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

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior
 * 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.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Citing sources
1a) Under Wikipedia's verifiability policy, editors are expected to add citations. The purpose of a citation is to help readers and other editors verify that the information in Wikipedia articles is based on reliable sources.  A good citation is one that directs the reader to a specific place in a reliable source that fully supports the article text.

1b) A citation is poor if it doesn't direct the reader to a specific place, or if the source isn't reliable, or if the source doesn't fully support the article text.

1c) Good citations are important everywhere that appears on a rendered page in the mainspace, but particularly important in contentious topic areas.

1d) Poor citations make needless work for other editors. Frequently adding poor citations can amount to misconduct.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * It seems to me that Verifiability and citing sources on ARBPRINCIPLES does cover the core of this idea and that the "making up stuff" is actually a different idea that we have plenty of principles about. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I looked in Arbitration/Index/Principles for a pre-existing principle that says this, but I didn't see one, so I wrote this from scratch.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Barkeep, those pre-existing principles don't talk about vague citations. I feel that an issue in this case was frustration about vague citations: not really false ones, but ones so lazily cited that it took an unreasonable amount of work to check them.—S Marshall T/C 07:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Mala fide
2a) Sockpuppetry ought to fail.

2b) If we allow socking to influence our decisions, we're creating an incentive to sock. This is not in the encyclopaedia's interests

2c) Where a sockpuppet has waged a sustained campaign to achieve an end, make a change, or sanction or unsanction a user, that campaign should come to nothing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The idea is interesting --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * A second novel principle. I'm dividing these up into subparagraphs for convenience -- so for example someone could say "I support 2a and 2b but object to 2c" -- but I intend these, if accepted, to be condensed to conventional one paragraph Arbcom principles.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To the people saying there's only one other sock: there's pretty obviously more. Look at User talk:WMrapids.  It goes:
 * SandyGeorgia: Did you edit under another account in Venezuela politics, before the WMrapids account entered there, with prior disagreements with NoonIcarus?
 * WMrapids: I would feel more comfortable discussing the details about this explicitly in a private manner with ArbCom if needed...
 * If the answer was no, he'd have said no. Arbcom likely know more and won't tell us.  The Workshop phase isn't really for coming up with solutions.  It's just here to be a container for the ongoing squabbling while Arbcom work it out via email.—S Marshall T/C 08:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I concur with this principle, at least if it has the effect that I think it does. But its author hasn't taken this principle to its conclusion (hasn't yet).  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree it's an interesting idea as a principle, and suggest the extent of the extended (and possibly surreptitious and coordinated) campaign should be weighted in terms of any sanctions applied to those hounded. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  09:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could include a list of users you feel have been involved in a surreptitious coordinated campaign against Noonicarus alongside evidence of such? Otherwise it might be in the interests of all concerned for you to strike that, as I certainly interpret it as possibly being an unsubstantiated attack by aspersion.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As a genuine question on this, did WMrapids sockpuppet account contribute to the discussion at ANI, or as a separate "character" at any discussion with Noonicarus? If the answer is yes, then I feel this is relevant to our discussion of Noonicarus behaviour and is a factor that should be reflected in principles and findings.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It never contributed to WP:AN/I. I see no evidence that WMrapids, the sock, and NoonIcarus all interacted on the same talk page or forum, except In the News.
 * The sock only had 147 edits total. There are 18 locations of overlapping edits between WMrapids and sock account.:17 articles + In the News. No overlap on talk pages, other forums, etc. Breakdown:
 * For 13 of the 18, the sock only had 1 edit.
 * For 3 of the 18, the sock only had 2 edits.
 * The remaining two are the most concerning:
 * Madrid Forum (4 with sock; 31 with main account; 5 days min. between)
 * María Corina Machado (7 with sock; 6 main account; 129 days min. between).
 * I have not analyzed carefully enough to see if WMrapids + sock participated in concert in an edit-war to restore or revert the same material.
 * Regarding the interaction that included WMrapids, sock, and NoonIcarus , there are 13 locations, 12 mentioned above + In the news.  Nothing on a talk page or any other forum.
 * Overlaps between sock and NoonIcarus occurred at 27 locations: numerous articles, but only two talk pages:
 * Talk:2021 Cuban protests
 * Talk:2024 general strike against Javier Milei
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Poor quality citations
1) The person operating accounts including User:WMrapids ("the WMrapids sockmaster") introduced poor-quality citations into articles about Venezuela's politics and recent history. Issues with these citations included imprecision (i.e. where it took a lot of work to find the original citation), mistranslation (SandyGeorgia's evidence), and misrepresentation by selective use of the source (SandyGeorgia's evidence).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry
2a) The WMrapids sockmaster acted to skew Wikipedia's coverage of Venezuelan politics and recent history towards a stance that favours Nicolás Maduro.

2b) Their method was firstly, to edit articles directly; secondly, to engage in civil POV-pushing and sealioning in talk-space and project-space; and thirdly, to seek to topic-ban or sanction users who disfavoured Nicolás Maduro.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * David, I refer you to SandyGeorgia's evidence, which exhaustively shows the WMrapids sockmaster was there to skew Wikipedia's coverage of Venezuelan politics. I've rarely seen such a thorough takedown.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind David about WP:FORUM, it possible. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to add that the methods used by the WMrapids account also included changing the community's consensus on the reliability of sources, including through RfCs about La Patilla, Venezuelanalysis and WP:VENRS. I expanded about this in my proposals. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * (2a) There is no evidence to support this conclusion that the use of a sock to negatively influence Venezuelan politics. Only evidence that a sock existed.
 * (2b) You said topic ban user(s).  He tried to topic-ban and sanction one user NoonIcarus, who was rightfully topic-banned by the community for his behavior.  Who else?
 * (2a) and (2b) The articles are already biased against Maduro focusing primarily on anti-Maduro, pro-opposition and pro-Guaido sources and material and by the elimination of sources sympathetic to Chavez and Maduro's goals of the Bolivarian Revolution to free Venezuela from U.S. domination (Monroe Doctrine) and shift the economy to be more socialist and less neoliberal. The animosity of the U.S. to the democratic election of Chavez and Maduro was almost immediate and continuous regardless of Democrat or Republican control of administration or Congress echoed by the U.S. and Western mainstream media and support for the opposition all along, especially Juan Guaido.  WMRapids was correct to balance the articles against the bias introduced aggressively by editors like NoonIcarus, who is shown to be closely associated with the opposition (considering he images posted to Wikimedia mentioned here.  In this image NoonIcarus was standing adjacent to Miguel Pizarro  an opposition leader.) (NoonIcarus strongly objects to this allegation.) and was part of the edit-war to proclaim Juan Guaido the President of Venezuela on Spanish Wikipedia.  WMrapids was trying to make the articles more WP:NPOV with heavy opposition by NoonIcarus.
 * WMrapids obviously made mistakes, became overly frustrated and inappropriately lashed out, but they were far less detrimental than NoonIcarus's long-term years of behavior to eliminate certain material that portrayed the opposition negatively or socialism in Latin America positively. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [revised 23:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)]
 * Re the false statement about "editors like NoonIcarus, who is shown to be closely associated with the opposition (considering he images posted to Wikimedia)", that "close association" is alleged by WMrapids as another aspersion with dubious proof (I've not seen any). What I have seen is an indication that WMrapids doesn't know Caracas or Venezuela well (the Nelson Bocaranda edits in my evidence), and I doubt that he understands the nature of Venezuelan protests beyond the sensational images or the tragic deaths typically portrayed in the media.  It would be hard for the anglo sajon world to understand the nature of the protests for average citizens; they occurred in every neighborhood, so if one stayed close to home in the morning and got back home before the violence started in the afternoon, and avoided certain areas of the city where the National Guard or colectivos were known to attack the protesters, the gatherings were almost like large neighborhood block parties.  And having a picture taken in the vicinity of Miguel Pizarro is nothing like being near, for example, Maria Corina Machado or Leopoldo Lopez (because one is unlikely to be able to get near them anyway). This issue amounts to an aspersion because a Wikipedian attended protests (like a substantial majority of Caraqueños) and took pictures.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting that David Tornheim altered the post above after I responded to it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, because asked me to change it.  I did to try to somewhat address his concerns, but probably not the way he wanted.  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Continued on talk. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia put it very neatly herself. Stumbling upon someone in the street or in a public event doesn't mean having an association with them. I ask the clerks to take this into account, since David has not retracted this accusation even after I asked them to (Talk#Accusations). --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , the only Silbon diffs I entered are in this section; there was more at Maria Corina Machado, but I didn't present exhaustive evidence since I ran out of word count and diff count. There's certainly evidence that both were using marginal sources to skew BLPs, and in similar ways with poor sourcing. (Sorry I can't keep up; I will enter analysis after my sutures are removed.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * your post above references the early history of the Juan Guaido article. A POV tag was (unilaterally?) removed by ZiaLater based on this discussion, and readded by you. Perhaps you will revisit who is trying to "make the articles more NPOV with heavy opposition by NoonIcarus"? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Campaign to sanction
3a) The WMrapids sockmaster took a lead role in at least ten noticeboard threads aimed or partially aimed at topic-banning or sanctioning NoonIcarus, amounting to a sustained campaign to topic ban NoonIcarus. They persistently proposed topic bans, and were often the first person in the thread to do so (Vanamonde93's preliminary statement).

3b) Most of these threads were archived without result. In the latest of these threads, S Marshall intervened, using dnau to prevent premature archiving.

3c) The outcome of the thread was to topic ban NoonIcarus. This outcome reflected the view of several good faith users, but it was also affected by S Marshall's unusual intervention, and unrelated circumstances that prevented NoonIcarus' usual defenders from participating to the full, and the exceptional persistence of the WMrapids sockmaster.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * 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)
 * No hard feelings, Marshall :) The intervention also allowed more attention to the situation and the opening of this case, this evidence phase was definitely and badly needed. Even when pointing out my own responsibility, I believe that you've strived for addressing with neutrality, which is something that I appreciate from the bottom of my heart (just as the fact that you're dedicating this time to the matter, which is something that not every collaborator would be interested in doing). --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Use Reliable Sources
1) Editors should follow WP:RS which states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP) These are preferable to mainstream media and news reports by journalists. Mainstream sources covering Venezuelan politics are susceptible to propaganda.  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Once again, I'll link a summary I provided about the main problem with scholar opinions in the recent months, which can be found at Talk:Guarimba, where WP:WEIGHT is the main policy that needs to be considered. SandyGeorgia sums it up very neatly too at . --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Tornheim above cites an article published in a Frontiers journal (highlighted by Headbomb's reliability script as less than reliable) and written by Alan MacLeod, a senior staff writer for the deprecated outlet MintPress News that "publishes conspiracy theories and disinformation". Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Association fallacy explained here. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Attribution
2) Attribution is important for Venezuelan politics. WP:RS states:
 * [R]eliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.


 * Common sources of bias include political...beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

See WP:BIASED. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neither party can edit in the topic area
1) NoonIcarus was topic-banned from the topic area by the community in this AN/I thread on 2 April 2024. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

2) WMrapids was indefinitely blocked on 11 April 2024. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

No remedy necessary
1) None necessary. This case can be closed without further action. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As WMrapids is currently asking for a block appeal (User talk:WMrapids) and per SandyGeorgia's comments, the matter still pretty much needs a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

No enforcement necessary
1) None necessary. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Standards of editor behavior
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring
3) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tendentious editing
5) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry
5) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Stolen from OccultZone and others. The last line needs some retooling due to the change in PROJECTSOCK since 2015, but did such a good job on this one, that I didn't want to reinvent the wheel. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Recidivism
6) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behavior are expected to improve their behavior, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * could this principle be expanded to include previous instances of poor editing that resulted in office actions, that is, when there were no sanctions, but problematic editing had to be actioned? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Building consensus
7) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. Finding common ground is essential when editors disagree, and editors should be willing and able to actively do so. Editors' participation in discussions should not simply be reiterating their own positions. Editors' own positions should be represented concisely to allow room in the discussion for consensus to develop.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ideological disputes
8) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around political or ideological conflicts. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints. Such editors are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Based on The national and territorial disputes principle but reworked for ideological disputes by the drafters. We hope that this may join the list of principles arbs pull from in the future --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry
1) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.  Stricken due to repetition --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Criticism and casting aspersions
1a) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

1b) Casting aspersions inflames content disputes, derails discussions, hampers consensus building and besmirches the reputation of editors. As such, accusations should be raised at the appropriate venues, such as the editor's talk page or administrative noticeboards.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The first paragraph is borrowed from the War of the Pacific case, while the second one is inspired in WP:ASPERSIONS and other related policies. This is my first time participating in an ARBCOM process, so I'm unfamiliar on how to write or propose principles too. Any improvements are welcome.
 * That being said, I want to express my support for the verifiability, civility, and sockpuppetry proposed principles, and I'm not including them to avoid repetition. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Locus of the dispute
1) On 24 May 2023, after the closure and move of the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article, the WMrapids account shifted from editing mostly in Peruvian topics to those about Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Based on Evidence#First phase: Move discussions (April-September 2023). I think it's important to clarify when and how the dispute started. This is an introduction, without prejudice of expanding the text. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Re SandyGeorgia: you're right. This only focuses on the WMrapids account. I'm avoiding to talk about it as much as possible out of respect for the editor's privacy, but this can naturally be merged with your own evidence. Cheers. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * , I disagree that the dispute started there; that's when a long-standing dispute first surfaced visibly, but my evidence suggests that WMrapids' accounts had entered Venezuela disputes earlier, and continued previous disputes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
2a) Their method (...) included changing the community's consensus on the reliability of sources. 2b) WMrapids was indefinitely blocked on 11 April 2024 after a checkuser to prevent multiple account abuse.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Based on Evidence#Second phase: Venezuelan sources (June-August 2023). he first paragraph is meant to compliment S Marshall's proposed finding of fact on sockpuppetry. RfCs started to shift the community's consensus on source include but are not limited to La Patilla, Venezuelanalysis (to change its unreliable status), and the advice page WP:VENRS, when they even suggested the deletion of the page as an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) NoonIcarus' topic ban from Latin American politics, broadly construed, is rescinded.

2) NoonIcarus is warned against behavior related to this dispute, including but not limited to edit warring, content removal and bludgeoning. Repeated misbehavior will be subject to enforcement by the Arbitration Committee.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Based on Evidence#Conclusions. I really tried avoiding proposing a remedy on my own and I hate it, but I want to formalize the request that I made at the conclusions of my Evidence section. In 2021 and 2022 there wasn't a need to extend my previous restrictions, and I can --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Clean start and privacy
1) Switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of the sockpuppetry policy. Multiple accounts for privacy reasons are allowable under some circumstances, but editors should not expect that checkusers nor arbitrators will act to conceal the connection if it is made on-wiki.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Excerpted from WP:SOCK, Clean start, and WP:ALTACCN. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive and deceptive editing
2) Disruptive editing, which can include making deceptive statements at dispute resolution noticeboards, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, is cause for blocking an account. Repeated violations of Wikipedia behavioural and editing policies may lead to indefinite blocks which become de facto bans when no administrator will consider unblocking, particularly if the editor uses multiple accounts to behave disruptively. Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from various WP:ARBPRINCIPLES with addition of deceptive statements made at noticeboards. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumption of coordination to promote external groups
3) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in related discussions in support of external groups or to circumvent generally unreliable or deprecated sources – especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in Wikipedia or the underlying dispute – it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from WP:ARBPRINCIPLES. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Paid editors and conflict of interest
4) A paid editor has a potential conflict of interest with any article or subject related to one they have been retained to edit or in exchange for personal benefit, even if they were not directly paid to take action in relation to that specific article or subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from WP:ARBPRINCIPLES. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Ideological disputes and human rights issues
5) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around political or ideological conflicts. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints. Such editors are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on or off Wikipedia, and in countries where human rights violations are frequently documented and could be directed at Wikipedia editors, or that involves generally unreliable sources about those countries and enterprises involved with those countries, should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Expanded from Guerillero's principle 8 above. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying sources cited
6) Contributors should try to write citations correctly, but what matters most is that they provide enough information to identify the source and verify the information, and others can improve the formatting if needed. Experienced editors are expected to write complete citations, and respond with improvements if other editors indicate they cannot locate the cited information in the source given.  Repeated failure to improve the quality of citations can be disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * A citation must point to a specific place in a reliable source that clearly and directly supports the article text?—S Marshall T/C 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wish to express what I mentioned at this talk page: Expanding re the citations issue. I don't believe that every citation should include, say, the "|quote" parameter. The specificity of the source should depend on a) how exceptional the claim is and b) if the sourced content is disputed. Title, URL and date should do the trick most of the time, while more parameters can be included if the verifiability requirements have been disputed or are not met. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Arbcom can't write policy. They can describe policy, and they can describe matters of custom and practice. But I don't think they can say this. We don't seem to have any kind of rule that forces people to clean up their citations when asked. There is an opportunity to improve WP:V after the case.—S Marshall T/C 07:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of this. Besides WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:BURDEN comes to mind: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
 * This is without prejudice of improving WP:V if neeeded, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Text expanded from WP:CITE; gave this one a try, but needs improvement., want to give it a try? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * at least in this case, it was more than that. It was intransigence when asked to clean up his own citations, as I felt I was increasingly a secretary (and that went on for years).  An experienced editor should do the part you indicate at minimum, but they should also do their own cleanup when their citations are incomplete, incorrect, poorly written, nonspecific, or expect the reader to watch a 45-minute Youtube to identify the cited content (never adding a timestamp).  But more to the point, when an experienced editor is asked, they should write correct citations themselves and not leave the work to others, because that then saps the time of others from contributing content.  I have abandoned over the years Venezuelan article after article, as I tired of having the highest edit count on crappy POV articles because I was the doing all the cleanup, and IMO that was pretty much always the same editor, through different accounts.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing and notifications
7) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive.  These include pinging editors from similar articles or disputes where they have not been previously involved, when such pinging may influence the outcome.  To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from WP:ARBPRINCIPLES; I don't think we have this anywhere and pinging editors to disputes has become an unaddressed problem; needs work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids has abused multiple accounts
1) The WMrapids account was used simultaneously with another account for privacy reasons. After one of those accounts was abandoned, the WMrapids account continued the same behaviors so as to be recognizable, and also created a third sock account.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Based on evidence kept private, per request of WMrapids. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have seen no evidence of a third sock--only two.--David Tornheim (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids has posted deceptively at noticeboards
2) The WMrapids account has posted deceptive information about their account history to at least two noticeboards (ANI and RSN ) in a way that impugned other Venezuelan editors and implied those others had riddled Venezuelan content with biased information while hiding their own prior involvement, edits and timeline of editing history.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Based on evidence kept private, per request of WMrapids. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids and coordinated or paid editing
3) WMrapids has edited in a such a way to create reasonable suspicion that their edits are coordinated or compensated.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Based on SandyGeorgia evidence here and here, and other evidence kept private, per request of WMrapids. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have seen no evidence whatsoever of paid editing. This appears to be unfair allegation against an editor who cannot defend themselves, e.g. gravedancing, per my concern here.  The work of  does not look like paid editing to me.--David Tornheim (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids and accounts have a history of besmirching others
4) WMrapids and other accounts operated by the same person have engaged in biased editing and used poor or misrepresented sources to besmirch living persons and entities. Such edits continued after a contentious topics BLP alert was issued and after prior office actions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Based on private evidence and SandyGeorgia evidence. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids has persistently and egregiously engaged in battleground conduct
5) Over the long-term, the accounts operated by WMrapids have engaged in a sustained campaign to besmirch other editors, and have cast aspersions, hounded, failed to assume good faith, bludgeoned dispute resolution noticeboards, and created a battleground. This behavior was not confined to the Venezuelan politics content area.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * More evidence of this can be found at Third phase: Venezuelan politics (October 2023-present), specifically the part about aspersions casting. Examples and diffs of hounding can be found here: AN/I#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids (28 January 2024). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * SandyGeorgia evidence and S Marshall findings of fact, a particular example here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed remedies SG
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

WMrapids site banned
1) The person operating the WMrapids and other accounts is site banned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * For persistent aspersions and disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, credible presumption of coordination and paid editing, deception of the community at noticeboards, POV editing, and breach of BLP policy after office action was required on a related matter. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus sanctioned
1) NoonIcarus was sanctioned in 2020 with a custom revert restriction. The admin closing the March–April 2024 ANI indicated ArbCom would revisit, and others have raised concerns about the leadup to and circumstances of that ANI resulting in uneven evidence. Subsequently, deceptive posts to noticeboards, and motives, have been revealed to ArbCom. NoonIcarus's topic ban on Latin American politics is removed. NoonIcarus is instead restricted to one year of no main space editing in the realm of Latin American politics, broadly construed, but is allowed to participate in talk page and noticeboard and other dispute resolution discussions.  Admins may impose word limits or daily posting limits if bludgeoning becomes a problem.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * While I deeply appreciate your thoroughness and I know this seeks impartiality in the dispute, I think this measure would render the mala fide principle proposed by Marshall if approved, as it effectively means a reduction in the sanctions repeatedly asked by WMrapids. One of my main arguments have been that there wasn't a need for sanctions or restrictions to my editing throughout 2021 and 2022, and when WMrapids stopped editing after the March ANI (and before my topic ban), editing was largely uneventful. I was even able to start the sourcing review of the Caracazo article.


 * In no way I want to wash my hands of my responsibility with this or say that I'm blameless. My main point is that I vow that any less severe measures will be effective in preventing my misdeeds. I commented more on this in my proposed remedies section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Re Sandy: I totally understand. Thank you kindly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I don't have time to separate this into findings of fact and the various pieces of the remedy, but I don't want to appear to overlook the "other side"; I laid out my reasoning here and at point 5 here, and agree that S Marshall's Mala fide principle impacted the earlier outcome. We should allow a way for NoonIcarus to redeem himself from more than a year of being goaded and hounded, and in reviewing all of the interaction leading up to and as part of this case, we should remember that English is not his first language, and the hispanic culture is very different from that in some parts of the English-speaking world. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PS, I'm not saying even this reduced sanction is warranted (not an admin) and unsure if faulty failed verifications warrant such a draconian measure, but just offering a possibility if it is. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , I agree the sanctions are not proportionate to the charges, and the bad faith with which they were brought should be factored, but my concern is that it could be difficult to get the Arbitration Committee to overturn an admin action, so I present a midway compromise that will at least allow your participation on talk and have you back fully editing in a year. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of WMrapids's evidence by Robert McClenon
It appears that User:WMrapids is "slightly opposing" the designation of Venezuelan politics as a contentious topic based on a reasonably mistaken understanding of what is an essential feature and what is an optional feature of the contentious topics procedures. WMRapids writes: CT would prevent involvement from our necessary, newly-interested users. They are probably thinking of the application of contentious topics to Palestine and Israel, which is even more difficult than other contentious topics. Palestine and Israel articles are subject to Extended-Confirmed protection, which excludes new users, in order to prevent brigading and sockpuppetry. The Extended-Confirmed protection is not a built-in or automatic feature of contentious topics, but an optional feature that is necessary for an area that is even more problematic than Venezuelan politics. What the contentious topics designation would do is to authorize disruptive editing to be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement. New users should be able to participate, as long as they are here to improve the encyclopedia, and as long as they honor neutral point of view. I recommend that ArbCom designate Venezuelan politics as a contentious topic, so as to enable Arbitration Enforcement, without imposing extended-confirmed protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Moved from the evidence page --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Following up on other editors' comments: while there's a spike in traffic in edits during current and controversial events, such as during elections, Venezuelan articles admittedly usually have low participation or disputes. I'm not sure if a contentious topic categorization can help with disruption, but I'm not sure if this threshold has been met. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Analysis by S Marshall
The view from 30,000 feet is this:

Although NoonIcarus is miscalled a "pro-opposition" editor in various places, in fact on Venezuela his position is actually anti-Maduro. WMrapids, or (now we know WMrapids is a sock) more accurately the person running the WMrapids account, is strongly pro-Maduro. Many other people editing Venezuelan articles are generally tolerant of Maduro, but usually less so than WMrapids. I think this underlies the annoyance at NoonIcarus.

Mainstream news sources in first world democracies converge on a position that's generally skeptical towards Maduro, although far less skeptical than NoonIcarus. Scholars and academics tend generally to be somewhat more pro-Maduro than the news sources.

The person running the WMrapids account is adept at civil POV-pushing and sealioning. They're able to advance their agenda within Wikipedia's behavioural constraints. NoonIcarus is less so, and NoonIcarus takes the bait, so some kind of editing restriction on him is definitely beneficial -- but we do benefit from skeptical eyes on our coverage of recent Venezuelan politics. It's definitely in the encyclopaedia's best interests to allow NoonIcarus to wave the red flag when there's bias.

Indications on my talk page suggest that the person running the WMrapids account is unlikely to go away just because that one account got CU-blocked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * No, Boynamedsue, I've clearly acknowledged that NoonIcarus has an angle. In the evidence phase I showed that 0RR is effective in managing NoonIcarus' behaviour.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd like to weigh on this, if possible. I've mentioned that I don't want to be perceived as "anti-Maduro" because I focus in editing about current Venezuelan politics, since an important part of the information will reflect negatively on the Venezuelan government . I don't expect for it to be perceived that I have an anti-Caldera or anti-Pérez bias because I have written about human rights abuses in government previous to the Bolivarian Revolution. If there were to be a political change in the country tomorrow and issues such as corruption of human rights violations continued, I expect to continue writing and editing about them based on reliable sources. I wonder is this can be viewed simply as a "Venezuelan" point of view. Similar patterns by WMrapids in articles that are unrelated to the anti/pro-Maduro dichotomy, such as Rupununi Uprising and Tren de Aragua, suggests that the issue goes further from only POV.


 * However, I absolutely understand if this can be the perception from outside, and "anti-Maduro" is a still a better definition than "pro-opposition". I also commented at the ANI: I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the Anglosphere Heck: I even was unaware that my biographies at eswiki had a gender gap until I counted them manually and actively sought to reduce said gap by creating biographies about women.
 * I think that my main point is that I try to address the biases that I'm aware of through policy (verifiability and neutrality), but I'd be happy to address any bias that I'm not aware of, which is essentially the introduction I currently have at my talk page: User:NoonIcarus. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I feel this ignores the strong evidence of consistent surreptitious deletion of sourced content in order to introduce POV by Noonicarus. Noonicarus has not acknowledged any fault in the content of their editing, and, if their block is rescinded, they will continue their political work on wikipedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ORR would require someone to constantly follow Noonicarus around to ensure they are not POV-pushing and deleting sourced content as they have done up to now. Seems an unreasonably labour intensive solution to a problem that has already been solved.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with both comments above by . --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 0RR, seems to have worked before, no sign it won't work again. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet we are here. Following sanctions we would expect an improvement in behaviour, but we have seen a deterioration. Noonicarus is not here to build an encyclopaedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence and situation by David Tornheim
The original AN/I solved the problem of NoonIcarus's editing by a community decision. Now that WMRapids has been blocked, no further action is necessary. I suggest closing this with no action, but in the event that WMRapids is unblocked, the evidence provided against him/her could be re-opened. I see no need for general sanctions. The evidence is almost entirely focussed on only these two editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is also my view, though I don't have any opposition in principle to general sanctions on Venezuela, I do not see the need.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by David Tornheim of SandyGeorgia's evidence
Most of SandyGeorgia's claims of bias boil down to and are underpinned by: A disagreement on content founded on a disagreement on the reliability of sources.

SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus/JamezG have both singly and together helped assure the deprecation of a number of sources that report Socialist, Leftist, or Pro-Maduro content, and/or challenge U.S. foreign policy re: Venezuela by contributing to RfC’s (e.g. TeleSUR 31 March 2019 [both], VenezuelaAnalysis  March 2019 [both], Mint Press 4 July 2019 [Jamez42], Grayzone closed 3/2020 [both], HISPANTV 19 May 2019 [both]). Some of the key deprecations came shortly after opposition figure Juan Guaido declared himself President of Venezuela in January 2019—those sources were all critical of Juan Guaido. In those proceedings (as in this one), SandyGeorgia often argued that a source she wanted deprecated “parrots content from [another source Wikipedians deprecated]”,. The focus is not whether the content parroted is accurate. Many of the claims made to deprecrate the sources were not grounded in scholarly opinions about the overall reliability of source—but seem to be based on editors’ beliefs about the reliability of the source relying on individual examples of unreliability.

And, as I have stated, the same problem can be found in U.S. mass media, where AP stories circulate—like the WMDs used to justify the Iraq War (see Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War,,,,,, ,,,) and the countless images of mushroom clouds suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of launching ICBMs at the U.S. Does that mean that every media outlet that parroted “conspiracy theories” to advance the war are unreliable? I do not argue that.

Instead, we must rely on our WP:RS guideline, as I outlined here in this proceeding.

I have and will continue to respect the community’s decision on these RfC’s—I am not trying to “overturn” those decisions, but simply draw attention to the double-standard applied to foreign sources that do not ally with U.S. foreign policy goals. Other editors have made similar observations in those RfCs, but were outweighed by the majority.

While deprecating sources that align with Maduro’s government, SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus have fewer problems with the bias of sources that are pro-opposition, pro-capitalist, anti-Socialist, anti-Maduro, etc. (e.g. Pan Am Post, La Patilla , El Nacional, and a good part of the U.S. and western mass media). If any of the the pro-Opposition entities parrots deprecated source—e.g. Breitbart—that apparently is not a problem for NoonIcarus at those RfCs.

Even when a left-leaning source such as The Nation, which Wikipedia deems generally reliable, was used, SandyGeorgia accusedusing mostly marginal or partisan sources”.

What this comes down to primarily is a dispute about sourcing and content based on that sourcing. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have seen allegations about “overusing one source”, especially by. SandyGeorgia has edited 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt 115 times from 2006 until 2023,  did too, yet neither seems to have no problems that Nelson was cited about 95 times in the article (by my count). This was mentioned by here. Yet she takes exception to an edit by WMrapids in her Evidence. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I didn't answer since I thought the Workshop had closed, but in case I'm able to: the double-standard claims are unfounded. I have added unreliable opposition outlets to WP:VENRS including El American, Factores de Poder and Periodista Digital, and I have cited the page to remove sourcing from the first one, an alt-right outlet . Back in 2022 I had already acknowledged La Patilla's republication of Breitbart, and I suspect both that WMrapids was unaware of it and that they wouldn't have been able to cite it in their RfC if I didn't.
 * As of the source overuse, I can comment that it hasn't been the only issue. At 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, WMrapids disputed Nelson's sourcing on character (Nelson actually received US government funding to write Silence and the Scorpion through the Fulbright Program of the United States Cultural Exchange Programs), but when Bobfrombrockley asked if they had any other reasons to question his reliability they never responded back.
 * The sources you're mentioning have been deemed unreliable or deprecated due to their reliability record, not to their political alignment. The analysis should focus on the evidence at hand rather than opinions about the current affairs of the mainstream media. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is an inaccurate, false summary. I did not opine on PanAm Post (not a fan), or MintPress News (which had broad support for deprecation without me). My declaration re La Patilla (anti-chavismo) was the same as my declaration on Venezuelanalysis (pro-chavismo) – not generally reliable, but not deprecated. I hope you aren't suggesting Telesur and HispanTV are even in the same ballpark.   Further, my patience for over half a year in dealing with WMrapids invalidates your entire hypothesis: the battleground and aspersions were the final straw, much more than the poor editing and parroting of deprecated sources.  Perhaps you've missed the diff where WMrapids accused me of being cavassed to an article I was actively editing, which caused me to give up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not discount the battleground and aspersion allegations as I believe I have said elsewhere to S Marshall. The POV arguments made against  in evidence are problematic, as I have at times pointed out, and I see double-standards.  I have been delayed saying much about your evidence, because I believe most of it and the argumentation here against WMrapids is gravedancing.  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging the battleground, which has been the worst part for me-- it was the behavior -- no matter how kind I was, it just kept coming. Also, noting that there is an even greater, fatal flaw in your analysis and gauge of consensus in the RSN discussions you linked, but that part is private per WMrapids' request. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Re 115 edits, I've explained elsewhere in these discussions how I feel about having a high edit count on crap POV articles because most of my editing time was spent cleaning up citations after one editor; please see WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by SandyGeorgia
A socking editor with a pronounced POV hounded those he disagreed with, corrupted collegiality across many discussions, slanted BLPs, and sapped community time,  while creatively and persistently pinging in supporters to discussions, until Venezuelan topics appeared contentious and the community stopped weighing in to bludgeoned discussions, resulting in application of uneven sanctions, partly because canvassing and pinging of supporters did not occur equally by both parties. This appeared as a long-term vendetta to goad one editor and get them topic banned. Yet, the WMrapids account has engaged in the same behaviors they accuse NoonIcarus of, and more, including more serious BLP vios and casting of aspersions across discussions on multiple pages. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Re David: Sandy's not using the block as leverage in content disputes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Given that WMRapids is blocked and you appear to oppose unblocking, I want to understand the purpose of continuing to analyze (and attack) WMRapids's behavior--given that the defendant is unable to respond to your allegations. The diffs you provided against WMrapids were all dumped (16:23, 20 April 2024) only 8 hours before the close of Evidence—after WMrapids had already been blocked 9 days earlier (18:57, 11 April 2024).  We are seeing only one side of a content and reliable sourcing dispute.


 * You accuse WMrapids of 7. Grave dancing and well poisoning 148, but isn't that exactly what you (and others) are doing and continue to do here? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have seen accusations that the main and sock account worked aggressively and surreptitiously together to topic ban NoonIcarus in such a way as to undermine the validity of the close of the AN/I.  I would understand that concern, if the evidence was provided that the sock conspired with the main account for that purpose.  However, I have seen no evidence that the sock posted on talk pages, at forums, or at AN/I, as I have posted previously.  appears to agree that no such evidence has been provided.


 * So, again, what is the purpose of continuing to attack the behavior of an editor who cannot defend themselves? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WMrapids has access to his talk page; that access affords the opportunity for him to recognize the effects of his past editing and apologize for the damage he has brought to living persons, fellow editors, other entities and Wikipedia. He has asked that remaining matters be private, and that has been respected out of courtesy for a fellow human being, although WMrapids did not afford that same courtesy to others. I believe a site ban is in order considering the extent to which the deception has gone, and the damage caused; using Wikipedia to conduct a sustained campaign to advance ideologies and besmirch the reputations of living persons, fellow Wikipedians, and entities is not to be taken lightly, but the Arbitration Committee in the past has factored apologies and recognition into sanctions applied.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  10:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of David Tornheim evidence
I was very late in coming to realize that NoonIcarus was Jamez42 renamed – well after I looked into an August 2023 ANI to try to understand why Venezuela content was suddenly dominating my watchlist, where I found what looked like a personal vendetta driving poor editing by the WMrapids account. Tornheim correctly notes a reason I have supported NoonIcarus (like Jamez42 in the past) – he respects WP:RS and is knowledgeable about both English and Spanish-language sources. Tornheim refers to those sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia as and cites that opinion to an article published in Frontiers journal (highlighted by Headbomb's reliability script as less than reliable) and written by Alan MacLeod, a senior staff writer for the deprecated MintPress News that "publishes conspiracy theories and disinformation". This interpretation of reliable sources precisely illustrates and sums up the problems documented with WMrapids' editing and the views often shared by those he pings to discussions for support. Further, NoonIcarus also has command of the non-English and the non-US sources in addition to those mislabeled by conspiracy theories. Tornheim also mentions that ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes; it does, when content disputes demonstrate a conduct pattern (eg frequent breach of BLP policy) to negatively slant content about individuals. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not long ago I actually provided a 2018 paper by Alan MacLeod to illustrate the problem with said interpretation of reliable sources: "Manufacturing Consent for the 2018 Elections in Venezuela and Colombia", where MacLeod ignores the irregularities of the 2018 Venezuelan presidential elections to focus only on those in the Colombian ones. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Tornheim refers to those sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia as "U.S. State Department propaganda disseminated through Western mainstream media". This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.  This and this is what I actually said.


 * Compare this to the high standards demands of other editors.  Her evidence accusing WMrapids of misrepresentating sources to create POV and BLP violations includes “6. Word preliminary [194 ] omitted [195 ].” Despite that she had restored the word shortly after--with no documented opposition from WMrapids—resolving this 6 months ago, the omission of this single word is apparently of such significance, that it must be called to ArbCom’s attention as proof of WMrapid’s “pro-Maduro” agenda that unreasonably besmirches the reputation of Juan Guaidó.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * With a very long involvement at that article, WMrapids well knew the significance of the word preliminary when making that POV edit (and others similar), attempting to implicate Guaido in an event that occurred well after the exploratory contract was abandoned and any preliminary relationship with Goudreau was terminated. Although you, or the casual reader, might not recognize the bias in such omissions, WMrapids most certainly knew the context by the time they made that insertion. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: MacLeod's work at Mint Press. This is an association fallacy.  MacLeod wrote his dissertation to obtain a PhD in sociology in 2017 at the Glasgow University Media Group.  Although a dissertation is WP:primary, his expertise is in the appropriate field.  MacCleod's current employer is irrelevant to his prior and independent work.  Experts often articulate their opinions on media (e.g. Fox) that are hostile to their opinions and/or may work with colleagues at such places where they believe other commentators are presenting extremely objectionable or unreliable material.
 * His presentation is not exceptional--the propaganda model is taught in universities and can be found in numerous places in reliable scholarly articles. I learned of it in a number of university courses and course texts. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I stand by my interpretation of your words as a rejection of the reliable sources that others use in Venezuelan content, which include Spanish-language sources from Europe and the Americas. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of Boynamedsue evidence
Boynamedsue misstates the contents of WP:SOURCETYPES (emphasis added):  along with the contents of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG. Similar misinterpretations have been spread across multiple discussions, creating a cumulative aspersion against NoonIcarus, who works in a content area (Venezuelan politics) that already suffers under a) a lack of local press freedom, and b) proponents of fringe and deprecated sources seeking to gain traction by getting their content on Wikipedia. This and this are typical of how I observed the WMrapids account cherry picking from marginal "scholarly" sources. I don't know if misinterpretation of NoonIcarus on this matter is because English is not his native language, but I observed and documented on talk the problem with the WMrapids account in action many times, for example, in misrepresenting and overusing content sourced to Things Are Never So Bad That They Can't Get Worse and others. Unsurprisingly, in the Caracazo example, an obscure 2010 book (from a sketchy-looking publisher with no author listed and a faulty ISBN, making one wonder if this one of those Wikipedia mirror books, how do these kinds of sources come in to articles or serious discussion?) which focused on labeling events as massacres was used, and NoonIcarus explored other scholarly sources, which is exactly what we should do. As perhaps the only person on this page who lived through the Caracazo, up close and personal, I would personally call it a massacre, but that's not the point: NoonIcarus is allowed to argue favorability of reliable sources without being smeared again. Looking at "Further diffs", the first example provided is not an adequate summary of the source: I stopped there: if ArbCom doesn't do content disputes, some of these failed verification claims are just that; NoonIcarus has understood he may be using the wrong tags (the failed verification template does not exist on es.wikipedia). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Source says "Though the CD integrated Chávez’s most important adversaries, it did not represent an ‘institutionalised’ or ‘formal’ space for collective opposition strategy-formation or decision-making.20 In fact, its members did not elaborate any formal coordination mechanisms (i.e. decision-making rules/conflict resolution mechanisms). Instead, the factions with the largest material resources within the CD, predominantly the media and business sector (Globovision, Venevision and Fedecámeras), the so-called ‘de facto powers’, largely imposed their views and strategies onto the weaker ones (parties and social movements).21 Even though internal disagreements within the CD about how to confront Chávez existed (i.e. electoral vs insurrectional routes), the latter ‘quietly’ supported the extra-institutional actions put forward by ‘de factor powers’ to not weaken the platform (García-Guadilla and Mallen, 2013). Non-partisan actors strategized on behalf of the whole opposition and recurred to ‘extra-institutional strategies with radical goals’ (Gamboa, 2017) to oust Chávez."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I feel that the text you cite is a reasonable paraphrase of what the article states. And make no bones, Globovision was a leading light in the CD and did support the coup attempt, Noonicarus knows this. If Noonicarus had reworded the text, I would have had no problem, that is reasonable editing. However, deleting a sourced claim because you don't like it is POV-pushing. All of these diffs show deletion of sourced content with a misleading edit summary. It stretches credulity to believe that Noonicarus applied this tag scores of times, but not once clicked on it to see what it was for.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of S Marshall evidence
S Marshall mentions that I "arrived late for various reasons"; I also had indicated and posted to my preliminary statement that I was unsure where to enter evidence, and was awaiting advice. Had I known the ANI would close independently of an arbcase being opened, I would have made an entry at ANI, opposing the uneven topic ban. Like S Marshall, I don't fault Callanecc for the close, but agree with Amakuru that "I and others would have opposed the tban measure had I known such a closure was on the cards, as it misses half the picture", and note that Callanecc states that "ArbCom will decide whether to keep or vacate the topic ban as part of the normal case process". Now that fuller evidence has been posted, and socking has been revealed, I suggest alternate sanctions at.

I disagree with S Marshall's statement that "WMrapids is relatively new to Wikipedia". Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

writes in his evidence: My apologies for the lateness of this response (I've spent weeks looking for the relevant discussion.) That WMrapids did not know about page numbers (or timestamps for videos ) is not the case, and someone did take the time and he certainly did know; he typically either dug in or didn't respond/ignored the citation cleanup, usually until someone else responded. With videos and timestamps, there were several discussions. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of WMrapids evidence
Another example of a charge of "failed verification": this source is not adequately summarized. The source does not say The source says: which is a subtly different thing. Perhaps NoonIcarus should have rewritten the content to conform instead, but having done that legions of times in Venezuelan content, and in particular with just about everything the WMrapids account wrote, one tires. The "failed verification" claim has been overplayed here; there is a problem with NoonIcarus's removal of content, but it's not as black-and-white as painted, and can be managed with sanctions short of a topic ban. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the plan had already been applied during the visit of Pope John Paul II to Venezuela without shooting against the population
 * "The president certainly activated the Avila Plan when the Pope came too, the intention was never to try to shoot against the population and any number of things have been speculated about that."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Since the edit is over two and a half years old, I can't remember if I failed the archived source link (which was added by WMrapids later), since El Observador's source didn't mention that the plan was applied before. Responding to WMrapids, I provided a series of diffs showing how I try to rescue sources or rephrase content if it doesn't reflect the cited material faithfully, which I leave here if needed. In this case, the nuance of changing the weasel wording of "Supporters of Chávez" to "General in Chief Lucas Rincón and National Assembly President William Lara" should show the care I try to have with sourcing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Is there more to Simón, el Silbón, the sock?
There are inconsistencies regarding the sock account, User:Simón, el Silbón; is there more to this story? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Both accounts have used obscure, primary or marginal sources, even on BLPs, to parrot content from generally unreliable or deprecated sources (WP:TELESUR, Venezuelanalysis, and WP:RUSSIATODAY). WMrapids has gone to persistent lengths to press for Venezuelanalysis to be recognized as reliable.
 * 2) Venezuelanalysis – that  WMrapids endorses  – often parrots the deprecated WP:TELESUR, and its editors may be following Wikipedia discussions.
 * 3) The Silbón references a unique bit of Venezuelan folklore, suggesting deeper knowledge of Venezuela than an editor of Peruvian topics from Michigan who coincidentally stumbled upon Venezuelan topics.  The use of obscure non-English sources, that even an experienced Venezuelan editor would have a hard time finding, raises the possibility that there is more to these accounts. The reference to the 14 May 1813 Admirable Campaign is another indication of intent to POV via a campaign; some of my evidence suggests that could be a coordinated campaign.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm not sure if I follow. Do you mean if there are further behavior similarities and/or if there are more sock accounts? --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: I understand better what you mean and I totally agree with you. Personally, I leave to the arbitrators' discretion how much information about the subject is made public. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Re, socks tend to sock, so all options, including paid editing, are on the table. Although WP:SOCK permits the revealing of prior accounts that may be connected to new accounts that were created for privacy or security reasons, as per 's analysis here, I strongly believe further public discussion should be curtailed. Regardless of all that Wmrapids has done, our actions as compassionate human beings should not be determined by the lesser behaviors of others. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by SandyGeorgia of NoonIcarus and NoonIcarus evidence
NoonIcarus is a native Spanish speaker, who frequents the Spanish Wikipedia, where he has almost double the amount of edits he has on en.Wikipedia. His English userpage indicates multiple Good articles and ITN/DYK contributions; he frequently translates articles from Spanish to English, works in content areas beyond Venezuelan politics, and comprehensively answers sourcing queries for others (something I have found to be an invaluable time saver). The Template:Failed verification does not exist on the Spanish Wikipedia. Template:Verify source does exist there; as an experienced editor, I have never used that template nor do I recall seeing it used, so NoonIcarus's misunderstanding of template use may be understandable. Per the recent ANI, the documentation on the FV template has been adjusted, and NoonIcarus has acknowledged better template usage. He is a good faith and productive editor who has been smeared by aspersions for well over a year, and held up with a mostly pleasant disposition in spite of the onslaught.

, although I have watched the poor editing from the sock accounts and experienced it myself resulting in great frustration to me, leading me to stop editing, your evidence statements stop short of acknowledging that your response to WMrapids' poor editing was to revert too often. I, too, became exhausted and let my buttons be pushed by the interminable goading and gaming of the system, but I didn't edit war and I constantly (repetitively and exhaustingly) explained the problems to WMrapids and with his sources and citations on talk. And cleaned up citations to the point of exhaustion as well. Unless you acknowledge that you shouldn't take the bait or allow your conduct to be influenced by others, and that reverting too often is never the solution -- even as WMrapids' constantly edit warred to reinstate non-consensual content in articles -- this arbcase will not conclude favorably for you. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Hi . I'm very sorry once again for the delay, I wanted to give this the time it deserved. Thank you both for your words and for your question. I sought to do self-reflection at the My own behavior section, but was limited by the word count, so I can use this part as a follow up.


 * After the 2020 ANI and the restrictions expired, I tried to bear in mind 1RR as a general rule, as to not revert so often and to have time to use this talk page. After I filed a report on edit warring (ANEW, July 2023, what I describe at Second phase: Venezuelan sources), where Bbb23 warned both WMrapids and I against edit warring, I sought to leave cleanup tags to reflect the issues, while explaining them at the talk page (just as it happened at the long ranging Operation Gideon (2020)). I kept track of said tracks in a section of WikiProject Venezuela. I also sought to start discussions in noticeboards such as WP:NPOV/N#Guarimba and WP:NPOV/N#Venezuelan opposition, just like you did with Nelson Bocaranda. After this exchange: User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10, I went further and also left an explanation for the tags when there wasn't already a discussion in place, and not only with the edit summaries. This is the case of articles such as Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services, Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman) and Talk:Tren de Aragua, and is more similar to what you describe in describing the problems over and over, even if it can be tiresome and time consuming (Third phase: Venezuelan politics (October 2023-present)).


 * It was still difficult to make progress, but I really felt that the dispute had slowed down considerably, which is why the last ANI took me by surprise. However, I want to stress once again that I'm not saying I'm completely innocent in the situation. It has been a messy and complex dispute and I've tried to tackle it in the best way I could have, but inevitably I have made many mistakes along the way.


 * Please let me know if this response helps to clarify better or if I should offer more info, as there's still plenty of introspection that I can make. Thank you kindly, --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Proposed decision possibilities
I am not accomplished at drafting arb principles, findings of fact, or remedies, but suggest the following are needed:
 * 1) An accurate interpretation of how to apply scholarly sources
 * 2) Something about the perennial problem since the advent of the pingie-thingie being used to creatively skirt WP:CANVASS: NoonIcarus did not bring in the other editors who dealt extensively with WMrapids (who are still likely unaware of this arbcase or the ANI), while WMrapids worked over time to ping in and line up like-minded supporters.
 * 3) The importance of editing BLPs with great care, particularly for individuals in a country with dire consequences (Fernando Albán, Rafael Acosta Arévalo)
 * 4) Do the arbs want/need further evidence re the sock accounts? If they do, then history becomes relevant, and the conditions for a full site ban might be contemplated, as accounts are likely to return; the notion expressed by several above that this case is now settled is short-sighted. And parity in sanctions is called for (unless a full site ban for the socking is issued instead), as NoonIcarus's editing was not worse than the WMrapids' account. I've stated since August 2023 that I don't believe WMrapids should be editing BLPs, at minimum; the POV is too great and the offenses not tolerable if we value live human beings.
 * 5) There are (and have always been) exceedingly few Venezuelan editors working on political articles with command of the language, the history, and the reliable sources in both English and Spanish – probably no more than four at any given time since I’ve been editing. Venezuelan politics is not overrun by new Venezuelan editors, because of cultural reasons and fear of reprisals (noting that the vast majority of Venezuelans are anti-Maduro yet they aren't editing in any noticeable numbers). Those few have to deal with considerably higher numbers of editors wanting to introduce fringe or deprecated sources or UNDUE content for reasons related more to anti-US political stance; such editors frequently have no to limited knowledge of the history and Spanish-language sources (having gained their views of Venezuela from reading popular English-language deprecated sources and conspiracy theories), and NoonIcarus's more thorough knowledge is key to maintaining balance.  Eliminating one of the very few who can "wave the red flag when there's bias" will not benefit Wikipedia (indeed, was probably the goal in a long and targeted campaign).  Perhaps something like this will work for NoonIcarus: either 0RR again, or a time-limited topic ban on article/mainspace editing in the Venezuelan politics realm, while allowing participation in talk page discussions. NoonIcarus has not demonstrated the problems on talk that WMrapids has (eg aspersions), and bludgeoning was not a serious problem until he had to start answering WMrapids' bludgeoning, where he took the bait early on (but later got wiser and stopped taking the bait).
 * 6) Depending on what information the arbs have about the sockmaster, a WP:CLEANSTART principle might be in order, along with findings about prior warnings issued. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior ... if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly.
 * 7) Contentious topic: benefit is unclear (Updated: no need). Arguing against CTOP, Venezuelan politics was not a contentious area until WMrapids, and applying CT might result in the same situation that occurred in ARBMED (the sanctions were never used because the problem was only a few individuals).  Arguing in favor of CTOP, there is the possibility of continued socking, there is also the possibility that a coordinated campaign exists, and Venezuela content has always been a hard area to edit because discussion is dominated by anti-US, pro-authoritarianism or pro-socialism editors who prevail by sheer numbers, often with marginal sources, over the very few Venezuelans who do edit.  I'm unsure CTOP will provide a way to address that problem, though. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * An additional argument against contentious topic designation is whether it works at all; WMrapids was given a BLP contentious topics first alert, and yet continued to slant BLPs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: the problem in the Venezuela content area is a one-person issue involving undisclosed accounts, and designating it a contentious topic is unnecessary if all of those accounts are blocked and the person behind them site banned, with recognition they, or replacement paid editors, are likely to re-appear. Most of the problematic content within the suite of articles about contemporary Venezuelan politics was added by one editor, and most of the behavioral issues that followed beginning in mid-2023 were caused by the same editor. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Regarding point #5 and possible precautionary measures, I think it's important to think about the problems that sought to be addressed.
 * David Tornheim has said that the 2020 AN/I was effective in solving the situation, but what does he mean by this? This ANI was opened mostly due to my opposition of including a section about Venezuela in the United States involvement in regime change article, whose proposed version did not have a consensus at the moment (RFC on Venezuela), Tornheim repeatedly sought to include and this year finally was able to along with WMrapids . In this case, there were many other overlapping issues, such as the article's scope, consensus and original research. To quote an editor at the ANI: That RfC close is nowhere near as clear cut as this report seems to imply. The discussion focused on a specific proposed addition for which no consensus to add was found and Jamez42's concerns about NPOV were specifically noted in the close. Topic ban would be massively premature. And really, some of the people complaining about POV editing probably need to take a look in the mirror.


 * This is one of the points that I seek to make at my conclusions (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence). Even after the 0RR restrictions expired, in 2021, 2022 and early 2023 there weren't any similar problems because there weren't similar situations, nor did I find an used that misrepresented sources so often. The Spanish version of Enforced disappearances in Venezuela (es:Desaparición forzada en Venezuela) illustrates well how things could have turned out in a different environment. Very similarly to the English version, editor Guaiquerí made a drastic expansion of the article in March to include information about disappearances before the Bolivarian Revolution, doubling it in since. The content had important sourcing issues, including non-independent references, primary sources and lack of attribution. I reverted the edit for this reason, explained the issues at the talk page es:Discusión:Desaparición forzada en Venezuela, and proposed solutions to address this. I already know Guaiquerí from other articles, where they have done a superb job such as in the case of the Racism in Venezuela article (es:Racismo en Venezuela). Guaiquerí was receptive to this feedback, other editors joined in to help and the content was restored and improved to its current version:


 * However, I absolutely understand that the main concern here is the removal of content. Besides the voluntary 1RR that I have followeed so far, I look forward explaining the issues about additions before the removing them (following the spirit of 0RR). I also with to learn about any recommendations and guidance to improve my editing or about issues that I haven't been warned about yet. I take pride in my contributions, meaning that I care about my good standing in the community, which I seek to either earn or demonstrate. Restrictions and warnings are embarrassing for me, just as this ordeal as been shameful for me. The last thing that I want is conflict. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I support the sentiment of #6 for a cleanstart, especially given that has offered similar terms to that proposed here.  This would hopefully allay the valid concerns raised here, such as making accusations against editors at article talk pages, being overly confrontational and accusatory during disagreement (e.g. WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:Casting aspersions) rather than being more congenial and working towards building consensus--focusing too much on editor behavior rather than content--even asking an editor to stop editing in an area, and, of course, socking.   has, in my opinion, shown sufficient remorse and has taken responsibility for untoward actions and promised not to repeat the behaviors.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my sentiment has been misread; I'm not suggesting a CLEAN start for WMrapids-- I'm suggesting that if a new account has returned to the same articles to continue battleground behaviors, then the behaviors of all accounts should be on the table, and the opportunity for a clean start has already been missed. And when the reputation of a fellow editor has been thoroughly besmirched over months of disputes across many fora, that's hard to recover from, and I've seen no remorse yet, much less commensurate to the deed. And should the WMrapids accounts be linked to a previous account, with privacy/security needs used as the reason, then it should not escape us that WMrapids did not afford the same security need to NoonIcarus when he bludgeoned NoonIcarus's legitimate account renaming across multiple dispute resolution fora.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis by NoonIcarus
I'll continue expanding this section and other comment by piecemeal due to time constraints.

In any case, I'd like this analysis to be complemented by the private information I sent to the Committee. I'm leaving to the arbitrators' discretion how much of said information is made public, if any. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Noted. My main concerns that I have not explained publicly is a) that the recidivism proposed principle should be considered for WMrapids and b) about WMrapids' possible pointy behavior. For the sake of transparency, I can publicly say that I'm not aware of efforts by WMrapids to intimidate me off-wiki.
 * However, that's not to say that they put my privacy at risk by constantly pointing out to my rename or off-wiki activity, as you have mentioned, even after pointing out to the risks this entails: . Loose lips sink ships. Like them, I have well founded reasons to be mindful about my privacy, and yet I didn't have the need to create a different account or to mix up its editing scope with my main one. I only wish they could have been more careful about it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * you mention above sending private evidence to the Committee. If I might ask a favor, as I have run out of time due to the busy month I've had, if you have diffs of the various accounts a) interacting in the same discussion, or b) interacting separately to continue a specific dispute or battleground issue, after one account stopped editing, or c) to continue casting aspersions at or attempting to intimidate you, could you please provide those diffs to the Committee privately?  My evidence can then focus on other aspects. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Quotes
Quotes that I linked at the evidence but was unable to cite due to word limit:
 * An obscure Brazilian paper cited by one other publication (SandyGeorgia on obscure sourcing, 29-Oct-2023)
 * Gain consensus on talk if you want to add an opinion from a very obscure paper, which no one else thinks worthy of citation (Ibidem)
 * Similarly, this is an obscure Nigerian lecture cited by none (SandyGeorgia on obscure sourcing, 1-Nov-2023)
 * You can find an obscure journal or author to promote any POV; journal publication doesn't render content DUE and doesn't guarantee peer review. (...) just because one author's opinion can be dug up in a journal, doesn't mean it should be given weight in an article (see WP:UNDUE) (SandyGeorgia on obscure sourcing, 23-Nov-2023)
 * I would say it again, scholarly articles are only as good as you can demonstrate that the journal is good, the authors is notable and that it has been cited by others extensively. If I wanted to find scholarly articles saying that Earth is flat or that Einstein was wrong with relativity I can find them very easily, but that does not make them due. (ReyHahn on obscure sourcing, 25-Nov-2023)


 * As an uninvolved editor, may I ask what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing WP:Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian? Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day. (Dustfreeworld on aspersions, 28-Mar-2024)
 * You can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion. (SandyGeorgia on aspersions, 28-Mar-2024)
 * Keep on describing a message expressing Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian as “gamey behavior” and/or “unconventional canvassing”, and that they’re *more concerned* about that than another Wikipedian’s real life tragedies ... is just a totally unacceptable explicit example of failure to AGF. If this kind of mentality persists during their interaction with other involved editors who’ve views different from them, I can imagine how exhausting and disheartening it can be. (Dustfreeworld on aspersions, 29-Mar-2024). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

SandyGeorgia's evidence
This diff provided by SandyGeorgia perfectly illustrates how harmful the personalization and aspersions casting was overall. At Talk:Lima Consensus, (a relatively new editor to the English Wikipedia) and I were calmy discussing about the cleanup tag in the article before WMrapids' comment. Their comment was a needless escalation and derailed said discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

S Marshall's evidence
Regarding WMrapids' question about sources format (User talk:S Marshall), I wanted to point out to this explanation they provided: I admittedly may have become lazy (...) since I thought that detailed citations did not really matter to [NoonIcarus]. I fail to see how this can be the case when for months editors and I asked for the original cited text or how the source material did not reflect their edits, as I explained in the evidence phase (Third phase: Venezuelan politics (October 2023-present)). I want to bear in mind WP:AGF and I really don't want to do a stretch on intentions, but the vague referencing format and the use of obscure journals (sometimes available only with paid subscriptions), sometimes led me to believe even that it was an attempt to make content verification even more difficult.

I want to stress with this, as well as the information that I emailed to Arbcom, that WMrapids is not a new editor. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Boynamedsue's evidence
I talk about the issue with the use of scholar opinions at Third phase: Venezuelan politics. at Talk:Guarimba ("A recap on WP:WEIGHT"), I explain how editors such as SandyGeorgia and ReyHahn were worried about the use of obscure sources to support a minority or fringe point of view. I personally gave the examples of the Lancet MMR autism fraud and a paper published by the deprecated MintPress News senior staff writer Alan MacLeod. I explained the problem with the use of "massacre" for the Caracazo at Talk:Caracazo: it is a loaded term (which violates the NPOV principle) and I gave other academic sources that don't use the term Talk:Caracazo. What to do when sources differ on the same topic is the gist of neutrality.

Secondly, to demonstrate the misuse of edit summaries, not only a pattern should be demonstrated, but intent as well. To counter this I provided diffs at the ANI how I prefer rewording or rescuing dead links instead of removing content when I have the chance:, but I can provide more if needed. That doesn't mean that there haven't been mistakes, and other editors have been able to verify the content when I wasn't, but that is not the same as deliberately and consistently removing content. Boynamedsue even mistakenly shared an accurate removal during the evidence phase:.

Last but not least, it's false that I failed to hear advice that statements of [the OAS] should be attributed to them, which is easily demonstrable. I offered attribution for the organization in this edit: and WMrapids even thanked me for it: Every incidence of someone being described as a "guarimbero" is not always notable and can be undue. Thank you for attributing the information, though. What I opposed in the discussion was deeming the OAS as unreliable only based on character instead of substance ("The OAS is an anti-socialist organization and it deliberately chose a lawyer for an opposition leader to lead this investigation").

I'm disheartened that Boynamedsue has such a negative impression of me since we mostly know each other from this thread that I started in January at the reliable sources noticeboard: WP:RSN#OAS Panel of Independent International Experts precisely to have more input from the community on the given source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Re Boynamedsue: I often include edit summaries to explain what I'm disputing, including the diffs you're providing. Let's go over the diffs:
 * See SandyGeorgia's summary on this. Saying "leading entity within the opposition coalition" is not the same as "largest material resources"
 * Per summary: none of the sources include the quote ""Those fucking wankers don't know what is to be in Venezuela" . In the first edit I commented on problems about BLP and WP:CRIME.
 * Per summary: nowhere in the source the 44% figure is found, and the article is from 2023, meaning that it doesn't refer to Castillo. This was already pointed out by editor at Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt.
 * The change claims that El Gran Viraje increased corruption, but this is not found at the source. That was not the only reason for the revert, and the rest can be found here: Talk:Washington Consensus
 * Explained at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt.
 * The source contradicts that Rumbo Propio is a separatist group, and includes declarations refuting this.
 * The text attrbiuted the accusation against the US of "using sanctions and emergency aid as political weapons against Venezuelans" to "a group of UN delegates", but the source cites Venezuela's foreign minister for this, Jorge Arreaza
 * Per summary: this source doesn't say anything about the United Nations recognition of the Maduro government. Using this other source is a primary and outdated reference.
 * The source doesn't talk about "guerrillas, paramilitaries and drug traffickers". WP:CRYSTAL also applies here.
 * The source doesn't say that her family had "conservative traditions", nor that she was "the youngest of six siblings".
 * The first source is authored by the Venezuelan government and doesn't mention the WHO. UNICEF's source doesn't mention either, and its use is a primary source interpretation for praise.
 * USA's today doesn't mention "access loss to credit markets". Along with the exceptions mentions in the text, it isn't a good interpretation of the content.
 * The source doesn't say that "some, women in particular, enter the sex industry", but rather interviews a fisherman that says that some are sexually exploited.
 * I can understand if I'm asked to be more careful over these edits or if some are disputable. However, I have made thousands of edits in articles about Venezuela, and I feel like this is scraping the bottom of the barrel for evidence. How is disputing that there's a seperatist movement in Western Venezuela or that Venezuelan women become prostitutes in Trinidad and Tobado  "POV-pushing for a pro-opposition or anti-Maduro" line?
 * Occam's razor makes a lot more of sense: I try to take care about verifiability in articles, even if I'm naturally bound to make mistakes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There are 18 diffs where you falsely state that a claim "failed verification", when the source actually contained that information. This is an extremely serious matter, as the words "failed verification" indicate that you have checked the source and found the claim is not there. This means there is no onus on you to prove the source is not reliable or the claim not due, and unless a user takes time to check the source (and why would they? You are an experienced user) it is unchallengeable. It allows POV-pushing with minimal scrutiny. Indeed, none of these edits were noticed by editors and reverted until I checked. There are probably 10 more over the same period which are sourced to books or papers which I do not have access to, and I suspect you don't either.


 * You have not addressed this in your evidence, because you have no valid response.


 * Nearly all of your edits push a pro-opposition, anti-Maduro, Venezuelan nationalist, and anti-socialist line, even when they are not deceptively labelled. From observing your posting over various years, my attention being drawn from the period when you were a frequent presence at RSN, I noticed severe bias, which amounts to POV-pushing. Of course, WMRapids is also strongly biased, as is SandyGeorgia, but my impression of both of their editing is that they honestly try to make the pages neutral reflections of our rules.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It is also worth noting that when you got more input from the community on the OAS report, that input was "attribute it". You chose to ignore that input.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly, in your comment of 27th Jan, you do not mention the two examples where you deleted the statement of the OAS that various types of human rights have improved in Venezuela, or the response of the government to allegations of torture. Both were clearly sourced.


 * You could argue that the wording might be changed, I don't think that is necessary but whatever. However, the deleted material was sourced.


 * The source includes a video where Smolansky clearly says this.


 * The IEP poll does actually state the 44% figure,.


 * . You deleted this text "Economic nationalism and clientelism was prominent in Venezuela as a result of the two-party hegemonic system established by the Puntofijo Pact.". The text states: Since the transition and consolidation of democracy in 1958, the Venezuelan polity had historically been legitimated by state-led developmentalism and economic nationalism (Coronil, 1998), with centralized rent-deployment patterns controlled by the executive and brokered by two hegemonic and highly centralized and clientelist political parties. There is lots more sourced material you delete in this edit, it is a masterwork of POV introduction.


 * The source specifically states the plot was not secret, you say it Fails verification.


 * The source shows exactly what the article states, that the group considers itself to be "autonomist" and that the government doesn't. Failed verification? Passed verification with flying colours, but you don't like it.


 * You delete On 14 February 2019, a group of UN delegates, including delegates of Venezuela and several other countries, declared they would fight what they called the "illicit, US-led effort" to change the government of Venezuela. They accused the US of "using sanctions and emergency aid as political weapons against Venezuelans" the NYT says that this claim was made by the Venezuelan foreign minister who said a new coalition of nations would fight what he called an illicit, American-led effort to topple his government and that he was flanked by ambassadors of several countries that have joined the group, which includes China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia and Syria. Diplomats said the group totaled about 50 nations. I can see that you might want to rephrase this slightly, though again, it is reasonable to think that the minister was speaking for the coalition that was stood next to him. However, there is no way that you can justify deletion here.


 * I don't know where you are getting the Curandero article from, but a dead link does not mean a source has failed verification. In this case, you simple have to google the title of the article "ONU respalda credenciales de funcionarios de Maduro", and you get the article reprinted by Venzolano de Houston, as well as the clear primary source. But the thing that is weird here is what you are attempting to do. Nobody believes that the UN didn't accept the Maduro government's credentials. Why don't you want it in the article?


 * the text in the article is Caracas and Bogota have also announced intentions to restore military relations. Venezuelan Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez said Maduro had ordered him to immediately establish contact with Colombian Defence Minister Ivan Velasquez for this purpose. The governments also agreed to “boost security and peace” on their shared border. We will continue step by step and at a safe pace to advance towards the restoration and reconstruction of political, diplomatic and commercial relations,” Maduro said on state television. Yes, if you wish to delete "guerrillas, paramilitaries and drug traffickers" that is fine. But you didn't do that, because your goal is to minimise any recognition of Maduro by any other government, as above. And this is not, in any way, crystal ball.


 * this one is more of an example of your run of the mill editing. You personally decided that "Hugo! The Hugo Chávez Story from Mud Hut to Perpetual Revolution", published by Random House was unreliable and deleted everything sourced to it. You did this as part of your campaign to decree every source sympathetic to Chavez or Maduro unreliable.


 * Re-reading that, I see your point in terms of those individual sources. But once again, it is clear that the WHO did praise the programme, you could have checked, it was third result on google. Your attitude is never "is this true?" but "can I get away with deleting this?".


 * The source from Francisco Rodriguez was reliable expert comment, but you deleted it. In any case source from USA today states The new sanctions are an attempt to close a number of loopholes Venezuela has used to sell off assets and raise money. They restrict the ability of Venezuela and state-owned oil company PDVSA to issue new debt or stock in U.S. dollars, or engage in other financial dealings with U.S. citizens. This is a reasonable paraphrase of "lose access to credit markets". Again, you know this to be true, but you are looking for a loophole to delete a suggestion that the economic sanctions might be a factor in Venezuela's problem.


 * Again, you could have removed "in particular" and it would still have been valid.


 * All your editing follows this pattern, you look at what you can get away with to introduce pro-opposition/anti-socialist bias, not what WP:NPOV would require. The only reason I mention these examples specifically is that they are clear breaches of misleading edit summaries.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding content from a marginal source of a "video where Smolansky clearly says this", when the matter hasn't been raised more widely by independent sources, falls under UNDUE. And self-interpretation of videos was well explained to WMrapids here, in another article, where he views a video and inserts his own interpretation, not covered by any source.  (I haven't yet checked whether that was in fact another replication of TELESUR or Venezuelanalysis or RUSSIATODAY content.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another instance of WMrapids using a video excerpt inappropriately occurs here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

David Tornheim's evidence
When Tornheim says that Western mainstream media disseminates U.S. State Department propaganda, he seems to be expressing a wide perceived issue about Wikipedia's concept of reliability, rather than just a specific one about me: the idea that the sources that the community considers realiable are unrealible because they supposedly disseminate "U.S. State Department propaganda".

This is also a straw man, because a lot of the sources that I use are domestic and Venezuelan, unrelated to the "Western mainstream media", just as well as Venezuelan academics (including prominent leftists themselves, such as Manuel Caballero and Teodoro Petkoff).

David also supported the deprecated Grayzone to be categorized as a reliable or non-consensus source (a position that, judging from this exchange: User talk:Allan Nonymous, seems to not have changed). This, along with the opinions expressed during this process and others such like these: Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo. and he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a "dictator" to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change. should give content on Tornheim's idea of neutrality.

It's false that I haven't explained my opposition with the use of loaded language, such as with the term "massacre". The reasons can be found here: Talk:Caracazo, where I asked whether it was appropriate to call the 1992 Los Angeles riots a "massacre" to illustrate the point to Western editors. At Talk:Caracazo I provided academic sources with different definitions after he asked for them, to which he didn't reply and doesn't acknowledge in his Evidence section. After around four years without editing, and without interacting with me, it's unfair for Tornheim to still support such a draconian measure against me. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WMrapids' evidence
I'm not sure if I'll have enough time to expand on this on these last minutes, but let's try:

The many times I have cited the restoration of a stable version in articles basically meant that WMrapids performed changes without consensus. They likewise started calling the use of cleanup tags in articles to prevent edit warring as "driveby tagging", quite improperly since a) said tags were explained, b) I was often part of the article's development and c) these were clearly not "easily fixed problems". They paint my editing in the worst light possible, describing a splitting proposal (which was a suggestion at the related move proposal) as a "demand". An equally pertinent question is to ask how removing all the redirects to Guayana Esequiba, a title that had existed for over ten years, benefits the encyclopedia. (among many, many others). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis by TarnishedPath
Whatever else happens here I don't think ArbCom should be reconsidering topic bans. I believe that would be out of process with the community process that occurs between WP:AN/I and WP:AN. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 14:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Multiple accounts abuse was confirmed during the course of this case, there should be a reconsideration at the very least. The closing admin (and former arbitrator) mentioned that it is common practice for the ARBCOM to evaluate these measures. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * No multiple account abuse seems to have been involved in the ANI thread. Whatever WMRapids is guilty of, it does not seem to have any connection to the activities you were topic blocked for.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Even the closing admin (along with others) indicated that ArbCom would revisit the close: see analysis on this page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: