Case clerk: Hahc21 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Timotheus Canens (Talk) & Kirill Lokshin (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case Opened on 21:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Case Closed on 04:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 06:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 00:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 00:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 11:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 15:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 01:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; as such, they should never be changed. (In the case of lengthy statements, an excerpt only may be given here, in which case the full copy will be added to the talk page—where any statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be saved.) Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should be added to the /Evidence subpage.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence#Evidence presented by Lecen for my statement with evidences. --Lecen (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Additional comments
| ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Summary of the problem as I see it: Cambalachero has been systematically distorting historical facts in several articles by using as sources Argentine Fascist historians (the so-called in Argentina "Nationalists/Revisionists"), to skew articles toward that viewpoint. The result has been whitewashed takes on the subjects of several articles, e.g., the brutal dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793-1877), for example, has become in the hands of Cambalachero a democratic and liberal leader. In this instance, the problem has been compounded with the creation and expansion by him of sub-articles to reinforce the appearance of legitimacy to a minority and politically motivated viewpoint. Biographical articles about the aforementioned fascist-linked historians have even been created that give the false impression that they are reliable authors with views that are respected and reflected by mainstream historians. Insistence on presenting an unrepresentative view is counterproductive and harms the credibility of such articles. We are not talking about a Wikipedian who has been arguing an alternative point of view backed by legitimate authors, but rather about PoV being zealously promoted and maintained through the use of dubious (sometimes spurious) sources that often promote a political agenda. This is serious: it's the reliability of Wikipedia at stake. I ask the Arbitration Committee to do something to resolve this serious matter. If possible, with topic ban.
What was the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism movement? The Nacionalismo (Nationalism) was a far-right wing political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1930s. it was the Argentine national equivalent to Nazism (in Germany), Fascism (in Italy and in Spain) and Integralism (in Brazil and in Portugal). The Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian,[1] anti-Semitic,[2] racist[3] and misogynistic political movement that also supported eugenics.[4] The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of the Argentine Nationalism.[5] What was the Argentine Nationalism’s main goal? It was to establish a national dictatorship: "In Rosas and his system, the Nationalists discovered the kind of state and society they wished to restore. Rosas had ruled as a military dictator..."[6] Rosas and his regime served as models of what the Argentine Nationalists wanted for Argentina.[7] This is where the Revisionism came in handy: the Revionists’ main purpose within the Nationalism was to rehabilitate Rosas’ image.[8] Did Cambalachero try to hide that mainstream historiography see Rosas as a dictator? Cambalachero tried to hide any mention that Rosas was a dictator as can be seen on his edits on Platine War and on Juan Manuel de Rosas. See:
He tried to convince others from removing anything the he regarded demeaning to Rosas on Platine War's talk page. When no one supported him:
Since he could not change what the article said about Rosas, he tried to remove as many wikilinks he could that led to Platine War. I can give other examples. Did Cambalachero attempt to white-wash Rosas? Juan Manuel de Rosas executed around 2,000 political enemies and he "was responsible for the terror: contemporaries affirmed it, and historians agree", said biographer John Lynch.[9] Cambalachero dismissed the killings and according to him the people executed under Rosas' regime were petty criminals, mutinied soldiers, spies and traitors. According to Cambalachero, the allegations of executions of political enemies were originated from a fake list paid by the French firm and was no more than a fabricated excuse made by European powers "to justify a declaration of war".[7] Cambalachero also created an article called Blood tables to debunke the allegations of political executions.[8] The article has only two sources: one book written by José María Rosa and published in 1974 and the other by Carlos Smith and published in 1936. Both authors are Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists. Rosas owned slaves[10] and he "was severe in his treatment of slaves, and he favored the lash to keep them obedient and preserve social order."[11] And more: "Yet in the final analysis the demagogy of Rosas among the blacks and mulattoes did nothing to alter their position in the society around them."[12] But when you read the article it says: "Although slavery was not abolished during his rule, Rosas sponsored liberal policies allowing them greater liberties". I complained about in the article's talk page (see here). Cambalachero did not care and mostly ignored what I said and did not try to correct the error. According to him: "I don't see a contradiction".[9] Almost three years earlier, he removed one piece of text that had a negative view of Rosas and his relation with slaves. He replaced it with "Detractors of Rosas accused him of having afroamerican slaves".[10] The author given as source is Pacho O'Donnell, yet another Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist (or, more precisely, a "Neorevisionist"). What Cambalachero has done when asked to show which sources say that Rosas was not a dictator?
What has Cambalachero done when faced with the most respected biography of Rosas which has been published so far?
How was Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?
How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians?
|
As arbitration does not focus on article content but on user's conduct, I will skip that topic. Before any actual discussion tooks place (only an attempted change of the lead image), he requested article ownership here and here, and clarified here and here: he wants to write the article alone and without needing to find consensus for edits that he knows will be controversial. Here and here he tries to describe me as an antisemite or nazi sympathizer. He posted provocative threads here and here, that I did not answer to prevent unneeded drama, and jumped to dispute resolution here (immediately closed here). He created a huge report at the talk page, talking about details from all the myriad angles he could conceive (no single edit to link, but it’s still visible at the talk page), named "About the lack of neutrality, the biased view and arbitrary choice of facts added into this article". He said "done" here and requested third opinion here, just 8 minutes afterwards. I divided his thread in subtopics and begin to answer: he made only a pair of replies here and here and jumped to Dispute Resolution again here, closed again here. Finally, some other users began to join the discussion. However, Lecen rejected all proposals and compromises (either from me or from other editors) that were not a flat-out support to his proposal as originally conceived. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. He tried to influence the discussions by trying to convince the users joining it at their talk pages, for example here, here and here. He had an edit war with MarshalN20, who rejected any authorship on a draft I wrote (which I indeed wrote alone): see here, here and here; Lecen justified that it was his own comment and should not be modified by anyone here. He resorted to tag bombing here, here and here, and later here. This led to full article protection here. When it expired, he began to actually work in the article, rewriting sections and adding images. Then I continued his work, editing some things here and there; he reverted everything (both his and my edits) here. He said here that I had "butchered the article beyond recognition" (sic). Another edit war ensued (I did not take part in it), and the article was protected again here. For the following section, I proposed here to work on a talk page draft and and move it to article space when we were all satisfied: Lecen never made any comment. He dropped the whole discussion, almost a month ago, and restarted it when I made a comment at a FAC of another article here.
I have spotted him lying at least two times, here (providing a quotation with a removed part, which completely changes the meaning) and here (concealing information about a historian). Lecen did not read the book in Google books, he owns the physical book, as he had scanned the front page at File:El maldito de la historia oficial.jpg. In both cases I provided scans from the book to prove its acual content. Requires Spanish, but it’s there, visible, you don’t have to "trust" me. There are several other examples within Wikipedia: note one right here, he blames me for the expansion of the article on Manuel Gálvez, when if you check the edits you will notice that my edits are minor and the actual writer of most of the article was User:Keresaspa.
He also pointed here that neither of us was willing to "give up on each other's view". That's not my case, I would have no problem in working with him as adults and rational people (but if he thinks that I would be "butchering" his work, it's his problem, not mine), but the message actually points his own motivation: he said that he will not give up his point of view. In other words, battleground mentality.
As for the main discussion: Lecen claims time and again the existence of a certain academic consensus, that would require us to ignore the authors that do not follow it. I pointed at Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Arbitrary break 2 that, according to policies and guidelines, the existence of such a consensus must have a specific source that says so clearly and directly, it can not be decided by assesment of Wikipedia users. If there is no such academic consensus then WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ensues. Lecen tried to derail the discussion, but I insisted time and again that he pointed sources with the alleged consensus he claims. He never did, and dropped from the discussion, until today, until I pointed some flaws of an article he nominated for FAC.
Note about sources: Juan Manuel de Rosas#Criticism and historical perspective, Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas and Repatriation of Juan Manuel de Rosas's body use only English-speaking sources or Argentine sources wich are not revisionist (except for minimal things such as quotations). All the claims contained in those articles can be checked in such sources. And I told several times in the discussion that I had no problem in working with all sources (for example, here). In fact I have already cited Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, who provides many analysis critizing Rosas. It is Lecen who rejects to work with sources he disagrees with, with a rationale that is not found anywhere. Cambalachero (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Additional comments
|
---|
As the case was accepted, I will reply to the things Lecen has been saying. It will get a bit too long, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. As it has not been selected which of all the points raised by Lecen will be mediated, I will answer all. It may be helpful if the administrators propose to narrow the discussion into specific topics. First things first: I’m aware that, in English casual speaking, "revisionism" is usually associated to the denial of the Holocaust in nazi Germany. Lecen’s constant mentions of nazism may reinforce the idea. But no, that’s a misunderstanding. Historical revisionism is itself a tool of historiographic studies, part of its scientific method, which can be misused or used correctly (in the neonazi case, misused, if even used at all and not taken as an excuse). Each case must be considered separately. And another thing: check the dates. Lecen began this discussion on last December, but keeps pointing to things that happened 4 years ago during a good article review. He loves to say that things have been going on for years, but that is false. I’m amazed that he has hold a grudge for so much time about something that even I had already forgot about... and worse, a grudge for a discussion that actually ended the way he wanted it to end. To keep things shorter, I will avoid the outdated discussions (but I can explain them if so required). And third: the name "History of Argentina" was selected as a better name than one with users, to avoid the confrontation tone, but the discussions have always been specifically about Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles (check the links in "other steps" at the begining). We have never discussed about articles on other time periods of Argentina. Argentine nationalism vs. German nationalism "it was the Argentine national equivalent to Nazism (in Germany)..." Stop. Hold the phone there. Argentine and German nationalisms are in no way comparable. In 1930, Germany was a world power, with centuries of history and a clear and defined idea of nationhood and national identity. Argentina, on the other hand, was only an emerging power, which had only one century of history, a century with ever-changing national limits during a long civil war, and most of the population died during that conflict and the void was replaced by a great immigrantion wave of Europeans. Argentine nationalism was a very weak ideology, it was more whishful thinking than something with tangible effects. Just compare the results: the 1930s German nationalist began the highest genocide and the biggest war in human history. The 1930s Argentine nationalism began the coup d’etat of José Félix Uriburu... that only lasted for a year and half, before having to call to elections and hand government to his political enemy, Agustín Pedro Justo. Misuse of the term "fascist" and similar ones Specifically talking about historians, the main problem of Lecen approach is that it is a huge association fallacy: "X was revisionist, X was also fascist, therefore all revisionists are fascists" (Note as well that he uses "nationalist", "fascist" and "nazi" as if they were synonyms; see Fascist (insult)). For example: the revisionist and fascist Leopoldo Lugones wrote "The Hour of the Sword" ("La hora de la espada"), calling for a military coup against president Hipólito Yrigoyen, setting a comparison between it and the military victory at the battle of Ayacucho. Reprovable. Should we consider Lugones an unreliable author because of having such reprobable political ideas? Perhaps. But even if we agree on that, why should we extend the concept to Emilio Ravignani, who warned that history should not be used for apology of modern dictatorships, or to Gálves, who rejected the coup of Uriburu? Or to make it closer in time: Lecen has mentioned as well the author Pacho O’Donnell, author of a recent best-seller biography of Rosas. May I ask for a source that specifically describes Pacho O’Donnell as fascist or nazi? Or, in the other direction, Adolfo Saldías wrote the "History of the Argentine Confederation" in 1881. Will we call him a fascist too... a fascist from 3 decades before fascism itself existed? To make it clear and to the point: I have no problem in banning nazi authors with a confirmed nazi ideology (such as Hugo Wast, I don’t even have his books anyway). But on a case-by-case basis, and with specific discussion. A rationale "everyone who did not say that Rosas was a monster is a nazi/fascist/nationalist/neonazi" is completely out of place. Academic acceptance As for the idea itself of revisionism, there are two aspects to it: the academic and the cultural. Don’t mix them. The academic aspect was: the historiography of Rosas written so far was not reliable because of ignoring important primary sources, and using others without taking the biases of the time into account. Did they do that with a political agenda? It does not matter, not for the scientific approach, same as we did not reject the first photo of the far side of the Moon because of being taken by communists. If they have a sound point, it is accepted regardless of other contexts. Let’s put an specific example: Lecen mentioned the blood tables, a report of deaths that took place during Rosas’ rule, written by a political enemy of Rosas. A lot of time ago, it was accepted as a legitimate source, and even republished and used as school textbook. Lecen says that, according to Lynch, there were 2,000 deaths and that I’m downplaying that by citing authors who say that the Blood Tables are not reliable. The link to the book is below (it breaks the "hidden" template if placed here). Go to page 117. Let me quote: "It is impossible to quantify the terror under Rosas. Contemporaries attempted to do so, but the results were flawed by bias and error. The so-called tables of blood compiled by the journalist Rivera Indarte listed 5,884 victims of terror and 16,520 killed in military action. These opposition" figures are probably too high and fail to discriminate between delinquents and victims of political persecution, between legal punishments and assasinations". The 2,000 deaths that Lecen cites are in the following page: they do not come from a specific primary source that Lynch trusts, but from a speculation: an educated speculation, but a speculation nonetheless. Lynch even points that "these were not mass murders". As you see, Lecen is openly misquoting sources here. He mentions 2,000 deaths as a confirmed fact supported by Lynch and that those deaths are being denied by revisionists authors at the "blood tables" articles, but it happens that (according to Lynch himself) the blood tables listed 22,404 deaths, a difference of 20,000 deaths, and says exactly the same thing: that the report is biased and unreliable. Smith and Rosa do not say that there were no deaths, they say that they were not the 22,404 claimed by Indarte, and Lynch agrees. How many deaths were then? Nobody knows for sure: Lynch speculates a number, and the others prefer not to speculate. The same thing goes for most other things pointed by revisionists. The whole thing is detailed in Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas and Juan Manuel de Rosas#Criticism and historical perspective. Lecen claims that those articles are biased "to reinforce the appearance of legitimacy" of revisionism, but have a closer look. Except for Pepe Rosa, whose book is used as the source of a quotation, all the authors cited in those articles or sections and all the important claims are made by foreign authors, or by non-revisionist Argentines, such as Félix Luna or Fernando Devoto. If it seems as if revisionism has been accepted and incorporated into the mainstream history, is because that is precisely what has happened. Note that the quotes that Lecen took here talk about the political ideas of the 1930s historians, but they never actually say that their research was faulty or flawed, or that it was rejected. Perhaps because that is beyond the scope of David Rock’s book, which is about the 1930s nationalism and not about the historiography of Argentina. Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas Acceptance of Rosas as a national hero The other approach of revisionism was trying to promote Rosas as a national hero. That is not a topic of historiography, but a topic of culture, it uses history but it is not history in itself. Rosas is currently considered a national hero of Argentina, and have most of the homages usually associated to such heroes, such as monuments, national days and even his face in currency banknotes. Is there fascism involved? No. First, Rosas himself was no fascist, fascism did not even exist back in the 1830s.Yes, there was an attempt by fascists revisionists to promote Rosas as a national hero, but it was a complete failure. They succedded in pointing the flaws of the history of Rosas as it was understood so far, but failed to change the popular perception of Rosas. Lecen detailed it himself at the "How was Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?" section. As of 1961, Rosas was not seen as a national hero: the acceptance of the work done by the 1930s historians was limited to the academics in their ivory towers. The popular acceptance of Rosas came in the 1970s, part of a different and unrelated movement. Both movements saw Rosas as a role model, but for completely different reasons: in the 1930s it was mainly because of his conservatism, religosity and strict observance of the law. In the 1970s it was mainly because of his economic protectionism, his popular support and the victories against the British and French blockades. Modern academic vision How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians? Good question. I have pointed some info at Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas#Modern times. Lecen claims the existence of a certain academic consensus against Rosas. But as I pointed in my initial post, according to policies and guidelines (such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Academic consensus), the existence of such a consensus must have a specific source that says so clearly and directly, it can not be decided by assesment of Wikipedia users. When requested and insisted for such a source, Lecen tried to derail the conversation. And here... once more, he tries to answer to that question cherry-picking quotes from books and proposing his personal assesment, evading to bring a source as those that policies require. The word "dictator" The word "dictator" is not absent from the article: the "second government" section already points "There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento compared Rosas with historical dictators, while José de San Martín considered that the situation in the country was so chaotic that a strong authority was needed to create order". Slaves As for the slaves, I don’t really understand which is the problem. Lecen pointed that Rosas owned slaves when he was a rancher, I accepted the point and added it to the article myself (see below the template). I told at the talk page that I added that mention, and the discussion ended. So what is he reporting? As I said in my answer, those were 2 different stages of Rosas’ life. If he wanted more clarifications, he should have continued the discussion and say why didn’t he find my addition good enough. Here I added the info. Language of sources The policy says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Lecen reads it as if that means that non-English sources have no space in Wikipedia. Which is not the case. The key words are "assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Juan Manuel de Rosas, an Argentine governor of the XIX century, is not a topic of universal interest, but local interest. In topics of universal interest (such as astronomy, biology, medicine, chemistry, etc) it makes complete sense to give priority to English-language sources. Only Argentines are deeply interested in the details of the history of Rosas, so it is not surprising that the bulk of the historiographical work regarding Rosas comes from Argentina. Lynch points so in the prologue of his book: Rosas is all forgotten in the English-speaking world. His bibliography at the end of the book seem to confirm it: most authors mentioned are Argentine ones. Astynax As for the other editors that joined the arbitration, The ed17 and MarshalN20 have mentioned their previous involvement in it. Astynax forgot to do so: he is a supporter of Lecen in this discussion, and even helped him to draft the report that Lecen gave. See User talk:Astynax/Archive 11#Juan Manuel de Rosas (the second thread with that name, the link may go to the first one). He’s not an editor "who also wrote more than a dozen FAs", if you check them, most of them are ’the same’ FAs. They have worked toguether for years. There’s nothing wrong in that, but as it is needed to point that MarshalN20 has supported me in some previous discussions, so has Astynax done for Lecen. Move requests As for the move requests, I have all South American wikiprojects in my watchlist, and check for any automated report about things going on with some article, and say something when I can help. This rationale that "he has never edited the article" seems completely novel, move requests are made precisely to request the attention of editors who are not the regular editors (besides, being a regular editor does not confer any special right over an article). But note that, although I did not work very much with John VI of Portugal and Farroupilha Revolution as Cristiano points, neither did Lecen. He had edited Jon VI only 2 times before the move request (january 2011) and only 18 times the Revolution one (but, in a closer look, most of those 18 entries are just vandalism revert, move logs and trivial corrections, he hardly added any substantive content). Links below. Lecen's edits to John VI of Portugal and Lecen's edits to the Farroupilha Revolt Featured articles do not give priviledges As for Lecen’s featured articles, it was already pointed that having a number of featured articles does not give a special status of an editor over another. I do not have that many featured articles because I edit articles on a broader scope: history, politics, geography, television, etc. As you can see in the links below, I have made almost the double of total edits during our stay in Wikipedia, and almost to eightfold unique articles. That does not mean that I’m better or worse than him, it just mean that we work in Wikipedia with different approaches. It also means that neither of us is a novice or newcomer. And there’s a detail that should be considered: all those featured articles that he wrote are about obscure topics for the English-speaking world, and hardly anyone besides him is interested in working with them. I’m not saying that on a derogatory sense: the same thing goes for almost all South American related articles (including the ones that I have created or expanded). All those articles have been made by Lecen and other users supporting him with copyediting or working with images. I’m saying this to point that, despite of his number of featured articles, Lecen has little experience in working toguether with someone pointing flaws in the content of his articles. His approach has been rather poor: instead of trying to work toguether, or talk about things, he tries to get me out of the way, to work alone as he always done. I have pointed that in my initial post: Lecen began to ask for mediation before any actual discussion or article editing took place, began threads on article content only as an excuse to request mediation and left them at the second or third reply, focusing on the "get Cambalachero out of here" focus, and moving to other venues each time he could not get consensus for his outlandish request. |
This arbitration request should not be accepted. Please allow me to, briefly state why:
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, Lecen writes this snarky brag about the ArbComm case: "You were able to convince them when I and everyone else failed. Thank you." ([33]).
As I wrote in NY Brad's talk space ([34]), if this case will also take a look at Lecen's behavior, then I am certainly looking forward to it.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and when disruptive, those contributors may be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
3) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.
4) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion, involving the wider community if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.
5) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to seek broader input, for example by turning to the reliable sources noticeboard.
6) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aim to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.
7) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources fairly represented in proportion to prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. While reasonable editors may, in good faith, disagree about the weight of particular viewpoints in reliable sources, it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle such good-faith content disputes among editors. However, editors may not assign to a viewpoint a weight that is either so high or so low as to be outside the bounds of reasonableness; such actions violate the neutral point of view policy.
8) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site.
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
1) This dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America.
2) Cambalachero (talk · contribs) has edited in a manner inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy (e.g., [35]), including by citing a source ([36][37][38]) whose reliability they themselves have disavowed ([39] [40]).
3) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct ([41] [42][43]).
4) Lecen (talk · contribs) has not always conducted himself with an appropriate level of decorum ([44] [45]).
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Cambalachero (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.
Amended by motion at 15:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
2) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.
MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to (A) the political, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and (B) any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic, or military events that occurred before December 1983. This restriction applies across all namespaces.
3) Lecen (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
1) Cambalachero (talk · contribs) and Lecen (talk · contribs) 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.
2) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) and Lecen (talk · contribs) 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.
Notwithstanding other restrictions on their editing, Cambalachero is permitted to edit all content on the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis; as well as their talk pages. They may also make any edits reasonably necessary for those articles to go through the good article, peer review, or featured article processes. If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made at the requests for clarification and amendment page. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs.
Remedy 2 (MarshalN20 topic banned) of the Argentine History case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should MarshalN20 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.