Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela

Requested move at Talk:Elisabeth Burgos-Debray#Requested move 5 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Elisabeth Burgos-Debray#Requested move 5 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Open Arbcom case

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan_politics.—S Marshall T/C 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics opened

An arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the decision that is questioned here? Evidence with respect to what?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: The scope is "Conduct in the topic area of Venezuelan politics, with a specific focus on named parties". The preliminary statements can be found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Preliminary statements, and said parties are S Marshall (filer), WMrapids and myself. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this vocabulary is so foreign to me that I don't know how I can be of help. In the Spanish version there is no Arbitration committee, and just seeing how leguleyo and absurb the subject is, it seems to me that it is not so necessary to have one of those either. Good luck to all parties, they will definitely need it! Oscar_. (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The relevance beyond any individuals is that one proposal under consideration is to make Venezuelan politics a contentious topic; contentious topics are subject to special editing rules. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What kind of rules?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The restrictions include page protections and revert limits, among others. From what I gather, it's up for the Arbitration Committee to decide which to apply, if any. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I went down the rabbit hole, and while I still have a lot of reading to do, I have a more clear picture, and I'm going to allow myself to weigh in, if only for you NoonIcarus and SandyGeorgia, who have been spending too much time onto this.

I don't think it would be the end of the world if the issue ends up as a contentious topic, I have no proof, but I also don't doubt that there are outside interests trying to whitewash the government's image, much more in English than in Spanish. For example, my experience in Spanish are mostly from individuals still in infatuation with the government.

But in English it seems like another beast, quite scary honestly. And I think the more people are paying attention to it, the harder it will be for those interests to lobby Wikipedia.

That is my perception and I know I might sound just naïve, but let me tell you the status-quo is not the best either, it still amazed me that articles like the ones about the Derwick founders are still painted as renaissance men, instead of the pillagers they truly are, but that is the way it is, current policies have failed to trace malicious actors, unless they commit the stupidity of getting thousands of socks, but this will not always be the case.

Just that, let's also take care of ourselves, Oscar_. (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)