Requests for clarification and amendment

Initiated by Lecen (talk) at 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Lecen (initiator)
• MarshalN20

Statement by Lecen

Amendment

The proposed decision was published on 23 June 2013. Since then I had a hard time trying to move on. MarshalN20 hasn't stopped talking about Juan Manuel de Rosas and myself:

• On 25 June 2013 MarshalN20 published a long rant against me on NuclearWarfare's talk page, where he also dealt with Rosas' article. Although it was a blatant violation of the topic ban, nothing happened to MarshalN20.
• On 28 June 2013 I went to the Request for Enforcement page to complain that MarshalN20 was trying to continue meddling on Juan Manuel de Rosas' article through indirect ways. Nothing was done of it.
• On 30 June 2013 MarshalN20 published another long rant against me, now on Cambalachero's talk page, where he called me a "troll".
• On 10 July 2013 User The ed17 went to the Request for Enforcement page to complain that MarshalN20 was trying to continue meddling on Juan Manuel de Rosas' article through indirect ways. Nothing happened.
• On 23 July 2013 MarshalN20 requested an amendment to Argentine History. I made one statement asking the Arbitrators to think carefully before accepting his request.
• On 31 July 2013 MarshalN20 said that "Lecen continues to cast aspersions about me (accusing me of using Fascist sources & sponsoring political proganda". The link he provided was my statement to his request for amendment. I patiently replied, explaining that he had been topic banned because he had used Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists (who were anti-semitic fascists and whose books were pieces of political propaganda) as sources. He said he was not topic banned forever (which he was) and that it had nothing to do with the use of Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists (which, as far as I know, it had). Nowhere during the entire conversation I was rude, aggressive or ironic. In the end, User:Salvio giuliano said that, for all purposes, we were both banned from interacting with each other. I gladly accepted. See here for the entire discussion.
• On 12 August 2013 MarshalN20 replied to User:AGK. He wrote one long rant against me and again dealt with Juan Manuel de Rosas. Nowhere in AGK's message to MarshalN20 did he mention my name or Rosas article. Why would MarshalN20 mention both on his reply? Again MarshalN20 violated the topic ban but nothing happened to him. There is no excuse to attack me knowing that I could never reply due to the interaction ban. Even less when he did that to an Arbitrator. Regardless, many hours later MarshalN20 removed the piece of text that deal with Rosas article, although he left the part where he asked AGK to continue the conversation through e-mail. MarshalN20 also excused the rant against me saying that there was no "formal" interaction ban ("Salvio suggested that if the 'informal' (ie, suggestion) he provided did not work, then he would file a request for a formal interaction ban"). Actually, Salvio giuliano was pretty much clear: "please consider yourselves informally banned from interacting with each other".

I dont believe anything will be done regarding MarshalN20' continuous topic ban violations. However, I'd like to request a formal amendment for permanent interaction ban. And, if possible, to declare that MarshalN20 cannot speak about me anywhere unless if requested by an arbitrator or administrator. The same may apply to me if the Arbcom wishes. What I want is simple: to be left alone. That's all.

@The ed17: I never called MarshalN20 a "misogynist propagandist, supporter of fascism and anti-Semitism". Never. All I said was that he and Cambalachero used Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists as sources. This is a fact. They never denied using them as sources. In fact, in the evidence page in the arbcom case both users argued in favor of Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists. What I also did say was that Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists were Fascists. Their books were written with the primary purpose of serving as political propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s. This is also a fact. Historians agree on that. I even sent two e-mails to Arbitrators written by the foremost English-speaking specialists on Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists.

And MarshalN20's long post clearly shows that he is unnable to forget Juan Manuel de Rosas' article and that he wants to maintain the arbcom case alive. --Lecen (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I would like to note that it is the consensus of the uninvolved administrators who reviewed the arbitration enforcement request that a mutual interaction ban is necessary. There is evidently a great deal of bad blood here, and I don't see interactions between the two without some disengagement. Salvio's informal warning was unfortunately insufficient to achieve that, so I believe we need an enforceable remedy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

Should the committee accept this request, and I hope they will, can I plead that they make the interaction ban wide enough so that obvious skirting of it is actionable? Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshall, a few points and a major question:

1. Close friend is a severe overstatement. I've followed this case because it interests me.
2. I'll ask you to retract your completely unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry.
3. I believe Lecen was accusing you of using fascist sources in your articles, not calling you fascist yourself. It's a fine line, yes, but there's a major difference in the two. See also "Nationalism/Revisionism" on the evidence page.

Are you trying to re-argue the Argentine history case? That's how it reads to me, but I could be wrong. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Marshall, sure, posts from 2011 and 2012. Cool.
2. and 3) I'm not engaging on these further, as they are off-topic.
3. Ah, I see. You should make a separate amendment request. This is for an interaction ban. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cambalachero

I would like to request an interaction ban with Lecen as well. Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarshalN20

I'll start by writing that this whole subject has turned into a ridiculously childish situation. The last time I recall being in this position was back in grade school when me and a kid argued over watering plant seeds (science project), and even that situation was less silly than this matter between Lecen and me.
Above you can interpret from Lecen's point of view that I am as evil and manipulative as Darth Sidious. Yet, his argumentation (premises and results) is filled with misguided assumptions and erroneous conclusions. My answer to them: The enforcement board dismissed all of his claims as unfounded or exaggerated.
Yet, it should come as no surprise that Lecen continues carrying the stick, and continues accusing me of being a misogynist propagandist, supporter of fascism and anti-Semitism, and mastermind meatpuppeteer. He has already been told various times to stop, but he continues with these accusations.
But, this is to be expected because, in Lecen's view, he is the "good guy" who is doing nothing wrong. When his close friend User:The ed17 files a report against me (despite Ed has no relation whatsoever to this case), it's obviously not meatpuppetry. When Lecen accuses me of being a Fascist propagandist, that obviously is not an insult. And, when I respond to any of his aggressions, I am obviously ranting. So, the "logic" here is pretty black-and-white.

Topic Ban, clarifications (Part 1)
My understanding of the ARBCOM ruling is that I was topic banned due to "tendentious editing and battleground conduct". The diffs used to justify the position all come from my edits in the article on the Paraguayan War.
As I expressed in AGK's talk page (see [1]), I understand what I did wrong in the move request and have repeatedly expressed regret for my actions. However, I also point out that not only did this move request take place over a year ago (February 2012), but that at the time I was also unaware of other options available to continue a reasonable intellectual discussion (including the move review board & the conflict of interest board).
Lecen, however, claims that I was topic banned for the reasons he uses to justify his insults of Fascism, anti-Semitism, etc.
This is what confuses me. I have never used Fascist sources in my entire life (although I did once read a book on Mussolini for a European history course), and the only editing action I ever took in the article "Juan Manuel de Rosas" was to copy-edit the material that was already in the article's introduction and "early life" sections (I never added a single source to that article).
This is why I am asking for clarification on what else I did wrong (so that I may correct it), because I honestly do not understand how this February 2012 move request justifies such a broad topic ban ("Latin American history") and harsh accusations (tendentious and battleground editing).

Topic Ban, clarifications (Part 2)
Yes, I took part in the talk page discussions that erupted into the "Argentine history" ARBCOM case. However, my position was simply that of being against source-censorship (per freedom of speech). Up to this point, I don't understand why the author's political leanings are a problem to the history of Juan Manuel de Rosas.
Rosas was not a woman (no worry for "misogynists"), he was not a Jew (no worry for "anti-Semitism"), and certainly was not a Fascist (the roots of Fascism, according to Wikipedia's article on Fascism, do not even start until the 1880s. Rosas died in 1877). Rosas was a caudillo (the "quintessential" one according to John Lynch), who acted like many other Latin American caudillos of the era.
If there really was a need to distinguish "revisionists" from other authors, then that distinction could have easily been made in the article ("According to revisionist historian blah blah, [...]"). Not only that, but Cambalachero even provided a source that clearly stated that (at least in Argentina) revisionists were now regarded as reliable as the "mainstream" historians of Rosas (who were instead now being accused of purposely disfiguring Rosas).
Regardless, I again point out that at no point did I add a source to the Rosas article. It was my hope that Cambalachero and Lecen could work together...but Lecen did not want anyone with a different point of view to edit the article with him.
I have asked Lecen (countless of times) to show a single diff that demonstrates otherwise. Yet, he does not do it. Instead, he constantly associates me with Cambalachero in an attempt to confuse you (the arbitrators) into thinking we both did the same actions.

Actions post-"Argentine history" ruling
Several interesting results can now be analyzed (nearly two months have passed) from the "Argentine history" ruling.

1. Cambalachero has diligently focused on silently editing topics, mainly did you knows and Argentine current events.
2. Lecen and I have been butting heads like goats, to the dismay and disapproval of many editors.
3. I have turned my attention to the Falkland Islands article and have done massive improvements to it.
4. The article in dispute, Juan Manuel de Rosas, is now largely "complete" (only two sections remain). However, what is particularly interesting here is:
   1. The lack of sources in Spanish. Lecen claims to know the language, but also has (at various times) expressed the view that "English sources are preferred over Spanish sources". (strangely enough, he does not seem to have followed the same "rule" when editing Brazilian history topics).
   2. This has led to a situation where, out of the 76 citations used in the article, 63 belong to John Lynch. This is not even counting "repetitions" of sources (most, again, being from John Lynch). My calculations show that, currently, at least 82.89% of the article is based on the point of view of John Lynch.
   3. Lecen claims that John Lynch is the best source available...but in the preface to his book Argentine Caudillo, John Lynch writes "Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo."

Conclusions

• The current topic bans have not solved the problems of "Argentine history". All they have allowed is for a single user to take ownership of an article and practically fill it with the POV of his preferred author.
• As I wrote to AGK on his talk page, much of this can be explained by the traditional rivalry between Brazil and Argentina. Having a Brazilian editor get involved with Argentine topics should always raise red flags (and vice-versa), much in the same way red flags should be raised when a Palestinian editor gets involved with Israeli topics (and vice-versa). Of course, the rivalry is not on the same level of intensity, but it is on the same lines. I think that the ARBCOM did not properly asses this rivalry when making their original decision.
• The accusations of "tendentious editing and battleground conduct" were excessive. I have had the pleasure to interact more closely with many of you (AGK, NuclearWarfare, Salvio), and hope to have shown that I am not a "baddie" and have no evil intentions. In fact, even AGK initially branded me with the title of "Civil POV-pusher" (ignoring the "POV-pusher" part, lol). The point is that I am not a "battleground" editor and most certainly have not willingly engaged in "tendentious editing" (I admit that this could be assumed based on my behavior at the 2012 move request, but I have explained that my actions were a result of ignorance rather than ill-intentioned).

Suggested solution I suggest that the arbitration committee take the following decisions for this case:

1. Place a one-year (or indefinite) interaction ban between Lecen and MarshalN20.
2. Place a one-year (or indefinite) interaction ban between Lecen and Cambalachero.
3. Retrospectively assume good faith for my actions in the February 2012 Paraguayan War move request, blame them on ignorance (if you want), and diminish the claims as excessive and only requiring of a strong warning.
4. Narrow my topic ban solely to the article "Juan Manuel de Rosas".
5. Narrow Cambalachero's topic ban to all subjects directly related to Juan Manuel de Rosas.

The result of these sanctions would allow me to work on articles related to Andean history (my expertise), the Falklands, and Central American history. It would also allow Cambalachero to continue providing valuable contributions to Argentine topics, avoiding those related to Rosas. And, of course, the interaction bans would prevent further problems among the three of us.
I'll add, as promised to Seraphim, that the interaction ban is strongly supported by several editors (see [2]).
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed. I'll answer your points through the same number format:

1. Close friend is not an overstatement. See Lecen's talk page history search results for "The ed17" and "Ed" ([3] and [4]). Why would you lie about your friendship???
2. I haven't accused you of meatpuppetry. Please read the phrase under the full context.
3. Lecen has crossed the "fine line" several times. I have never used a single Fascist source on any of the articles I have written or contributed to in or outside Wikipedia.
4. No, this is not a "re-argument" of the case. I am requesting a narrowing of my topic ban, not its elimination. The current topic ban on "Latin American history" is excessive and unfairly punitive. While I indeed accept making mistakes in the February 2012 Paraguayan War move request, none of them were ill-intentioned but rather the result of my ignorance of more appropriate venues for discussion. I suggest a narrowed topic ban solely for the article "Juan Manuel de Rosas" because that is the true "apple of discord"; and, coupled with an interaction ban with Lecen, will surely put an end to this problem once and for all.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The requests for mutual interaction bans appear reasonable, particularly in the context of the ongoing acrimony between the parties; I will propose the applicable motions below. Kirill ^[talk] 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• When I drafted the PD in this case, I considered including interaction bans; I decided against that because I thought the topic bans may well be sufficient to separate the parties and prevent the acrimonious interactions. Unfortunately, the continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary. T. Canens (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Motion: Cambalachero-Lecen interaction ban

1) Cambalachero and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. With minor modifications; feel free to revert if disagree. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. NW (Talk) 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Added an enforcement provision, per below. AGK [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Courcelles 18:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• Do we need to include an enforcement provision in these motions? AGK [•] 13:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that the standard enforcement provision would apply here, but even if it didn't, we can trust enforcing administrators to apply common sense. NW (Talk) 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, I've added an adapted version of the standardised enforcement provision, so that the enforcing administrator cannot doubt he has the right to act. Revert if you disagree. AGK [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, but not enough that I'm going to revert. The motion is adding a remedy to a pre-existing case; that case already has the block provision in the Enforcement section. But both you and I have enough real work to do; this is a minor point and I will let it drop. NW (Talk) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, of course. I had forgotten we were proposing to adopt these motions on top of our decision in Argentine history, rather than as stand-alone motions. I won't remove the paragraphs I added because lots of people have already voted, but I'll bear this situation in mind next time. Thanks, AGK [•] 21:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: MarshalN20-Lecen interaction ban

2) MarshalN20 and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. With minor modifications; feel free to revert if disagree. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Added an enforcement provision, per above. AGK [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 18:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. NW (Talk) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

---

Initiated by Cambalachero (talk) at 03:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Cambalachero

In the case Argentine history I have been topic banned from all pages related to the history of Latin America. I also edit articles on modern politics, and I want to know how much back in time can I go before politics turn into history. I asked it to NuclearWarfare (here, he told me that the last 15 years would be acceptable, but advised as well to clarify this, to avoid misunderstandings. My idea would be to work with the presidency of Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) and the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-today), and the events that took place in them. More or less, the last decade.

I may also work with articles that are clearly not historical, but may need to mention a small detail about history. For example, when I wrote about the actor Roberto Carnaghi (which I wrote before the ban), I mentioned a historical period and something that was going on by then, without much detail, to describe his character in a telenovela. If I work with articles on heavy metal bands, I may need to point the censorship they received during the military government, or their problems during the 1989 or 2001 economic crisis. In those cases, if the description is kept short and to the point, only the basic info needed for the non-historical article, would it be acceptable?

By the way, contrary to the misplaced comments of another user, I'm not requesting any amendment to the ban, just a clarification on the actual extension of the current ban. Cambalachero (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for dates, the usual turning points in contemporary Argentine history are 1983 (end of military regime and return of democracy), 1989 (hyperinflation, fall of Alfonsín, and begin of Menemism) and 2001 (new economic and political crisis, fall of De la Rúa); sometimes 2001 is mentioned in conjuction with 2003 (begin of Kirchnerism). Those are the natural turning points, easier to work with than if we set a random date from out of the blue. I once organized Argentine history by periods and used the 1983-present period as the last one (see {{ARGhistperiodFooter}} and Category:History of Argentina by period), nobody ever complained about it.

I rarely work with the modern politics of other South American countries, only when there's some event in the current news that is so important that it becomes eligible for the "in the news" section of the main page (such as the death of Hugo Chávez, or the impeachment of Fernando Lugo), and my interest goes away once the news become yesterday's news. If the limit is set simply on the bilateral relations of Argentina at whatever administrations are acceptable to work with, that would be fine for me. Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Raúl Alfonsín began his mandate as president on December 10, 1983. That day the National Reorganization Process ended. When we say "1983" in this discussion, we are saying that date, December 10 of 1983. I hope this precision helps. Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarshalN20

This is a much-discussed topic in the field. However, colleagues and professors alike often consider anything starting from 1980 (or 1985) to be "contemporary history". I would suggest the arbitrators to not only clarify this but also amend the case with a statement that exempts contemporary history from the topic ban. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I am completely uninvolved with this topic area, but I agree that a clarification is needed. The history of most countries and regions is divided into conventinal eras. If there is a consensus among reliable sources on such conventional eras then the cutoff should be set at one of those. If there is not, then based solely on the present state of the History of South America and History of Argentina articles it would seem that the latest reasonable cut-off date would be 1998 (election of Hugo Chávez). Looking specifically at Argentina, 1983 (end of the military dictatorship) would seem logical and workable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Cambalachero

1. Do you have any date(s) in mind (to any degree of specificity)?
2. I can see two possible opions, a cut-off date that is the same across the continent even that might not be logical in a given country or individual dates for each country that would be more complex to remember and administer. Do you have a preference? If so how strong (i.e. you wouldn't accept your non-preferred choice for $reason)?
3. 1983 for Argentina, and no later than 1998 for the entire continent were my initial thoughts (see immediately above). Do you have comments on those dates?
4. Do you see dates specified just as years (implied as 1 January that year) as working, or do you think an actual date needs noting?

To the arbs: If/when you decide on a date, please be clear whether that date is inclusive or exclusive of the range covered by the ban. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur. Awaiting any further statements containing reasoned suggestions as to when that would be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the statements above, a ≥1983 stipulation seems workable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. As far as Argentina goes, everything after 1983 (with 1983 being included) should be fair game. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a little specialised for me, so I will abstain and defer to my colleagues on how to dispose of this request. AGK [•] 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The December date as suggested by Cambalachero seems fine. Just try to skirt away from that as much as you can and I don't anticipate any significant issues. The problems observed by the Committee were quite distant from the Kirchner presidencies, so I wouldn't anticipate any problem working on those articles. NW (Talk) 23:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---