Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 12 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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Word limit

I really do not think it is appropriate to let Lecen exceed the word limit. He is not above the rules.--MarshalN20 | 19:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

He asked the drafting arbitrators for an extension. If it's granted, he can keep his evidence as-is; otherwise, he'd have to trim it. — ΛΧΣ 19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope that it is implicit that if there is an extension, it should be for all users, not just for him. If he says dozens of things about me, then I will have to give dozens of answers; if he had an extension but I had to reply to it in 500 words or less he would have an unfair advantage Cambalachero (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You are free to ask for an extension too, but lets wait to see what the arbitrators say about it first. — ΛΧΣ 22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Lecen is using length to give strength to his incoherent argument. For example:

1. How does my deletion of an image () justify his claim that I am pushing fringe views or reverting "all of his attempts at improvement"? Here is Lecen's original edit (), and notice that the "Gauchos resting in the pampas" image is completely random for the biographical article (hence my deletion).
2. How exactly is my "comment" (explicitly called comment) on a FAC (), where I even write that "the article is great", suddenly get turned into an "oppose" vote?

These are just a few examples (Plenty of more incongruences exist in Lecen's "evidence" text).

My point is that, by using an excessive amount of convoluted text, Lecen hides these details and passes them off as facts to his argument.

As I learned in the several technical writing classes I took at the university, most human beings get lost in these "text mazes".

The whole point of the word limit is to prevent these kinds of situations from taking place.

Lecen must follow the guidelines of the process he initiated.

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | 01:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As other editors have stated. All those presenting evidence may request an extension of evidence word limit. If you feel that the word limit is preventing you from adequately presenting you evidence and/or your ability to respond or rebut evidence presented against you then you should ask for an extension. You can do that regardless of what Lecen does. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Keith. I will remember that for next time. Of course, optimally there should not be a next time ever again.--MarshalN20 | 00:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is that allowed?

There are a lot of stuff added by Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that are plain misquotations or simply untrue to the facts. This is a fine example. Cambalachero said: "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." I'm very clear on my statement: "Writing in 1930..." and "Thirty and one years later, in 1961, Rosas’ image had..." Nowhere the year "2013" is mentioned. The only place that the year 2013 is mentioned is in another section called "How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians (1987–2013)?"

He also said: "The 'Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists...' paragraph is written as if talking about modern day, but cites a reference that talks about the 1930s". The book described the history of the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism up to 2011. The piece of text I quoted is talking about the Neo-revisionists, who only appeared in the 1960s, not in the 1930s. Are editors allowed to fabricate whatever they want in here? --Lecen (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the most interesting concepts of Misplaced Pages is WP:BOOMERANG, Lecen.

As much of an excellence contributor that you have shown to be, plenty of users have also taken note of your incongruent behavior.

You act kind and polite when it is convenient for your purposes, but then mistreat and disrespect users who are not of your liking (mainly due to content disagreements).

Again, as I wrote in my original "evidence" section, I do not encourage blocks or bans. I think you need help: either a proper mentor (to replace whatever battleground mentality User:Alarbus made you think was right) or some truly strong warning to "cease and desist" (although the latter may just encourage you to find better ways to hide your misbehavior).

Misplaced Pages is a place to enjoy and contribute, not a place to build cliques and treat everything (and everyone) like they are on a battlefield or courtroom.

Regardless of all, I still respect you, and I hope that (someday) you will understand that I am a friend, not a foe. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just a grammar issue. The question 'How is Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?' has the verb "is", which is in present tense. The 1960s is the past, and if a question in present tense is replied with a past event, it is implied that things did not change since then. As for the other, yes, it was a mistake, but the main point stands: 1930s or 1960s, that's not the present. Yes, the book does get up to 2011, I cited those last chapters at the end, where they say that revisionism is now the official history. Cambalachero (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

One point to note is that the Arbitration does not preside over or take sides or give opinions on content issues. Their domain is editor behavior that violates WP policies. You would do well to stick to diffs showing improper behavior and citing the relevant behavioral guideline or policy that you feel is being violated.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ARBGUIDE which says: Content rulings--Since the ArbCom avoids taking positions in content disputes, instead of arguing that somebody is advancing a nutty conspiracy theory with no credibility, make arguments pertaining to concrete and self-explanatory things, such as disruptive conduct or inappropriate actions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion on the scope and acceptance of this case is currently archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. I provided a summary of the Argentine historiography, even if that's article content rather than user behaviour, simply because I was instructed to do so. Cambalachero (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Cambalachero said on his statement: "I proved Lecen lying". This is a very strong word. Although I could just as easily show that I was not lying at any moment what really bothers me is that he and MarshalN20 have been both using a really inappropriate language on this case. I came here to complain about the systematic use of Fascist authors and the promotion of Fascist political goals by them. However, they are using the case to bring diffs taken out of context with the purpose of discrediting me. I'm not asking anyone to block them, but the Arbitrators should ask Cambalachero and MarshalN20 to change their tone to an appropriate level. --Lecen (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Lecen, I tell you once again, I do not have any "Fascist political goals". Please stop.

I do not approve of Cambalachero's language, but at least he has diffs to prove his point. He is also keeping the accusations in this place.

On the other hand, you keep accusing me of promoting Fascism, and have done it in a couple of places outside of this ArbComm area even after the case had already started. Again, please stop with your unfounded accusations.--MarshalN20 | 00:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed the word as required. The links are part of discussions that took place in the whole discussion being discussed here, so they are justified. Cambalachero (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotations taken out of context

I'd like to ask both Cambalachero and MarshalN20 not to reply. If I wanted their opinion, I would have had asked directly to them. This is for the arbitrators, as all my other messages were.

Misquotations

Cambalachero wrote on his statement: "Note as well that in the English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there". And to "prove" his point he showed a quote taken from John Lynch's "Juan Manuel de Rosas: Argentine Caudillo": "In the English speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten". Here is what Lynch actually said (my emphasis added): "Scholars and specialists are familiar with the world of Rosas because it reveals the growth of great states, the expansion of the frontiers, the role of patron and client, the roots of dictatorship, and the use of state terrorism. Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo. In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britain supported him, traded with him and finally rescued him."

Lynch was talking about the average Argentine and the average British, not about scholars. As usual Cambalachero misquotes sources as he pleases. This is unacceptable. I have been warning the ArbCom of his and MarshalN20's behavior and so far no one has bothered to reply. There is a limit to what an Wikipedian can do and both have crossed the line a long time ago. The biography written by John Lynch is the best available work about Rosas that has been published so far, either in Argentina or abroad. But Cambalachero has 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." He single handedly dismissed Lynch’s work and regarded it (based solely on his personal opinion) as "faulty", full of "contradictions", the opinions given as "mere political analysis" and accused it of "plagiarism" 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)". According to Cambalachero, Lynch, the most respected English-speaking expert in 19th century Argentina is a "mere divulgator", not a "serious historian".

In fact, Cambalachero considered Lynch's book "outdated" and for that reason it should be ignored, according to him. He's talking about a book that was published in 2001 and widely regarded as the best available source about Rosas. Every time I tried to add anything according to what Lynch said Cambalachero removed: "Unlike Smith, Lynch does not mention his source for this bold claim" (Smith is yet another of Cambalachero's Fascist authors); "analysis". When Lynch is useful to Cambalachero then he becomes a reliable source. And even when that occurs Cambalachero has no qualms in misquoting what Lynch said.

On section "Evidence presented by Cambalachero (sources)" Cambalachero used historian Michael Goebel as his only source. Of course he misquoted what Goebel said, even more because Goebel is the same one who said "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff". And more: Goebel is not an Argentine, his book was not published in Argentina nor is written in Spanish. It's a book written in English. Suddenly English-speaking authors have become reliable to Cambalachero? But again he misquoted them.

Cambalachero also said: "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." On a discussion on Commons Cambalachero called Pacho O'Donnell a "divulgator whose mistakes I can realize myself" whose book "does not use footnotes or documents". That's the very same author whom he as been using as source since 2009 when writing articles and when defending his point of view. O'Donnell is an awful author when Cambalachero needs to make a point on Commons but at the same time he is a great one on Misplaced Pages in English. What?!

What I said and what I did not say

Cambalachero went as far as to call me a liar when I pointed out that O'Donnell should not be taken serious. In fact, Cambalachero has mentioned that he called me a liar and has called me yet again a liar in here.("I have spotted him lying at least two times")("I proved Lecen lying") Because I did not take serious that O'Donnell (who is not a historian, but a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright) is a "director of the department of history" of an university and "secretary of culture of Buenos Aires", both politically appointed offices (thanks to his ties with the present-Argentine government who wants to boost its claims to the Falklands Islands), I'm called a liar? Are Diffs showing Cambalachero calling me a liar enough to prove that?

Cambalachero also said: "Despite his proclaimed rejection of revisionism, he's not coherent with it. In fact, he promotes many revisionist views himself". What?! I never used a single Argentine Fascist as source in any of my articles. To "prove" that I am promoting "many revisionist views" myself he showed this diff: When I expanded Juan Manuel de Rosas I did not use O'Donnell even once: But since the Argentine Fascist/Nationalism/Revisionist is a real political movement I had to use O'Donnel on a Legacy section to show the Revisionists' PoV, of course.

Thus I ask: Is Cambalachero allowed to say whatever he wants even if it has no relation at all with reality? If yes, what's the point of having an arbitration? Lastly, I won't even waste my time mentioning MarshalN20. --Lecen (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Things are not so absolute. Lynch may be a continent away from Argentine archives and work basically in isolation if compared with Argentine historians, but he can have a better insigth into the British view, antecedents and reactions to the French and British blockades, and I wouldn't mind citing both him and Argentine authors when talking about the 1840s conflict between Britain and Argentina. As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work. That's why I used him as a source 4 years ago, but not anymore since a very long time. Still, I don't need to support an author to point when you say that said author said something that he did not really said (for example, when you said that revisionists that rejected the "blood tables" are at odds with Lynch, when Lynch actually agrees with them in that the "tables" are not reliable). As for O'Donnell being a historian or not, you never clarified that rationale, you simply said that "he's not a historian". You should have explained your conspiracy theory, then I would have explained to you that he was appointed secretary of culture of Buenos Aires in 1983, 20 years before kirchnerism and during an administration of the radical civic union (that is, not even the peronist party); and that Argentine universities are autonomous and appoint their own authorities, without the government intervention.

And yes, you promote revisionist views yourself. You are surely not aware of that, but you do promote them. Follow the links, and you will see non-revisionist authors pointing those postulations as revisionist views that did not stand the test of historical verification. As I said, revisionism is not simply about being with or against Rosas, it's more complex than that (there are even revisionist authors who are against Rosas), and some of their main postulations are spreaded at many of your featured articles. That's partially a flaw of Goebel, Rock and others: they talk too much about the political context of revisionism, but too little about the content itself of revisionism, what is it all about and which are its differences with the other historical view. Cambalachero (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks

Lecen continues insulting me. The latest (): "You and your friend Cambalachero have been caught pushing the political views of Anti-Semitic Fascists across several articles and now the Arbitrators will decide what to do with both of you." The evidence provided by Lecen here barely mentions me, and (although I have attempted to take the Nazi, Anti-Semitic, Fascist, etc. in a light manner) by this point his accusations are nothing more than personal attacks.
It is also worth noting that I have already tried to talk about this with Lecen (), but he continues to ignore the point.--MarshalN20 | 00:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting that parties' behavior during the arbitration case is generally examined quite closely by the Committee when determining whether to impose sanctions; anyone who engages in inappropriate conduct at this juncture is really just shooting themselves in the foot. Kirill  03:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would echo Kirill's comment. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presentation

It's disappointing to see that the only way some editors can present their evidence is to use headings citing essays that have little or no validity as guides to editor behavior and are obscene, sexist and degrading.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with one of my section titles, you can always use my talk space (User talk:MarshalN20) or directly mention my name here (along the lines: "MarshalN20, could you please remove the 'WP:DICK' essay as I consider it obscene?"). In any case, the point of the essay is not the title, but its message (content) regarding user behavior.

My other section titles provide different headings, so that is not "the only way can present evidence". Given your comment, I will respect your desire to avoid using a term you consider "sexist and degrading". Regards.--MarshalN20 | 18:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Marshal for your comment here and your apology on my user page. I respect and admire your ability to receive feedback and respond in a way that is helpful and productive. If I have any further comments about your evidence I will honor your request and bring them to your user talk page rather than addressing them here in this forum. Thank you for discussing this with me. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for extended evidence

I'd like to remind everyone that the extension of the evidence limits to allow an additional 2000-word submission on reliability of sources was granted on three conditions:

(a) The additional statement may only discuss the historiography of the topic, the sources used (or not used) in articles about it on Misplaced Pages, and whether those sources represent majority, minority, or fringe views of the topic (cf. WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE).

(b) The additional statement must not discuss, reference, or mention any editor or their actions.

(c) The additional statement must be submitted in its own, distinct section on the evidence page.

A number of the statements currently on the page violate condition (b); this is not acceptable. If there is any reference to any specific editor within the additional section, it will be considered to fall under the original 1000-word limit (and will likely be removed as a consequence). Please ensure that, if you're taking advantage of the extension, you do not reference other editors in your additional statement. Kirill  17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)