Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:47, 15 June 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. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Topic ban of MarshalN20

Little evidence has been provided to even justify a proposal for a topic ban against me for "content related to the history of Latin America." Please explain what justifies this proposal (please respond, Tim Canens).--MarshalN20 | 00:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose your comment below is reasonable evidence of a refusal to put the stick down, which is what battlefield conduct is all about.  Roger Davies 01:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To use my statement below as evidence to support a topic ban is blatantly incongruous. I have done nothing that makes a topic ban against me reasonable. Lecen's evidence (see ) completely focuses on Cambalachero. Nothing justifies any action to be taken against me other than a WP:TROUT for my comments at War of the Triple Alliance (now "Paraguayan War").--MarshalN20 | 01:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

I disagree with Tim Canens' view that the "locus of dispute" solely concerns the article Juan Manuel de Rosas. For example, Lecen continues to exhibit unconstructive behavior in other articles such as Maximilian I of Mexico, where (after being denied support for changing the article title) he angrily backlashes by writing "Let's leave the article as it is... which isn't good" (see this edit of May 15, 2013, at ). I simply cannot understand how Lecen's long (continuing & constant) history of misbehavior can be overlooked ().--MarshalN20 | 00:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't say "solely", he says "primarily". I've flipped the word order to make this clearer.  Roger Davies 01:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy-edit. I figured that there was something wrong with it, but the speed of my reading must also have affected my understanding of the sentence. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make here is that the "locus of the dispute" is not simply over articles related to Latin American history, which is a view mainly favorable to Lecen's position, but rather that this matter concerns topics such as:

1. Article ownership
2. Article NPOV problems
3. Hispanophobic commentary and editing (mainly anti-Argentine edits from Lecen)
4. Source censorship

These are topics concerning the nature of editing in Misplaced Pages and not simply history disputes. I have provided substantial evidence in this regard that should be used to find a solution to these many issues. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request talkpage discussion

I just noticed that there was a discussion going on at the Arbitration request's talkpage, which is relevant to the current case (see ). Here again Lecen begins to talk trash about me, without even notifying me of the discussion. He accuses me of "harassment" on the basis that I had never edited Uruguayan War (which is a lie, see ). I had also provided input on its first FAC (see ) and had the article on watchlist (which is how I learned about its second FAC).
I genuinely hope that this false "in need of help" demand of Lecen is not what has spurred the current openly one-sided position of some arbitrators. Impartiality is also not based on what you have seen before (which may be worse, as an arbitrator has noted), but on the current facts of this case, where user Lecen has continuously shown an erratic behavior contrary to the standards of Misplaced Pages. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Latin America

Another strange point unaddressed by the current case is the reason why the proposed topic bans are focused on the history of Latin America (approximately 21 countries). If topic banned, I would be prevented from editing articles related to Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru (their histories being my area of expertise). Cambalachero would be prevented from content related to Argentina, of which he continues to be a reliable contributor (see ). Again, nothing justifies this kind of broad ban on Cambalachero or me.
Lecen's main problem is with us collaborating on articles related to the history of Brazil. If the pro-Lecen arbitrators want to reward him with that, such can be accomplished by a topic ban on Brazilian history rather than a ban on Latin American history.--MarshalN20 | 05:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

"Tendentious editing" is another point against me that has little to no foundation. The page on Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing, has the following statement: "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole." The diffs used to justify this claim come from the article now-titled Paraguayan War. How in the world can I be accused of "biased or skewed" views if the true common name of the article is "War of the Triple Alliance"? On April of this year, the subject was again mentioned in a discussion at AN/I, and again two uninvolved users with a notable editing background wrote the following:

• User:Rklear (): "I must admit to reading this thread with a sort of odd bemusement. I've been reading military history for over four decades, and until MarshalN20's first post four days ago, I had never seen this conflict referred to as anything but the War of the Triple Alliance. I can say categorically that I would never know to look for it under another name."
• User:The Bushranger (): "Likewise. (My first reaction at seeing "Paraguayan War" was "which one?")"

Also important to note is that this little incident also demonstrates that the editor who is stalking & behaving tendentiously is User:Lecen. Why? This aforementioned discussion involved users Astynax, Wee Curry Monster, and myself. Lecen was not a part of the discussion. Yet, out of nowhere, he stalks me into the talk page of Rklear and again continues to tendentiously push his view. Rklear writes in response (see ): "My talk page is not the place to argue about this, and I really don't know why you think you're going to persuade me with a selective bibliography. Please take it somewhere else."
Based on these points, I request that the claim of tendentious editing against me be removed unless any further evidence can be presented in that regard.--MarshalN20 | 14:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A pair of things

Which is the need for proposing such radical options, as an indefinite topic ban? There are less dramatic options in the table, such as placing the article under discretionary sanctions, or placing conditions on the sources to use or how to describe this or that controversy in the article (as I proposed in the workshop). I should remind people here of the systemic bias problem: steady contributors in this topics are very few. If you expulse me out of wikipedia, you will not get a better coverage on the articles about Argentine history: you will get a Brazilian editor to rewrite the article on Juan Manuel de Rosas, perhaps one or two others, and that's it. All the others will be completely abandoned: there are no other active Argentine users, and Lecen's interest in Rosas is merely because Rosas intersects Brazilian history at a point. That's why I did not propose to block Lecen as a remedy, even after all the things he has done: without him, Brazilian articles would be equally abandoned. I told several times in the whole discussion that I'm open to negotiate with Lecen and find compromises or middle ground options, it always falled in deaf ears, but I will make this offering again.

You said that "...it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle such good-faith content disputes among editors", but have in mind that if you decide to ban all the users of one side of a dispute and leave the other side as it is, then you're actually settling a content dispute to the later side.

As for the Pacho O'Donnell book of the cherry-picked evidence, let me clarify the context again. I used that book as a reference several years ago, because by then I thought that being a best-seller made him an acceptable reliable source. I improved my understanding of the issue in time (the difference between an essay about history and a book that cites, checks and analyzes the available info about a historical period; the second being the better), and I don't cite O'Donnell as a source nowadays. Still, when we were discussing the significance of a viewpoint, Lecen cited Pacho O'Donnell, but editing the quote to make it seems as if it said the opposite thing of what it was actually saying. Then I cited the author in the discussion, to clarify what did he actually said and on which side he actually was. Besides, he may not be fully reliable, but he's still a best-seller author: if we are discussing the weight of viewpoints, that's something we have to take in consideration. Some policy somewhere said that I do not have to agree with an author to report "X author says Y". The 4° link is to point the newcomers to the discussion that the revisionist opinions are not so out of the ordinary anyway, as a user who is not Argentine and only knows the dispute for what he was reading, arrived by himself into the same idea that revisionists propose. Cambalachero (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No matter how prolific your work on Argentine-related articles has been it has no positive value when solely done by using Fascists books for years. Books scorned by mainstream historiography and regarded as pieces of political propaganda. This is why we are here. You failed to understand that the ArbCom is not dealing with content dispute, but with your behavior when writing several articles that have no reliability. It doesn't help your case when MarshalN20 calls the Arbitrators "pro-Lecen" who are trying to "reward" me and goes as far as to accuse them of Hispanophobia (today!): "I hope that those who in this time prefer to vindicate Hispanophobia will eventually see their error and correct it for the benefit of the encyclopedia". --Lecen (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

One example: Félix Luna, the historian that you did not even bother to discuss when I proposed a new section content at the Rosas' article. Let's be specific: which is your rationale to call him a fascist? All you provided are generalizations: yes, there were fascist authors in Argentina, but I cited very few of them, and I can easily replace them with others if identified as such and discussed specifically. And, on the other side, you pointed several historians and noted that they are not reliable... but which is a moot point if I never cited such authors. Ortega Peña, for example, or Duhalde. You say that they are not reliable, and perhaps they are not. So what? When did I cite Ortega Peña or Duhalde? Who cares about them? Cambalachero (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Good God, but then you play the victim and accuse me of stalking you?...wow. Anyhow, go ahead, keep stalking me if that makes you happy.

Cambalachero has contributed content to a variety of articles in the encyclopedia beyond the topic of Rosas, using a variety of sources (including those you belittle as "fascist"). This contrasts with your WP:SPA actions of simply focusing on over-glorifying the Empire of Brazil and its emperor Pedro II. That is the root cause of all these problems: you want for Misplaced Pages to depict Rosas as the spawn of Satan because he opposed the Empire of Brazil; once you are given that chance, I am willing to bet a permanent block on my account that you will go ahead and vilify him to your liking.

The terms "pro-Lecen" and "reward" also have no negative connotations. The simple nature of this case is that either you are in favor of one side or the other (pro v. anti), while "reward" merely reflects that you are being given what you requested in the workshop.

Lastly, I have not accused any arbitrator of being afflicted by Hispanophobia. My complaint is that, even after showing 8 diffs that demonstrate your irrational hatred towards Hispanics (see ), among other problems, comments such as "We should ascribe his conduct to frustration" pop up on the Proposed Decision page. But, since I am such a fascist, perhaps I should just simply nod in agreement that frustration is a good justification for xenophobia and racism?--MarshalN20 | 23:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Now you called me xenophobic and racist. Uncalled for. --Lecen (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Lecen, go ahead and keep thinking what you want. And yet Roger claims that I am the one with the WP:STICK at hand?

Also, any action that I make should simply be attributed to me. If my statements are indeed digging a hole, then that hole is solely mine. You keep using my statements to include Cambalachero, which is nothing more than a dirty tactic. You did the same thing in the evidence page by writing the section title as "Cambalachero and MarshalN20," when there was nothing there on me.

Nonetheless, it's interesting how you selectively take out from statements that which is most convenient to you. At least you keep the cherrypicking of information consistent (both article content and discussions). Kudos on that.--MarshalN20 | 00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good lord, do you three never stop bickering? AGK 08:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)