custom sanction is here if the Committee wants to review it, but it reduces to a needlessly complex version of 0RR. The custom sanction was effective. NoonIcarus abided by it, and even users hostile to NoonIcarus agree that it managed his behaviour, such as David Tornheim ("After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned.")

Replies
FV related talk page sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --12:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Re Tornheim: reverted (...) without discussion. False, see Talk:Caracazo#POV tag. --14:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Re Boynamedsue: This reply and diffs  show that the POV claims are misleading. --09:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll provide a phases divided timeline, which probably is the most efficient way for uninvolved people to understand the dispute. Anyone's free to corroborate or dispute it:

First phase: Move discussions (April-September 2023)
I started a move discussion for the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt (started by WMrapids) that WMrapids opposed to (22-Apr-2023). We interacted little to none until then. Five hours after its closure and move, WMrapids started move discussions in two Venezuelan articles :, proposing to similarly name them as coup attempts (24-May-2023, 24-May-2023).

They pinged the Peru move discussion participants, but not those from the articles previous discussions. (no ping) and I expressed this concern: The discussions were protracted, messy and ugly, and I'm not proud if could be partly responsible. However, I bring two main questions: whether it was appropriate for WMrapids to notify Peru move discussion participants but not from previous discussions at the Venezuelan articles (WP:CANVASS), or for them to open similar discussions shortly after Peru's closure (WP:POINT).

WMRapids became a lot more active and shifted from Peruvian topics to Venezuelan ones (year/month edit count), but problems were already present at the former:

Second phase: Venezuelan sources (June-August 2023)
During the discussions I cited the advice page WP:VENRS (where I'm a main contributor) as a response about Venezuelan sources reliability (4-Jun-2023). Seven hours later (4-Jun-2023), WMrapids started editing there and repeatedly sought to describe cited sources as "pro-opposition" afterwards.

This pattern extended to the outlets articles:. I resorted to tags later to avoid edit warring and reflect the problems, but WMrapids has also opposed them. They also removed sourced content on these grounds later. SandyGeorgia opened WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda (11-Aug-2023) to address the changes at Nelson Bocaranda, but it was archived without feedback. I'm not only complaining about the terms use, but also its timing and reinsertion without consensus.

WMrapids opened at least 5 RfCs during this period (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Participants expressed that they were non-neutral, too broad and excessive (1 2 3).

Third phase: Venezuelan politics (October 2023-present)
Disputes at Operation Gideon continued for months, but WMrapids expanded their edits to other articles, including the creation of Guarimba and Venezuelan opposition (16-Nov-2023, 17-Nov-2023). They've had source misinterpretation issues (17-Nov-2023, 18-Nov-2023) (+21-Oct-2023) and loaded language (22-Nov-2023). I opened WP:NPOV/N#Guarimba and WP:NPOV/N#Venezuelan opposition to solve this (24-Nov-2023), but they were archived without input. WMrapids has also disputed sources based on character instead of policy: and blanked content, and another pointy behavior has been tit-for-tat AfD nominations:,  I've warned them against edit warring  and blanking ( 30-Nov-2023 ANI) before, to no avail.

As editors we've been worried about cherry-picking and choosing obscure sources to support a specific POV : SandyGeorgia: 29-Oct-2023, 29-Oct-2023, 1-Nov-2023, 23-Nov-2023; : 25-Nov-2023.

They're an experienced editor that has edited since at least 2020 and known these issues for months, which have persisted as recently as last month: Talk:Thor Halvorssen)#CIA accusation, Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia. Regarding incivility, I opened an ANI about aspersions casting before (5-Aug-2023), but the behavior persists and has been noted by other editors as well:

WMrapids opened an ANI accussing me of "intentionally ignoring source content" (12-Mar-2024). I provided diffs demonstrating how I verify the content and ask for quotes. They never provided the information until they opened the ANI, once replying simply "Google", showing it could be provided in talk pages just as easily. This was also the first time ever that WMrapids made this allegation: they never claimed this before in edit summaries or discussions.

My own behavior
As I know my own behavior's also examined, I'll address the 2020 ANI. Tornheim started this thread pinging editors I recently had content disputes with, despite an own warning against canvassing (1-Nov-2018), which was mentioned then. I should note these interactions between WMrapids and Tornheim:, 13-Oct-2023, 19-Feb-2024, and that I warned him again for pings at my talk page (9-Feb-2024).

However, I concede that I handled the matter poorly. I got emotional because I enjoy editing, and had I been aware of WP:BLUD I would have expressed myself more clearly. I sought other contributions afterwards: I continued editing at WIR, started articles about movies, videogames, and topics unrelated to Latin America. I was careless and I've been learning since then. Even when the topic is controversial, I seek to base my edits on policy and discuss the situation. I'd comment more, but I'm mindful of the word count.

Conclusions
WMrapids has accused me of POV-pushing, but there hasn't been pushing from my part. The dispute has consisted mostly in WikiProject Venezuela editors cleaning up WMrapids' drastic and fast changes. From 2020 to early 2023 it was relatively calm, even with such a controversial topic. The diffs, the noticeboards and talk pages show that the disruption mostly has happened since May 2023. We would have been here way earlier if not. I'm leaving affected articles so the edit history and talk pages are consulted:

• 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt

• Caracazo

• Colectivo

• Daktari Ranch affair

• DISIP

• Efecto Cocuyo

• El Pitazo

• El Nacional

• Enforced disappearances in Venezuela

• Guarimba

• La Salida

• Nelson Bocaranda

• Operation Gideon

• Plan Ávila

• Popular Will

• Rupununi uprising

• Runrunes

• Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis

• Tal Cual

• Thor Halvorssen

• Torture in Venezuela

• Tren de Aragua

• Venezuelan opposition

Olive branches haven't worked. I'm too exhausted to propose sanctions, I leave that to the arbitrators and participants. I simply request to rescind the topic ban considering this. said that this TBAN is really more of a suspension from the topic area for the duration of the case (...) as ArbCom will decide whether to keep or vacate [it] as part of the normal case process. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Incompatibility with policies on sources
In terms of difs, on this page the experienced user stated ...the content largely depends on English language academic papers, instead to mainstream media outlets, which suggests that the majority points of view are currently not being reflected. This attitude is again found here: The difference is that we don't use the journalists opinions. There also seems to be a false balance by saying that papers can be more reliable only for being peer reviewed, as newspapers have other means for editorial oversight, and that's the reason why the majority of sources that we use is from media outlets. Our policies clearly state peer-reviewed sources must be considered superior to news, this has been pointed out to them many times but no change in editing has occurred.

This attitude was repeated in a talkpage on the Caracazo, an incident in which a thousand or more people were killed by Venezuelan security forces during the pre-Chavez period. Several academic sources used the term "massacre" to describe this, but Noonicarus strongly objected, again discounting sources that used the term on a spurious basis, that Springer Nature had retracted papers in the past, therefore all sources published by it were dubious.

In [| this discussion] they completely failed to hear advice that statements of a committee the Organisation of American States should be attributed to them.

More false edit summaries
In terms of the "failed verification" edit summaries, misuse was documented by WMrapid at ANI, but I would just like to add this example. Noonicarus edited the page to remove the OAS' positive comment on Venezuela's work to eradicate poverty and illiteracy, as it "failed verification" when in fact the report states: In terms of economic, social, and cultural rights, the IACHR recognizes the State's achievements with regard to the progressive observance of these rights, including, most notably, the eradication of illiteracy, the reduction of poverty, and the increase in access by the most vulnerable sectors to basic services such as health care.

On the same page, another edit tagged "failed verification" removed a denial by President Maduro that torture has occurred in Venezuela since the beginning of Chavismo, when in fact the source it is attributed to (Reuters) states: The president says torture ended in Venezuela with the arrival of President Hugo Chavez, his socialist predecessor and mentor, in 1999.

Noonicarus is not here to build an encyclopaedia, they are here to fight against the Venezuelan government and attempt to present a positive view of the pre-Chavez period. If we rescind their topic ban, we are allowing them to continue to do this, and doing a disservice to our readers by allowing the site to be used for propaganda purposes.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Further diffs of the "Failed verification" problem
The following all include deletion of sourced content labelled "failed verification" with the goal of altering article POV, when the source in question actually does include the claim:

,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

I've left out the many cases where a "failed verification" deletion has been applied to a claim sourced to a book which isn't available on line. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus' editing
NoonIcarus' battleground editing brought us here, which I outlined here (apologies for wall of text). In every discussion we have had about their poor editing behavior, mud has been slung back at me. I have accepted that I have made mistakes and will always hold myself accountable. The mudslinging may return as some users have said they have apparently stored targeted diffs specifically for this instance. I have no intention to target anything or anyone except for behavior that may be detrimental towards building an encyclopedia. As I and others shared in the ANI, NoonIcarus' behavior in Latin American topics is disruptive.

Information removal
NoonIcarus' first sanctions were in January 2020; they removed information from this article and possibly canvassed. Not learning from sanctions, they stonewalled the article for over four years. As Boynamedsure noted, NoonIcarus used the "failed verification" tactic to remove BADPOV information since at least 2022. Another tactic used was the "stable version" method, which may have been used inappropriately. Finally, another method used was citing the WP:VENRS advice page as policy.


 * Edit: NoonIcarus provided another "failed verification" example from 2021 that I forgot about.

Battleground behavior and personal targeting
NoonIcarus persistently engages in edit warring (even reverting bots). They also have a penchant for movewarring. After the rename of Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute in December 2023 (NoonIcarus' opposition failed), they edit warred for a split against consensus (promoting the Venezuelan POV term  "Guayana Esequiba") and then continued demands for a split using the term. By January 2024, after their push failed, NoonIcarus targeted an article I created for deletion (Never being involved in this article before) and performed driveby tagging that was contested. NoonIcarus then move warred to change the title. After the January 2024 ANI fizzled, I became hopeful that NoonIcarus and I could work together after a significant compromise. By February 2024, I made recommendations for future collaboration to avoid future conflict. My hopes were dashed after NoonIcarus' "failed verification" edits, which resulted with the March 2024 ANI. During this ANI while others were distracted discussing NoonIcarus' behavior, NoonIcarus opened an unnecessary move proposal after their move proposal failed a few months prior, again showing that they do not respect consensus nor concerns about Venezuelan RfCs overwhelming the community.

My suggestion of a topic ban was based on the ANI decision of El_C.

Contentious topic designation
My opinion on this is here.

Community decision
S Marshall made the unsubstantiated accusation that brigading had occurred. Speaking for myself, if I were involved in brigading, I wouldn't be raising this issue again. I already established a boundary against creating some sort of "solidarity" even if edits may have been in agreement. Wikipedia is not a place to pick sides.

While I can't speak for others, this is how it appears interactions with NoonIcarus began:
 * JCW555: ANI evidence
 * David Tornheim: At least since 2020
 * Boynamedsue: Here in January 2024
 * Number 57: "over several years"
 * JML1148: At the ANI, watching "for a long time"
 * The Grid: After reviewing ANI evidence
 * Goldsztajn: At an AfD nomination and after reviewing evidence
 * Lavalizard101: After reviewing ANI evidence
 * Simonm223: At least since 2020
 * Mbinebri: At least May 2023.
 * Jusdafax: After reviewing ANI evidence

Only 2 of the 11 who suggested some sort of block may have been previously involved with one another. The majority made their decision based on the evidence provided or reviewing years of misbehavior.

S Marshall, nothing against you at all; I sincerely thank you for discussing citation issues with me. But, your statements are... confusing? You suggest brigading, say you agree with my assessment while calling the community's decision "unjust" and then suggest this may have been because "NoonIcarus' usual defenders ... arrived late". While it may seem unjust, I have shown that the community has been affected by NoonIcarus or reviewed the evidence in their decision, not just users who have a "usual" position, suggesting that the community made their decision justly. Again, thank you for organizing all of this and keeping the discussion on track, but I would like some clarifications.

Battleground
Following continuous reminders to focus on content, and (the final straw),  WMrapids
 * 1) personalizes and casts aspersions
 * 2) attempts to intimidate
 * 3) fails to assume good faith
 * (doubles down on "stealth attempt")
 * 1) abuses edit summaries (with cherrypicking)
 * 2) blanks or alters content against talk consensus:
 * 3) removes consensus  of four editors who did discuss on talk
 * 4) blanks cited text twice  without tagging or seeking sources
 * 5) another
 * 6) and hounds.
 * 7) Accuses me of wikihounding to an article I wrote, yet after I complete a citation  to use elsewhere, follows me.
 * 8) Tags for speedy deletion a legal article I wrote.
 * 9) Nominates NoonIcarus article AFD.
 * 10) Grave dancing and well poisoning
 * 11) Doesn't engage talk collaboratively:  and edit warring
 * 12) After a 19 October discussion of duplicate sources, on 20 October adds, tagged, removed,  second discussion started, yet reinstates using reprints of same source..
 * 13) 3RR is not a license to readd three times:  and edit warring

Not only Venezuela
Lima Consensus
 * 1) Written 99% by Wmrapids, noted POV and essay-like (similar to POV at attack-like Venezuelan article).
 * 2) Astonishing talk behaviors,
 * 3) * using familiar  device of pinging previously uninvolved supporters;
 * 4) * encourages Ultranuevo ANI.

WMrapids parrots deprecated and unreliable sources to slant content about living persons
All oppose Maduro.

Olivares
Adds criminal allegations using Czech source, months after August BLP CTOP alert. Translation: the source says: "He allegedly led a gang that stole cars and sold spare parts from them on the black market", an allegation from Diosdado Cabello, apparently unfounded]. Reliable and recent Spanish sources, including Human Rights Watch, were ignored in favor of an unbalanced Czech source: (translations – Jose Manuel's brother didn't have papers to prove his mother's car purchase).

Smolansky
Insertion that parrots content at deprecated WP:RUSSIATODAY, after CTOP alert, and after prior discussion of primary sources.

Bocaranda
Mimicing content from generally unreliable Venezuelanalysis and deprecated WP:TELESUR, citing primary and marginal sources. See NPOV and BLP noticeboards, and ANI and ANI 2.

López
Like, WMrapids focuses on López elsewhere. 
 * 1) Using source by Venezuelanalysis' Gregory Wilpert, Silbón introduces Carmona Decree content, contradicting LA Times; NoonIcarus corrects (see Lopez Sr.).
 * 2) WM inserts "right-wing" labels; Silbón expands as "far-right" (without attribution, using mostly marginal or partisan sources); NYT has Lopez as left-leaning.

Other
Discredits a reputable journalist using a 2003 anonymous blog writer going by the handle "pissed off Bolivarian"; blanks content from RS. 

Misrepresents or finds obscure sources to insert UNDUE or POV content

 * 1) Misuses "scholarly" sources via cherrypicking, even after informed
 * 2) Inserts  synthesis  (with incomplete citation to Le Monde diplomatique that fails verification)
 * 3) Cherrypicked one-sided representation of Lancet  (balanced here after discussion ).
 * 4) POV via loaded language: almost no instances of mercenary in Operation Gideon can be attributed to a source. WMrapids sources  mercenary  to Neuman, who doesn't use that word to describe non-Venezuelans or Venezuelan dissidents.
 * 5) Alters a direct quote  while introducing loaded language (Guaido's government was recognized)
 * 6) Creates POV by omission of words (all BLP issues):
 * 7) * Word preliminary omitted
 * 8) * another,
 * 9) * another.
 * 10) * Attributes Marquet Brito at Presidential Crisis at 18:36; at 20:15 omits, placing derogatory opinion in WikiVoice, slanting original Villa source about "establishing a government".
 * 11) * Misleads  by omitting "obscure".
 * 12) POV through multiple misrepresentations of sources:
 * 13) * Eg, Sucre says "un discurso ... puede dar paso al uso de cualquier vía posible para forzar la salida de Maduro" (trans: a discourse that ... could give way to the use of any possible means to force Maduro's departure).
 * 14) * For WMrapids, Sucre's hypothetical became "it appeared that the opposition was seeking to remove Maduro through any means necessary"
 * 15) * With an UNDUE use of an edited clip to claim "legal challenges" were abandoned. Version after balancing via time-consuming RFC.
 * 16) Other:

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.