Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:03, 10 April 2013

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the default limits. If you wish to exceed the default lengths, you must request the agreement of the arbitrators to do so on the /Evidence talk page before posting. Unapproved overlength evidence, or inappropriate material and/or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed entirely.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Lecen

Current word length: 1523 (limit: 1000); diff count: 49. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

Cambalachero and MarshalN20

Introduction

Cambalachero once submitted the views of five authors as backing for his edits and reversions. I noted that four of them were Nationalists/Revisionists (Fascists) who had been dead for over 40 years. I pointed out that the remaining author was Pacho O'Donnell, a Neo-revisionist who was "not a historian, but a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright". Cambalachero replied, saying that O'Donnell was a reliable source. He has been using O’Donnell's book as source since 2009 when writing articles and when defending his point of view.

However, on December 2012 on Wikimedia Commons, he indicated that Pacho O’Donnell and his book were utterly unreliable, calling the author a "divulgator whose mistakes I can realize myself". About this book he was pretty much straightforward: "Yes, I know what does the book 'claims', I have it. It is the same book that opens with a long quotation, which is not written verbatim, and does not use footnotes or documents."

This entire issue may seem at first glance a mere "content dispute". It is really about users who have been pushing fringe views using unreliable sources for years, in several articles and citing as support books written by fascists authors whose sole purpose was to promote a political agenda. This sort of mis-citation and PoV-pushing is itself antithetical to Misplaced Pages's purposes, and efforts by myself and others to edit to better reflect mainstream historical accounts have been reverted.

Pushing fringe views using unreliable sources

Around September 2009, articles such as Juan Manuel de Rosas, Argentina and History of Argentina still portrayed Rosas as a brutal dictator. Cambalachero appeared and began removing any mention of that. He began reworking several articles to portray Rosas in an unbelievably positive light. This was soon noticed by Justin, who said to Cambalachero (then called MBelgrano): "NPOV requires us to present the mainstream historical opinion. It does not require us to represent ALL views and fringe material does not have to be presented with undue prominence. Your edit proposal promotes fringe revisionist material to the same level as the mainstream opinion." Justin also said: "Misplaced Pages does not exist... to give undue prominence to fringe material or historical revisionism... the fact that a few Argentine historians wish to rewrite history to suit a current political agenda is not mainstream". After some time, and as is all-too common, the opposing editor got tired and Cambalachero had a free hand to continue pushing the fringy PoV.

On February 2010 he attempted to remove the word "dictator" from Platine War and to portray Rosas in a positive light. Astynax complained: "As this seems to be quite a radical departure from the sources I've read, I'm wondering if this author/source is pushing a fringe view?" Since Cambalachero couldn't gather much support for his whitewashing of Rosas he began removing wikilinks that led to Platine War (where Rosas was still called a dictator).

Harassment

Cambalachero seems to have held some kind of grudge against me. He began appearing on move requests to stand on the other side of whatever I was supporting or opposing, even though those were articles where he had never contributed before, nor had ever commented on their talk pages. This may be where he encountered MarshalN20 and began to seemingly tag-team in opposing my statements. The most recent example would be my FAC for Uruguayan War this March. The article has existed since May 2009, but neither has ever edited it or engaged on its talk page. However, they appeared on the FAC. Why had they never previously bothered to review other FACs? Why would they choose to review one from an editor with whom they have had a troubled relationship? At times, I have been provoked to the point of outrage by their intransigent behavior. My words may not have been constructive, but accurately reflect the extreme frustration that their unremitting behavior produced in me.

Persistent push of fringe views

Not only did his editing deviate from the what mainstream historians say, but he tried to gloss over their critics by concocting a pseudo-legitimacy for Nationalism/Revisionism. Cambalachero created Blood tables. In this article, he attributed the basis for the nearly universally held historical view of atrocities committed under the Rosas regime to a libelous fiction written by a forger (relying on Revisionist sources). He then created Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas to explain why the Revisionist view is the correct one. To debunk the general view that Rosas was a brutal dictator, according to mainstream references written in English, he added this: "However, divulgative historians often repeat outdated misconceptions about Rosas. This is usually the case of historians from outside of Argentina, who have no bias towards the Argentine topics but unwittingly repeat cliches that have long been refuted by Argentine historiography."

One of the most curious creations of Cambalachero was Manuel Dorrego national institute (the full name is actually "Manuel Dorrego National Institute of Argentine and Iberoamerican Historical Revisionism"). This entity was created by Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who counts among her many objectives the rewriting of Argentine history to bolster Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands. Its creation was heavily criticized for being a transparently political decision. The article on Misplaced Pages says that the Institute's "scope includes as well other national heroes of Argentina, such as Juan Manuel de Rosas" and that the "decree considers that the historiography of Argentina is biased towards the Unitarian Party, as the first historians (such as Bartolomé Mitre), and seeks to counter such bias." This PoV may explain some of what is behind Cambalachero's actions on Misplaced Pages.

In April 2011, Pol098 commented: "The article as of today has only praise in the introductory section. There are plenty of respectable opinions that he was a brutal dictator. In Argentina federalist Rosas's name is not strongly represented in place names, but his arch-enemy unitarian Sarmiento… is widely commemorated. The article seems to support largely the federalist side of the unitarian-federalist conflict…; unitarians are described, without reference, as running a reign of terror". Cambalachero has been largely successful in tarnishing one Argentine political party in favor of another to give greater legitimacy to policies being promoted in today's Argentine political scene. This slanted advocacy does not belong in Misplaced Pages articles on history.

Unknowingly, Pol098 hit the jackpot when he said: "What I suspect may be the case... is that being for and against Rosas has some symbolic significance related to recent Argentine politics" This editor had previously noted that the article had serious issues: "it gives the impression that Rosas did nothing bad, and his opponents did nothing good - he comes up smelling of rosas… Reading the article as it is today I would come away with the impression that Rosas was altogether better than Nelson Mandela and Winston Churchill… and that his opponents were on a par with Saddam Hussein." As usual, Cambalachero obfuscated and stonewalled, though one his replies was revealing: "ideas of Sarmiento or Mitre about Rosas are long outdated, and Rosas is currently recognized as an Argentine hero as well". The name of both Mitre and the Unitarian Party were mentioned in the decree that created the Revisionist Institute. This began to clarify the rationale behind Cambalachero's behavior over the past years.

Cambalachero has not been only pushing fringe views across several articles, he has been pushing political views. The following passage he added to the Rosas article should help clarify: "Horacio González, head of the National Library of the Argentine Republic, points a paradigm shift in the historiography of Argentina, where revisionism has moved from being the second most important perspective into being the mainstream one." The source given is an Argentine newspaper called Página/12, well-known as prominent backer of Cristina Kirchner. Also, González supported the creation of the Revisionist Institute, whose president is Pacho O’Donnell, the oft-cited author whom Cambalachero presents as reliable. The dots connect themselves in this matter.

Conclusion:

I tried to remove Revisionist sources from and started rewriting the article using reliable sources. They reverted practically all my attempts with flimsy excuses: "There is no consensus for this change", "unexplained removal", "Unlike Smith, Lynch does not mention his source for this bold claim", "analysis", "this part goes off-topic", "Redundant, he has already been described as authoritarian", "This image makes no sense", "His role during the British invasions does not fit with 'birth' or 'estanciero'", etc.

Evidence presented by Lecen (sources)

Current word length: 1618 (limit: 1000); diff count: 0. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

Nationalism/Revisionism

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 nationalist equivalent to Nazism (in Germany), Fascism (in Italy and in Spain) and Integralism (in Brazil and in Portugal). Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement with support for racially-based pseudo-scientific theories such as eugenics. The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographic wing of Argentine Nationalism.

A main goal in Argentine Nationalism 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..." Juan Manuel de Rosas and his regime served as models of what the Argentine Nationalists wanted for Argentina. This is where the Revisionism came in handy: the Revisionists’ main purpose within the Nationalism was to rehabilitate Rosas' image.

The Neo-revisionists appeared in the 1950s and still exist to the present. Some among them are leftists. "All Revisionists argued that they were the victims of a well-orchestrated 'conspiracy of silence' and that Argentina's 'official history' was a deliberate 'falsification' by the intellectuals of the 'liberal oligarchy'." The "set of historical villains that the Neo-revisionists identified behind the falsification of history was identical to that proposed by nacionalistas , with the same degree of grotesque simplification." The Revisionists had a "lack of interest in scholarly standards".

Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists, according to historian Michael Goebel, "academically they ended up in the same marginal position as nacionalistas." The "common feature of Neo-revisionist writers was their institutional marginality in the intellectual field". In fact, "the institutional marginality of nationalist intellectuals was greater in Argentina than elsewhere in Latin America."

Important note: all sources used in my text above are books published in English which can easily be accessed on Google books by everyone here. In case anyone desires an exact or fuller quotation from those books, I will be happy to oblige.

Evidence presented by Cambalachero

Current word length: 772; diff count: 14.

Revisionism

The main claim of Argentine historical revisionism is that Bartolomé Mitre, who first outlined the historiography of Argentina, wrote a biased version of it. Mitre fought himself in the Argentine Civil Wars. His view became mainstream. Revisionism surged one generation afterwards, by historians as Saldías and Quesada with modern historiographic techniques and without personal ties to the conflict. Mitre himself praised Saldías work.

The 1920-1930 is known as the "Golden Era in Argentine historiography". There were both revisionists and liberal historians, and many of them were influenced by the political ideas of the time. However, both of them declined the demonization of Rosas: revisionists praised him, and liberals chose a dispassionated view. Still, those changes did not reflect in academic institutions or society at large, which were conservative in this topic. Note that most English-speaking books about the topic are focused in this specific period, and don't go into present day.

That was in the past. Nowadays, revisionism (which is called that way simply by tradition) is acknowledged by academic institutions, by the state itself, and by the educative system. Rosas is accepted as a national hero, with a national day, his face in currency banknotes, a monument, etc.

Is revisionism reliable? It depends on the author, not the school. There is a difference between divulgative historians and real historians: real historians confirm each thing they say in primary sources, or share their doubts about the source's reliability with the reader; divulgative historians simply state "things happened this way because I say so", without such investigation. They aim to the casual readers, but per WP:SOURCE we should give priority to researcher historians, specially in disputes (I was not aware of this 4 years ago).

The diference between revisionism and nonrevisionism isn't the demonization or hagiography of Rosas, that's just a grave oversimplification. Although Rosas is no longer demonized and many revisionist ideas have been accepted, not all of them were. For example, Caseros as part of a war with Brazil instead of a civil war of Rosas and Urquiza (see details here), or an intention of Rosas to expand the country to the old borders of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (see details here). Those should not be mentioned as confirmed facts, and I never did.

Note that Lecen misquotes sources. "How is Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?" describes the 1960s, not 2013, things changed since then as described. The "Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists..." paragraph is written as if talking about modern day, but cites a reference that talks about the 1930s.

Lecen

Don't get confused: Lecen isn't concerned about revisionism, he's simply moving the goalposts. His goal was from the begining to get me out of the article to demonize its subject at will, revisionism is just a convenient excuse he found during the discussion. He also holds a grudge against me because I rejected his GAN 4 years ago, and he never dropped the stick.

Despite his proclaimed rejection of revisionism, he's not coherent with it. In fact, he promotes many revisionist views himself. I warned him here that in the Platine War discussion he was not defying the revisionist historians but the mainstream ones; he did not listen, and continued expanding the revisionist view into several other articles. He keeps telling us that Odonnell isn't reliable, but then he should explain this and this. The first link took place before the big discussion began. Did he intend to work with an author he tells us so hard to reject? In a recent FAC I critizised the inclusion of Bartolomé Mitre and Argentina among the belligerents... the revisionist view. Note as well that, as of November 2012 (right before the discussion) the article cited no revisionist authors, and nowadays it cites only one (Smith), for the infancy period. The whole discussion about legitimacy of revisionism is pointless: even if it was decided to be unreliable, very little would actually change. As said, it's just a convenient excuse to request article ownership.

Lecen has been changing his request during the discussion. here and here he requested a blank check to write the article alone, without other's input. Here the problem seems to be about the statement "Rosas was a dictator..." in Misplaced Pages's voice, which I had changed. Here it is about the sources. Here is because he considered the discussion deadlocked.

Lecen accuses me and MarshalN20 of tag teaming, but without proof of an actual cooperation, more than just some shared opinions. This is not new: back in 2010, during the Platine War discussion, he said the same thing about IANVS (again, with no proof). It seems that anyone who agrees with me is "my pawn" in Lecen's view. Here he said something similar about Wee Curry Monster (the "Justin" he cited above, username changed), showing his ease to accuse others without reason. He called us "Spanish American nationalists", which WCM found amusing (he's British).

Evidence presented by MarshalN20

Current word length: 1059; diff count: 35.

Personal defense

I behave a little goofy here and there, but nothing serious. I am proud of my barnstars:

1. : Awarded a diplomacy barnstar for peacekeeping work at the Falkland Islands article. Feel free to ask the Argentine and British editors. I served as mediator during the successful development of the current "Sovereignty Dispute" section.
2. : Erebedhel and I started on the wrong foot, but in the end turned out good friends. Before leaving, he left this barnstar to acknowledge my efforts against vandalism.

Lecen's behavior and WP:DICK

Blunt as this may be, interacting with Lecen is practically impossible due to his arrogance.

1. : Mocks serious real life issue concerning Cambalachero.
2. : Dentren & I ask for one better source => Lecen bolds parts of new source to make a point; I show gratitude => Lecen brings in another source just to rub it in; Dentren suggests adding sources in Spanish for another view => Lecen discredits sources in Spanish that contradict his position.
3. : "Wee Curry Monster, you should change your bookstore of choice."
4. : "I'd like to ask any of you if you have hte intention of actually improving this article or all you want is a change in the name?"
5. : "if you want to be taken serious and be respected in here you should learn manners and hear what the people who actually contribute on these articles have to say"
6. : "C'mon, man. Is this a joke? Why are you doing this? I will ignore you from now on, MBelgrano."

Lecen's behavior and Hispanophobia

Lecen takes a constant combative stance against Hispanics. This also possibly explains Lecen's excessive hatred towards Juan Manuel de Rosas.

1. : "we would certainly face Hispanic-American Wikipedians accusing us of 'Brazilian POV'."
2. : "It doesn't help that they are Hispanic Americans and I am Portuguese American. You see, they still believe we are in the 18th century, and that there is an ongoing rivalry between Portugal and its colony Brazil and Spain and its countless American colonies."
3. : "He must have somekind of crush on me. Poor fellow... I like chicks, not Peruvian stalkers."
4. : "Now I see how different Brazil is from its Hispanic-American neighbors. Our culture is waaay different than theirs. I'll watch my mouth next time, I don't want to make the 'Defenders of Holy Che and Saint Evita' angry at me. Who knows what they would try to do with me? Force me watch the movie Evita (film) over and over? Oh God, no! No!"
5. : Lecen's "joke" about Argentina.
6. : "Since you're a Peruvian, your eagerness to change the name of this article is merely because you see the name as it is favored by Brazilians only."
7. : "There is and there was never any desire of Brazil, that is, PORTUGUESE American, to be part or united with Hispanic America."
8. : Lecen insults Argentina: "Because there are people who are far more proud of their military history that comprised solely of killing themselves for decades, of having stood neutral at World War II while supporting Nazi German and of having their asses kicked a few decades later because of a ridiculous small archipelago that no one cares about it. So much to be proud of."

Lecen's behavior and WP:DIVA

Lecen always uses his FA articles as "weapons", and constantly threatens to "retire".

1. : FA brag and "done for good" threat
2. : "Now I see that I'm wasting time. Goodbye."
3. : Another user, bothered by Lecen, writes: "Since you brought up the FA issue repeatedly in this discussion as some sort of proof: it only shows how pathetic the FA process really is."
4. : Again, the FA brag.
5. : Inflated ego. Writes: "It seems that there are more people around who could contribute more than I do (I'm being ironic)."
6. , , : Threatens to leave, comes back, threatens to leave again. Lecen never actually retired.

Lecen's behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND

Lecen got blocked for "battleground mentality" in January 2012 (). Since then, his edits show a continuation of this misbehavior.

1. : Attempts to sabotage GA nomination for Jose de San Martin (which Cambalachero had provided major improvements; not sure if nominated). Lecen blatantly (and cynically) writes: "Well, the article should be at most B, certainly not a GA, unless the standards are very low nowadays. You shouldn't pass the article, it has to be improved a lot until it is worth the GA label."
2. , : Lecen writes at Wikiprojects (Argentina & Mil.Hist.) a "prepare for combat" statement against Cambalachero at the Juan Manuel de Rosas article.
3. : "Trust me, in this battlefield called Misplaced Pages that means a lot."
4. : DrKiernan writes (About Lecen and his "clique"): "The battleground mentality is entrenched it doesn't matter what you say or do at those articles - you will still be misinterpreted, misrepresented, hated and vilified, because even attempts to find a middle ground or help are immediately attacked unless you are a part of the favored clique."
5. : After "losing" move request (January 2012), Lecen returns (July 2012) and vengefully writes: "As I feared, this article has been left to dust and it's still awful. What a pity."
6. : Disturbing. Dondegroovy ends up writing (About Lecen): "You're essentially asking me to censor another user's opinion, and I won't do that."

Lecen's behavior and Group tactics to push POV

This is perhaps the most problematic of all issues. Various editors have noted that Lecen and his friends collaborate on matters beyond article development. They essentially create a fictional consensus to "win" move requests, avoid discussions in article pages, take WP:OWN attitudes, and justify all of their actions. The situation at Juan Manuel de Rosas article is part of this issue.

1. and Around April 2012, Lecen sent a series of messages to users in order to enroll them into his Wikiproject. His true intentions are revealed in two of the several messages he sent: "That's more felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor . We're utterly alone and that's what we want to change." and "No one to aid with articles' review, suggestions, talk pages disputes, absolutely nothing. It gets worse when we find ourselves in unnecessary discussions with other editors."
2. . I took note of this early. Lecen then replied: "Yes, you should do something before we, mighty and evil Brazilians, conquer Misplaced Pages to force our Brazilian POV."
3. Surtsicna (noted this on May 2012): "I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a few years now and I have seen a lot. However, I have never encountered a clique users who simply refuse to discuss."
4. Silver seren (also noted the issue): "It seems like there is some sort of clique thing going on here."

Evidence presented by MarshalN20 (sources)

Current word length: 22; diff count: 0.

I like the structure of the Malcolm X article (controversial figure), and think it would be good for Juan Manuel de Rosas.

Evidence presented by Dentren

Current word length: 355; diff count: 2.

Defence of Rosas is not a fringe view

I beg to differ with Lecen in his statement that Revisionismo is a fringe view. Most countries histories a primarily written by peopel from that country. As suchthe Argentine historiographic tradition of Revisionismo is fully legitimate. Attempt be Lecen to discredit it by linking it to the Far-right is nonsence. It would be like discredit Marxism because it was adopted by the Soviet Union. Regarding the sources used by Lecen the like books of David Rock (historian) they represent legitimate historiaphic current that does not own the truth and as part of historiographic struggle themselves can not use to proof another current wrong. Moreover these sources does not provide hard proofs but points of view of the authors or people cited by the authors. The historiagraphic traditions that these authors represent could themselves be scrutinized.

I fully agree with Cambalachero's statement that "revisionism (which is called that way simply by tradition) is acknowledged by academic institutions, by the state itself, and by the educative system. Rosas is accepted as a national hero, with a national day, his face in currency banknotes, a monument, etc." and would like to add that history will perhaps be a science full of disputes and it would be ridiculous to confer the ultimate word to Anglo-Saxon historians and published who would very much like to regard themselves as objective and free of historiographic tradition.

While I oppose the above-mentioned statements of Lecen I would like to congratulate him for the clarity of his exposition.

Tag-team allegation

I find it hard to use this , as evidence of a the existence of a tag-team. The Paraguayan War and John VI of Portugal articles are of the concern of anyone who whish to participate in them. If Cambalachero and Marshal or anyone sees an editor they think might be intruducing bias into article these users are free to follow the activity of that user, I have done so myself. From Marshals activity in the controversial War of the Pacific article and Pisco Sour articles I regard him as one of the best users to handle controversy and heat active in South American topics. Dentren | 11:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.