Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Hahc21 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Timotheus Canens (Talk) & Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
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)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

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.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Lecen[edit]

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)[reply]

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.


To understand who were the Argentine Fascist "Nationalists/Revisionists" and see just a few examples of Cambalachero's conduct when editing articles, see the following topics:

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:

  • Changed "Dictator" to "Governor".[2]
  • Removed "...as dictator" from the sentence "...he governed the country for more than 20 years as dictator".[3]
  • Removed "...as dictator" from the sentence "He governed the province of Buenos Aires and ruled over the Argentine Confederation from 1829 until 1852 as dictator".[4]

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:

  • Cambalachero removed both the "GA" status from the article and the link to Wikiproject Argentina.[5]
  • He also removed any mention of the Platine War from other articles (removed: "Rosas also declared war on Brazil in late 1851, starting the Platine War, which led to the defeat of the Argentine Confederation by coalition of Entre Ríos, Corrientes, Brazil and Uruguay").[6]

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?

Examples:

Noleander, who volunteered as WP:3O, said: “article currently contains virtually no mention that many historians consider him a dictator, so some white-washing has been definitely been going on”. He also said: “User Lecen provided very strong sources showing that mainstream historians do consider him a dictator, so using the encyclopedia's voice seems warranted. The other editors (MarshalN20 and Cambalachero) claim that the "he is not a dictator" viewpoint is equally well represented by historians (and thus that the encyclopedia's voice should not be used per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) but when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)”.[11]

Cambalachero gave a lengthy reply. Noleander said in return: “I asked you to provide your 3 or 4 best sources that asserted that Rosas was not a dictator, and you did not provide a single one.” When met with silence Noleander asked: “Once again, for the fifth time, I ask: Can you provide a few reliable sources that state something like: ‘Contrary to what some historians say, Rosas was not a dictator because blah blah ..’? My ‘obfuscate and stonewall’ comment is accurate, because the prior 4 times I've asked that same question, I've received lengthy replies that did not respond to the question. Most recently, immediately above in Cambalachero's reply (where he lists five sources that do not even mention the word ‘dictator’.”[12]

All that Cambalachero could say was that we were “running in circles here”, to which Noleander replied: “No, we are not running in circles. (1) Despite being asked five times, you still have not provided any sources that rebut the numerous modern historians that claim Rosas was a dictator; (2) The sentence in the article you cite (‘There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento ... while José de San Martín ...’) presents the opinions of two of Rosas contemporaries (politicians from the 19th century). The proposed compromise is suggesting adding material based on the analysis of modern, objective historians.”[13]

Finally, after a long time, Cambalachero brought five scholars to back his claims (but he never said what were the pages and from which books were they taken).[14] Who were them? Manuel Galvez (1882-1964), Arturo Jauretche (1901-1974), Ernesto Palacio (1900-1979), Jaime Galvez (unknown birth and death, books published in the 1950s) and Pacho O'Donnell (1941-). All of them are Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists. And four out of five are dead for over 35 years. The only one who is alive (O’Donnell) is not a historian, but a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright.

What has Cambalachero done when faced with the most respected biography of Rosas which has been published so far?

Examples:

I pointed out to Cambalachero that it is written on Wikipedia: Verifiability: "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." The best available is the biography written by John Lynch. The first edition was published in 1981 with the name "Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas". The second edition came in 2001 under the title "'Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas". It has been used by Encyclopædia Britannica as the main source about Rosas, which it considers the "definitive" biography (see here). Hugh M. Hamill called it an "[a]lready classic biography of Argentina's most significant caudillo."[13] Daniel K. Lewis regarded it "[a]n outstanding work on the dictator and his historical significance".[14] Michael Goebel said that it is "a classic work about Rosas in English".[15] Donald F. Stevens called it "[t]he essential biography of Rosas by a distinguished historian".[16] Ricardo Piglia regarded it an "excelent account" or Rosas' career.[17]

I brought to Cambalachero’s attention the existence of the aforementioned biography, but he never took it seriously. He said that the “historiography of Rosas is a topic in itself, with books about that specific topic, and none of them considered Lynch even worth a single mention.”[15] He single handedly dismissed Lynch’s work and regarded it (based solely on his personal opinion) as “faulty”,[16] full of “contradictions”,[17] the opinions given as “mere political analysis”[18] and accused it of “plagiarism”[19] and that “Lynch merely repeats misconceptions he read somewhere else, instead of investigating them himself (as any serious historian, not a mere divulgator, would do)”.[20]

In fact, Cambalachero considered Lynch’s book “outdated” and for that reason it should be ignored.[21] Cambalachero was talking about a book published in 2001 while he (as shown above) has been using as sources books written by Nationalists/Revisionists who are dead for over 35 years! --Lecen (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How was Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?

Examples:

Writing in 1930, The Hispanic American Historical Review said: “Among the enigmatical personages of the ‘Age of Dictators’ in South America none played a more espetacular role than the Argentine dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas, whose gigantic and ominous figure bestrode the Plata River for more than twenty years. So despotic was his power that Argentine writers have themselves styled this age of their history as ‘The Tyranny of Rosas’.”[22] Thirty and one years later, in 1961, Rosas’ image had not improved at all, according to the same The Hispanic American Historical Review: “Rosas is a negative memory in Argentina. He left behind him the black legend of Argentine history-a legend which Argentines in general wish to forget. There is no monument to him in the entire nation; no park, plaza, or street bears his name.”[23] (p.514)

How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians?

Here is a list of what historians have told about Rosas in the past 25 years (emphasis added):
  1. "Buenos Aires hastened to renominate Rosas as governor. He requested and received renewed dictatorial authority, investing him with the 'plenitude of the public power' (suma del poder público)"; "Throughout the Rosas years... the government made liberal use of terror and assassination. Scores of its opponents perished by throat-cutting at the hands of the mazorca."[18]
  2. "...Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator who dominated Argentine politics from 1829 to 1852.";[19] "More sinister was Rosas' increasing use of terror and violence to impose his will."[20]
  3. "It was no ordinary election, for the new governor was given dictatorial powers...";[21] "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government, to eliminate enemies, to discipline dissidents..."[22]
  4. "...the Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas."[23]
  5. "Juan Manuel de Rosas returns to the governorship of Buenos Aires, establishing a terrorist dictatorship..."[24]
  6. "...but never with the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas. Rosas ruled Buenos Aires from 1829 to 1852..."[25]
  7. "...during the mid-nineteenth-century dictatorship of Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[26]
  8. "The United States did take sides in Argentinian dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas' attempt to conquer Uruguay..."[27]
  9. "...is Juan Manuel de Rosas, the bête noire of lettered Argentines... against the dictator..."[28]
  10. "This group was headed by Rosas, who became dictator of Buenos Aires, and effectively of the whole country. for most of the period between 1829 and 1852. His was a brutal reign in which he asserted..."[29]
  11. "In Buenos Aires, Rosas demanded and received dictatorial powers (la suma de poder público). Any educated man who henceforth thought to dissent risked being daggered by agents of his political police, the Mazorca."[30]
  12. "...drew in Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Buenos Aires."[31]
  13. "...the federale Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[32]
  14. "During Juan Manuel de Rosas' dictatorship, political allies..."[33] and "The dictatorship survived the second blockade as it had the first. Within Buenos Aires province, political terror and propaganda checked all signs of resistance."[34]
  15. "Rosas brutally repressed any opponents. His spies, the police, and the military led a reign of terror. He had housands tortured and killed and many people fled the country."[35]
  16. "...In the city he demanded and received dictatorial powers. Any educated man who henceforth risked voicing a dissident opinion might end up knifed by agents of his political police, the Mazorca."[36]
  17. "The first, written by Rosas himself, shows an angry dictator using force and terror to impose his authority."[37]
  18. "Juan Manuel de Rosas, governor of Buenos Aires, emerged as the undisputed leader in Argentina after about 1829. Rosas was a tyrant..."[38]
  19. "Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Argentina since the 1830s as caudillo of Buenos Aires, its richest province and its major port..."[39]
  20. "Juan Manuel de Rosas's dictatorship saw land grants..."[40]
  21. "Argentina's gaucho dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas, had a natural..."[41]
  22. "[t]rhough his terrorist organization, the Mazorca, Rosas made himself master of the country."[42]
  23. "...costly intervention in Uruguay by Argentine Dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[43]
  24. "...that process from the presidency of Juan Manuel de Rosas, governor and sometime dictator of Buenos Aires province from 1829 to 1852."[44]
  25. "...thanks to the policies of dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas. Rosas used diplomacy, threats, and occasionally military force to monopolize foreign trade..."[45]
  26. "...until the beginning of the dictatorship of Juan Manuel de Rosas in 1829."[46]
  27. "...the era of the nineteenth century Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[47]
  28. "...The federalists ruled even Buenos Aires, in the person of the flamboyant dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas... And when all else failed—or perhaps even before—Rosas applied physical violence to his opponents..."[48]
  29. "...of 19th-century dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas and became..."[49]
  30. "Rosas was elected governor of the province of Buenos Aires in 1829, putting in place an authoritarian regime (and repressing political opponents) ... Rosas used the opportunity to build a powerful dictatorial regime. Backed by the army and his own police force (the mazorca), Rosas managed to hold power until 1852."[50]
  31. "Rosas was re-elected as Governor on 13 April, this time with dictatorial powers ... Rosas would reign supreme in Argentina thereafter until the Battle of Caseros in 1852 creating a secret police force named the Mazorca which punished disloyalty by means of state terrorism. Its most notorious acts were committed during the months of April and May 1842, when, if contemporary accounts are true, the streets of the capital were awash with blood..."[51]
  32. "Under the strong-arm rule of Juan Manuel de Rosas, governor of Buenos Aires and later dictator on and off from 1829 until 1852, Argentina became..."[52]
  33. "...temporarily eclipsed by Rosas' dictatorship..."[53]
  34. "Some of these, such as dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[54]
  35. "...Gorriti's fiction, like that of her contemporaries, is highly romantic and haunted by Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas."[55]
  36. "...against the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas, overthrowing him at the battle of Monte Caseros in 1852, thus thwarting his feared attempt to reestablishing the Viceroyalty of..."[56]
  37. Etc, etc, etc...
References and Bibliography:
  1. ^ Rock 1995, p. 102.
  2. ^ Rock 1995, pp. 104–105, 119.
  3. ^ Rock 1995, pp. 103, 106.
  4. ^ Rock 1995, p. 103.
  5. ^ Rock 1995, p. 120.
  6. ^ Rock 1995, p. 119.
  7. ^ Rock 1995, p. 108.
  8. ^ Johnson 2004, p. 114.
  9. ^ Lynch 2001, p. 118.
  10. ^ Lynch 2001, p. 53.
  11. ^ Lynch 2001, p. 54.
  12. ^ Lynch 2001, p. 56.
  13. ^ Hamill 1992, p. 354.
  14. ^ Lewis 2001, p. 207.
  15. ^ Goebel 2011, p. 18.
  16. ^ Stevens 1998, p. 101.
  17. ^ Piglia 1994, p. 219.
  18. ^ Rock 1987, p. 106.
  19. ^ Shumay 1993, p. 113.
  20. ^ Shumay 1993, p. 120.
  21. ^ Bethell 1993, p. 20.
  22. ^ Bethell 1993, p. 29.
  23. ^ Chevalier 1997, p. 573.
  24. ^ Marley 1998, p. 487.
  25. ^ Rein 1998, p. 73.
  26. ^ King, Whitaker & Bosch 2000, p. 123.
  27. ^ Sondhaus 2001, p. 43.
  28. ^ Rotker 2002, p. 57.
  29. ^ Leuchars 2002, p. 16.
  30. ^ Whigham 2002, p. 53.
  31. ^ Centeno 2002, p. 54.
  32. ^ Posturee 2002, p. 94.
  33. ^ Lewis 2003, p. 47.
  34. ^ Lewis 2003, p. 57.
  35. ^ Link & McCarthy 2004, p. 27.
  36. ^ Kraay & Whigham 2004, p. 188.
  37. ^ Clayton & Conniff 2005, p. 72.
  38. ^ LaRosa & Mejía 2006, p. 82.
  39. ^ Needell 2006, p. 121.
  40. ^ McCloskey & Burford 2006, p. 32.
  41. ^ Lewis 2006, p. 84.
  42. ^ Saeger 2007, p. 27.
  43. ^ Jaques 2007, p. 207.
  44. ^ Tilly 2007, p. 100.
  45. ^ Hodge 2008, p. 43.
  46. ^ Herb & Kaplan 2008, p. 273.
  47. ^ Natella 2008, p. 144.
  48. ^ Chasteen 2008, p. 167.
  49. ^ Bao & Mutić 2008, p. 90.
  50. ^ Edwards 2008, p. 28.
  51. ^ Hooker 2008, p. 15.
  52. ^ Meade 2010, p. 140.
  53. ^ Goebel 2011, p. 24.
  54. ^ Lockard 2011, p. 562.
  55. ^ Ihrie & Oropesa 2011, p. 460.
  56. ^ Prien 2013, p. 313.
  • Bao, Sandra; Mutić, Anja (2008). Buenos Aires: city guide (5 ed.). Lonely Planet. ISBN 978-1741046991.
  • Bethell, Leslie (1993). Argentina since independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43376-2.
  • Centeno, Miguel Angel (2002). Blood and debt : war and the nation-state in Latin America. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02165-9.
  • Chasteen, John Charles (2008). Americanos: Latin America's Struggle for Independence. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517881-4.
  • Chevalier, Tracy (1997). Encyclopedia of the Essay. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. ISBN 1-884964-30-3.
  • Clayton, Lawrence A.; Conniff, Michael L. (2005). A History of Modern Latin America (2 ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson Learning Academic Resource Center. ISBN 0-534-62158-9.
  • Edwards, Todd L. (2008). Argentina: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-85109-986-3.
  • Goebel, Michael (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 9781846312380.
  • Hamill, Hugh M. (1992). Caudillos: Dictators in Spanish America. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8061-2428-8.
  • Herb, Guntram H.; Kaplan, David H. (2008). Nations and Nationalism: A Global Historical Overview. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-85109-907-8.
  • Ihrie, Maureen; Oropesa, Salvador (2011). World Literature in Spanish: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-33770-3.
  • Johnson, Lyman L. (2004). Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-3200-5.
  • Hooker, Terry D. (2008). The Paraguayan War. Nottingham: Foundry Books. ISBN 978-1-901543-15-5.
  • King, John; Whitaker, Sheila; Bosch, Rosa (2000). An Argentine Passion: María Luisa Bemberg and Her Films. ISBN 1-85984-308-5.
  • Kraay, Hendrik; Whigham, Thomas (2004). I die with my country: perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864–1870. Dexter, Michigan: Thomson-Shore. ISBN 978-0-8032-2762-0.
  • LaRosa, Michael J.; Mejia, German R. (2007). An Atlas and Survey of Latin American History. New York: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-0-7656-1597-8.
  • Lewis, Daniel K. (2003). The History of Argentina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-6254-5.
  • Lewis, Paul H. (2006). Authoritarian Regimes in Latin America: Dictators, Despots, And Tyrants. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 9780742537392.
  • Leuchars, Chris (2002). To the bitter end: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32365-8.
  • Link, Theodore; McCarthy, Rose (2004). Argentina: A Primary Source Cultural Guide. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8239-3997-9.
  • Lockard, Craig A. (2011). Societies, Networks, and Transitions. Vol. 3. Boston, Massachusetts: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-1-4390-8534-9.
  • Lynch, John (2001). Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas (2 ed.). Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books. ISBN 0-8420-2897-8.
  • Marley, David (1998). Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-837-5.
  • McCloskey, Erin; Burford, Tim (2006). Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide. Guilford, Connecticut: The Globe Pequot Press. ISBN 1-84162-138-2.
  • Meade, Teresa A. (2010). A History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to the Present. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-2050-0.
  • Natella, Arthur A. (2008). Latin American Popular Culture. Jefferson, North Carolina: Macfarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-3511-1.
  • Needell, Jeffrey D. (2006). The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831–1871. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5369-2.
  • Piglia, Ricardo (1994). Artificial Respiration. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-1426-4.
  • Posturee, Bad (2002). Understanding Holocausts: How, Why and When They Occur. Lincoln, Nebraska: Writers Club Press. ISBN 0-595-23838-6.
  • Prien, Hans-Jürgen (2013). Christianity in Latin America. ISBN 978-90-04-22262-5.
  • Rein, Mónica Esti (1998). Politics and Education in Argentina: 1946-1962. New York: M. E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-0209-1.
  • Rock, David (1987). Argentina, 1516-1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06178-0.
  • Rock, David (1995). Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History and Its Impact. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20352-6.
  • Rotker, Susana (2002). Captive Women: Oblivion and Memory in Argentina. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-4029-7.
  • Saeger, James Schofield (2007). Francisco Solano López and the Ruination of Paraguay: Honor and Egocentrism. Estover Road, Plymoth: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-3754-5.
  • Shumay, Nicolas (1993). The Invention of Argentina. Los Angeles: University of Californa Press. ISBN 0-520-08284-2.
  • Sondhaus, Lawrence (2001). Naval Warfare, 1815-1914. Lane, London: Routledge. ISBN 9780415214773.
  • Stevens, Donald F. (1997). Based on a True Story: Latin American History at the Movies. Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books. ISBN 0-8420-2781-5.
  • Tilly, Charles (2007). Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521701532.
  • Whigham, Thomas L. (2002). The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct. Vol. 1. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-4786-4.
Reply to SilkTork: We are not talking in here about two legitimate points of views (even if opposing point of views). We are talking in here about a user who has written several articles based on Fascists authors. It would be the same as if we look at American Civil War and find out that the U.S. South fought for freedom and slaves were happy to be slaves. Or that Hitler was a democrat and that no Jews were killed. What Cambalachero is doing it not presenting an alternative point of view. He is pushing an agenda. If the Arbitration request is accepted, I'll be able to show how Cambalachero has been working all along. Proposing a mediation won't work. He won't accept it. He didn't accept it the first time, he won't do it now. He may even say that he will, only to drop out again. The Arbcom has to decide whether or not someone is allowed to ruin Wikipedia's reputation. All I'm asking is to have the request accepted. Once that occurs, if the Arbcom decides that Fascist sources are acceptable to corrupt several articles across Wikipedia, then it's fine. I won't bother anyone any longer. But the Arbcom cannot clean its own hands and ignore such a grave matter. Lecen (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cambalachero[edit]

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)[reply]

As you can see, we have barely began to talk, and Lecen has already played the Nazi card. Even calling me an Holocaust denier (a very grave personal offense, that I hope he will apologize for). The comparison of Rosas and Hitler is a pointless association fallacy, hardly worth a serious reply; but I can easily give one if it is deemed necessary. Cambalachero (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have been though this before. Lecen posts a giant report that goes in all the myriad ways, I try to answer to all the myriad ways mentioned, and the result becomes an unmanageable WP:TLDR. The huge block of text that Lecen has just posted surely goes way beyond the pair of points requested. So, I will halt the discussion here: if a member of the Arbcom requests me to answer to that huge text, I will do it. If they consider it to be too long, dispersed or focused in content rather than user misconduct, I will wait for Lecen to fix it, and then answer. By the way, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me an Holocaust denier. Cambalachero (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Edit count for Cambalachero Edit count for Lecen

Comment from MarshalN20[edit]

This arbitration request should not be accepted. Please allow me to, briefly state why:

  • Background: I participated in the dispute between Cambalachero and Lecen in the Juan Manuel de Rosas article. My attempt was to serve as a mediator to both parties, but (along the way) drifted towards Cambalachero's position. I have continuously attempted to help both editors productively focus their work on the article, but (for the most part) they spend their time having tedious discussions on the article's talk page (more similar to a WP:FORUM than anything else). Most of these discussions are caused by Lecen, who uses ad hominem attacks on Cambalachero and the sources of Cambalachero.
  • Why this case should not be accepted: Lecen has done next to nothing to refute Cambalachero in the article itself. As Cambalachero notes, Lecen has a clear intent to WP:OWN the article and edit it as he likes it and without input from any other editor (especially an editor who holds a distinct point of view from his). For example, after Cambalachero edited parts of the article that Lecen had previously edited (see [24]), Lecen decided to revert all changes both he and Cambalchero had done on the article (see [25]); I disagreed with Lecen, restored the article and improved it (see [26]), and then Lecen again decided to remove everything (see [27]). This "incident" went on for a couple of more edits.
  • Recommendation: Both editors need to work out this problem on their own. Lecen needs to accept that Wikipedia is a group project (which, at times, will involve him working with people of different viewpoints to his). If Cambalachero does have nationalist intentions to whitewash Argentine history, the best way to overcome his position is by using better sources in the article. The WP:BRD process needs to take effect prior to anything else.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am flattered by the attention provided to me by Cristiano. I would reciprocate the action, but hold little interest in him.
All of Cristiano's statement is a well-crafted lie. Here is why:
  1. My first comment on Juan Manuel de Rosas' talk page ([28]) was not taking anyone's side. In fact, I proposed the usage of the term "Caudillo", which neither Lecen nor Cambalachero had proposed. Subsequent comments further expanded on the importance of the term "Caudillo" ([29]). It was later, when it became apparent that Lecen was unwilling to reach consensus, that I began backing Cambalachero.
  2. The Platine War article name, merge discussions revolve around ambiguity and the name's lack of usage. Cambalachero proposed the article to be merged with Battle of Caseros. I never agreed with Cambalachero. Instead, I proposed that the article should be renamed to Guerra Grande. Lecen did not approve of my proposal, and Cambalachero also did not support it beyond a statement explaining how the new name could help resolve the naming issue. Most oppose votes came from mostly random (some not) Brazilian editors.
  3. The War of the Triple Alliance is a different story. Lecen blatantly manipulated the first move request (that got the article's name changed to "Paraguayan War") with false Google Books results. I noted the error on the talk page, then moved it back to "War of the Triple Alliance". When the move was challenged, I made a request. The number of votes favoring the move was superior, but the closing administrator sided with the Brazilian editors. This arbitrary decision even led to a second minor discussion ([30]).
  4. The Third Opinion request ended up in favor of my proposal. Lecen ignores it. Cambalachero was also not too happy with it, because (again) his view differs from mine.
  5. The FAC request for Uruguayan War came up on my watchlist for WP Military History ([31]). My comment on it is not an oppose.
Cristiano's awfully long analysis seeks to invent a "problematic behavior" that does not exist. These different events took place over months, during which all users spent time doing different things. That we meet every now and then in South American history articles (more specifically, multinational history articles) is not surprising, given that we are all interested on South American history.
However, what Cristiano fails to note is that none of these "discussions" take place when each of the editors are involved in their respective regions (Lecen working on solely Brazilian matters, Cambalachero working on Argentina, and me working on western Andean articles or the Falklands).
In fact, it is Lecen that continues to have behavior problems, mainly WP:OWN (see [32]), even while working on Brazilian articles.
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Was the SPI investigation at this moment even necessary? It just serves to show Lecen's intent to block Cambalachero through whatever means necessary. Continues to exhibit WP:GAMING.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Adversarial (X v. Y) names are not used for modern (post-2006) arbcom cases. I pinged the arbs about this request. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could easily be called Argentine History, of course. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I think so renaming this case request is for the best. AGK [•] 11:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine History: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/3/1/2>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Content disagreements are not addressed by this Committee; user misconduct, which may include disruptive editing and misrepresentation of sources, is addressed, when other dispute methods have failed. We could use some input here from previously uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise as to which side of the line this dispute falls on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline at this stage, per the comments below. Particularly at this stage, an arbitration case is not the best way to resolve this dispute. I generally agree with the comments below, and I also still think this issue could benefit from the participation of some additional, knowledgeable editors with subject-matter expertise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reevaluating; can we please keep the request open for another day or two? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accept given recent developments and comments. Aspects of this dispute may still turn out to be too content-based for us to resolve (based not only on the scope of the Committee's "remit" but equally importantly on our lack of subject-matter expertise), but our decisions establish that there does come a point where what start out as content issues become conduct ones. We can't yet decide whether any editor's editing has reached that point here, but the situation is worth our taking a look at. To all concerned, please note that our voting to take the case is not a criticism of or adverse finding as to any editor; our acceptance of a request for arbitration is the beginning, not the end, of a process. The Committee would benefit from informed participation by uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise at the evidence and workshopping stages, on the question of whether the allegations of use of highly disreputable and unreliable sources, quotation of Spanish-language sources incompletely or out of context, and the like appear to have merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Lecen. Could you please supply some examples of contentious claims referenced to Spanish sources available online ... ? Ideally, this would be as an English/Spanish parallel text. Once that's done, it would be good to get Cambalachero's comments. As a further thought, isn't the suggestion here that the sources have been cherry-picked rather than misrepresented?  Roger Davies talk 18:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lecen: best to keep it as brief as you can but it would be good to see some actual examples (say, four or five) to help us all in deciding what to do.  Roger Davies talk 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline. Having looking through the additional material, this is primarily a content dispute though a very convoluted one. Any remedial action - say interaction restrictions or topic bans should they prove necessary - can easily be handled by one of the usual noticeboards.  Roger Davies talk 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. AGK [•] 23:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I'm seeing this as a content dispute. Both editors have worked on the Juan Manuel de Rosas article since 2009, and there is disagreement over the content, and the two parties have been discussing the matter. Sometimes it can be difficult to reach a solution; however, it is not ArbCom's place to make a decision on content. ArbCom looks into conduct disputes, and I'm not seeing where there are conduct issues. There has been a suggestion that Lecen is gaming the system to get what he wants, though when a user is raising a concern and not getting satisfaction, it is entirely appropriate to go to the next level. I note that Cambalachero became inactive at the start of the mediation request, and became active again when the request was closed. That is an unfortunate coincidence, but it happens. As Cambalachero is active again now, perhaps another attempt at Formal mediation could be tried? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed and reaffirm decline. Until the claims of deliberate fringe pushing are 1) affirmed by an examination of the claims by the community, and 2) the community then finds they are unable to make a decision as to what to do, this is not an ArbCom case. Too many cases are coming to ArbCom that could be resolved by the community. I'd like to see the day when ArbCom is no longer needed because the community's dispute resolution procedures are working efficiently. We can assist that process by identifying situations which the community can handle, and rejecting those requests. Too much this year we have been accepting cases which can be dealt with by the community, and that erodes the community's confidence and ability to tackle cases themselves. I am also uncomfortable that we would consider accepting cases on a hierarchical system where concerns raised by FA contributors are taken more seriously than concerns raised by other members of the community. We should accept cases based on a judgement of the disruption to the community because of an inability for the community to resolve the matter, rather than on who is raising the concern.SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless at least one other editor is willing to state that they agree with Lecen's statement, I am inclined to decline the request. The Committee can and should be willing to address serious breaches of content policy, but right now I have no way to fairly evaluate whether any breaches have occurred. NW (Talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept It is a minority position at this point, sure, but when two editors who have both contributed multiple featured articles to the encyclopedia are saying that an editor is strongly pushing a fringe point of view, I think it is incumbent upon us to not just push it off because it seems like it would be too hard to resolve the dispute. NW (Talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline and encourage all parties to try the mediation route once again. Anyone who thinks that mediation might be time-consuming hasn't been involved in an arbitration case. Risker (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept based on more recent developments. Risker (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per SilkTork and Risker. Kirill [talk] 01:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per same lines as SilkTork and Risker. Courcelles 15:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • NW's point is well taken. I can go with accepting this and not having it boomerang back in our laps six months from now, still causing problems. Courcelles 01:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Risker's thoughts match mine exactly. WormTT(talk) 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Mediation needs to be tried (again) before arbitration. It would help if others as well as Lecen and Cambalachero helped to assess what is going on here, to make this less adversarial than it seems to be at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following further statements, am switching to accept for this request. Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A note for Lecen and Cambalachero - you have both stated too much here at what is only the request stage. What you have both written above will need to be restated in terms of evidence on the case pages once opened, so that what you have said can be fully discussed. But (depending on the length of what you eventually end up saying) you will need to either reduce what you have said, or ask for an extension to the evidence limits. To all: please don't add large amounts of text to the request as it currently stands. Either state succinctly whether or not a case should be accepted, or wait for a clerk to open the case. Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per NW. T. Canens (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Casting aspersions[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus building[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Cambalachero: POV-pushing[edit]

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]).

Passed 10 to 0, 04:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20: tendentious editing and battleground conduct[edit]

3) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct ([41] [42][43]).

Passed 10 to 0, 04:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lecen: decorum[edit]

4) Lecen (talk · contribs) has not always conducted himself with an appropriate level of decorum ([44] [45]).

Passed 5 to 3, with 1 abstention 04:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

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.

Cambalachero topic banned[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 15:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

MarshalN20 topic banned[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Amended by motion, 06:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Amended by motion on 00:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 01:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Lecen reminded[edit]

3) Lecen (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines.

Passed 5 to 3, with 1 abstention 04:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

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 by sanctioned editors

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:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

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:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments[edit]

MarshalN20[edit]

Topic ban exemption: August 2013[edit]

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.

Passed 7-2 by motion at 06:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban exemption: July 2014[edit]

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.

Passed 7-0 by motion at 11:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Cambalachero-Lecen interaction ban[edit]

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.

Passed 8-0 by motion at 00:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20-Lecen interaction ban[edit]

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.

Passed 8-0 by motion at 00:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Amendment request: Argentine History February 2015[edit]

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.

Passed 13 to 0 by motion at 15:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Motion: MarshalN20 topic ban suspension (September 2015)[edit]

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.

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 01:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

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.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History

Leave a Reply