Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 20 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)

When I opened this thread, I was not talking to Lecen, but to the arbitrators. I will gladly ignore Lecen's comments, if he first ignore those of mine Cambalachero (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me expand one of the concepts I mentioned earlier. Lecen gave a report about Argentine historians, and how some of them were fascists, but that has little meaning in here. Check the bibliography being used right now in Juan Manuel de Rosas: Leslie Bethell, Fernando Devoto, Michael Goebel, Robert Graham, Lyman Johnson, Marcelo Lascano, Félix Luna, John Lynch, Mónica Rein, Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, Carlos Smith and Horacio Gonzalez. Pepe Rosa does not count, as I merely cited a quotation of a man of the time contained in Rosa's book. There is also a book that compiles the opinions of several historians as well, but if you refine the check, you will notice that I only cited Felix Luna from that book. Lecen has not included any of those historians in his report of fascist authors. Even more: the whole discussion began in december 2012, check the state of the article right before the discussion here: again, no fascist authors to be found. Yes, there is a section that talks about the whole revisionist movement, but as described by other later historians. Specifically, historians who were not working on the history itself, but historians who were working on the historiography (the history of how historians studied a certain topic). All that is said in that article section can be checked at the cited books. Specifically, Pacho O'Donnell, the author that I had once cited and which is pointed in the finding, was already long gone from the article when the discussion began.

That's what I said in the opening of my Evidence section: revisionism is not an actual problem in the article, but just a clever deception to manipulate the other users who did not have a clue on the whole thing before checking the discussion. Were there fascist historians in Argentina? Yes, there were. Is all my work in Misplaced Pages referenced solely by books of those fascist historians? No, not by a long shot. Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

Based on AGK's and Roger's comments on this talk page (see an ), it seems to me that what the arbitrators ultimately want is for us Three Amigos to stop our discussions. It also seems apparent that Lecen often uses my commentary to ignore Cambalachero's more content-based points. The mixture of these problems are what prevent the development of articles such as Juan Manuel de Rosas.
I am willing to compromise not interacting with Lecen for a year, in exchange for the end of this uncomfortable process and for both Cambalachero & Lecen to resolve their dispute on their own. I further promise not to repeat the pushy behavior that I took during the move process of War of the Triple Alliance to Paraguayan War (my behavior history since then, for over a year has demonstrated a heavy improvement). My hope is that the other party stops its insults and arrogant behavior, which denigrates the value of contributions to Misplaced Pages, and ends its usage of a selective bibliography to POV-push material; however, I can only promise things for myself.
If I were to break my promise during that year, I would accept an immediate block on my account.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 13:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As for me, I can suggest that I can follow a topic ban on topics of exclusive Brazilian history, and to put under discretionary sanctions the work at the topics of shared Argentine-Brazilian history (they are not many, and we may make a list). As for the sources used in the articles, I'm open to discuss any specific case that may merit discussion, as I have always been. If you want to arrange a list of forbidden authors, I can adjust my work to those conditions, and work to fix the articles affected (it was one of my proposals at the Workshop).

As I have said, there are no other users working in Argentine history, and if I'm banned, those articles will simply be left abandoned. I'm willing to accept any conditions or to modify my system of work in any way the arbitration seems fit, if that allows me to continue working in the articles about Argentine history. Cambalachero (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to support (and propose, if necessary) such a solution, but before I do that, I'd like to hear more opinions, including Lecen's. That said, even if I were to support these restrictions, I'd propose something along the lines of: should either of you misbehave further, any admin can impose an indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to the history of Latin America across all namespaces, without having to seize ArbCom again. Salvio 11:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvio, your additional points are acceptable. I would really appreciate it if the arbitrators could provide more specific examples of my misbehavior (here or on my talk page), particularly anything outside of the Paraguayan article, so that I see what was considered wrong and what I should not do again. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 13:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvio, I accept the proposal, in fact I find it similar to my own one. Any new problem leading directly to the penalty, without going through the Arbitration again, is what "discretionary sanctions" means (or, at least, what I understood they mean). Cambalachero (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As requested by Salvio giuliano, I'll share my thoughts about MarshalN20 and Cambalachero's proposal for a "compromise". I've responded in sections, to allow easier reading:

1) I complained about their edits and behavior on talk pages: I asked for Third Opinions and I also made a Request for Comment. I went next to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. They never, for a moment, backed down. As one editor wittily remarked: "they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)" . Finally I requested mediation: not once, but twice. On both occasions Cambalachero and MarshalN20 either ignored or declined to take part in it.

Had they desired compromise or taken policies and procedures seriously, they have already had ample opportunities to step back from their intransigent editing behavior.

2) Over the years as I (as well as other users) began to detect that Cambalachero was using books written by Fascist authors scorned by mainstream historiography and fiercely backed by MarshalN20, he insisted on continuing to insert viewpoints promoted by those sources; instead of showing any sign of accepting the points expressed by other editors, much less repentance (as can be seen above and in other situations over four years), they never backed down. Even during this very ArbCom case, they have demonstrated no willingness to recognize their error. On the contrary: they refused to acknowledge Argentine Revisionism as an unreliable position and instead of addressing the behavior in question, decided that an ad hominem attack, bringing diffs to present myself as a troublemaker, would deflect from the problem I have been seeking to resolve.

See this ArbCom case's main page, as well as the evidence page and related talk pages. Or see his replies just above my own here. MarshalN20 said: "...provide more specific examples of my misbehavior... so that I see what was considered wrong and what I should not do again". After all that has been said and done he still doesn't know what he did wrong?

3) Unrepentant, Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have harassed me over the years, showing up unexpected in my FAC nominatons, on articles in which I was contributing and in which they had not previously participated, etc.

Their statements on talk pages, their edits, and their statements here have revealed that they are unreliable when it comes to editing articles in an NPoV manner, and unable to coexist with other editors in an environment of camaraderie that might counteract their tendencies.

4) I have no proof of this, but only assumption: there are strong indications that either Cambalachero or MarshalN20 or perhaps both use other users who share their views to support them. One fine example can be seen on the Evidence page, where users who had no previous role in the dispute suddenly appeared to share their views. Andrés Djordjalian, Dentren and Wee Curry Monster are their friends. In fact, Wee Curry Monster was a month ago banned from all articles related to the Falklands Islands. He was the one who said: "The only real issue of relevance on this forum from my experience is user conduct. In this regard, I see User: Lecen as the main problem."

It is no coincidence that one close friend of Cambalachero and MarshalN20 was topic banned barely a month ago and that they themselves are in peril of suffering the same fate.

5) When I requested an Arbitration I had to focus on one small part of the problem: Juan Manuel de Rosas and the articles related to it giving a false impression that the issue is only about Argentine history. I had trouble with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 on Platine War and Paraguayan War, which is part of Brazilian, Paraguayan, Argentine and Uruguayan history to cite a couple of examples.

Other articles which those two users contributed have become a nightmare such as all related to the Falklands Islands. Another example is the War of the Pacific, that is related to the history of Chile, Peru and Bolivia. All of them have that "stay calm" banner (the one with a flying dove) in it. The very first topic in War of the Pacific shows an user asking in vain MarshalN20 to provide the full quotation of book in Spanish he had used as source.

The problem aren't the articles, it's behavior of the users.

For the reasons given above, I believe that Cambalachero and MarshalN20 may both be far beyond redemption. Had they been amenable to change, surely they would have exhibited some sign of reform over the past four years. This seems yet another attempt "to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)". --Lecen (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither Cambalachero nor me are asking for "redemption", and the usage of the term continues to show an irrational aspiration of grandeur (which, as I have argued from the start, is the true cause for all these problems). I am, however, surprised that in this one message Lecen breaks three of the proposed principles (casting aspersions, decorum, & purpose of Misplaced Pages); the case is still not done, and hopefully the arbitrators take note of this to realize that the current one-sided punishments are merely bolstering his bad behavior.

The compromise presented by Cambalachero and me is meant to stop these problems without hurting our content-based contributions to the encyclopedia (based on the "purpose of Misplaced Pages" proposed finding). The comment made by Lecen above shows who is in fact carrying the WP:STICK and grudge.

Some short points:

1. There is nothing wrong with asking to know in greater detail my misbehavior so that I do not repeat it again.
2. Lecen writes "over the years" when the Juan Manuel de Rosas discussion has been going on for about a year (or less). My interaction with Lecen have lasted for about a year (nothing more than that), starting with the February 2012 discussions at War of the Triple Alliance.
3. I have not canvassed any user to write anything in my favor. The users mentioned wrote positive things about me because they (Wee and Dentren) care and know my editing history reflects an honest, good person. I find it deeply insulting that Lecen continues to accuse me and three respectable users of canvassing.
4. From Platine War, my memory recalls two discussions. The first was a move request. The second was a dispute of hegemony in which Lecen wanted the article to reflect that Brazil achieved "hegemony in South America" because it defeated Argentina in 1852, a time when Brazil had barely any relations with its western neighbors and problematic control over various parts of its territory. He was bothered that I disputed the exceptional claim, and apparently remains angry at the change.
5. The article War of the Pacific has an extremely long history which does not concern neither this case nor Lecen.

Alas, I don't know what else to say or write. I feel everything I write falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes, since I am not speaking). My compromise proposal stands the same as before: I will not interact with Lecen again, and (as proposed by Salvio) will be subjected to an immediate topic ban if I break my promise within a year or however long it is deemed appropriate.

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | 17:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to remember the involved parties that if one cares to negotiate one has to be ready to give up something. Im still not seeing a proposal by Lecen. Dentren | 19:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lecen doesn't want a compromise. He simply wants to see Cambalachero and me topic banned because he has a grudge against us.

What I am offering the arbitrators is a promise not to interact with Lecen for a year (or more), which is far more efficient than topic banning me. As suggested by Salvio, I am further offering to subject myself to an immediate ban if I break my promise.

Since I am apparently the one causing all problems (tendentious editing & battleground), I am further encouraging the arbitrators to allow Lecen & Cambalachero to work out their content-based issues (which the ArbComm should not influence) on their own.

Up to now, it seems only Salvio is willing to listen.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There you have it. Confident of his moral supremacy, without accepting any mistake or offering to negotiate anything, Lecen requests the highest penalty against us. Which, as I pointed in the evidence page, is what he requested from the very begining. Is that a reasonable request, something that I can be blamed for not backing down to?

As I already pointed, the current use of revisionist sources (and even the use before the discussion began) is minimal and next to 0. How should revisionism itself be described, using non-revisionist books as sources, is a content discussion. The arbitration stated that it does not settle content disputes (in the policy pages, and reconfirmed as a principle), so my evidence page is not strongly focused on the dispute itself, but in how did Lecen behaved during it.

This arbitration has said that "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe". I hope that applies on my behalf as well. Lecen claims that I never accepted negotiations, that I canvassed other users here, that WCM is my "friend", that I made ad hominem attacks; none of which is properly proved. In fact he blames me and Marshal for the usual controversies at the Falklands Islands and the War of Pacific articles! (it seems that the real-world sovereignty disputes involved in them have nothing to do with that).

I pointed several times in the discussion that I was open to discuss the content, set rules on what to do or find a way to settle the conflict. Lecen always rejected everything that was not a complete and absolute support, and focused the discussion in me (and in Rosas as a historical figure) rather than in the content of the articles. This thread, where I offered a compromise and Lecen vehemently rejected it, is simply a new case of the kind of treatment I have had to endure during the past months. Cambalachero (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Lecen is obligated to, or even should, negotiate with you. He doesn't and more to the point, he shouldn't. He has won. End of story. The Arbs have decided you two are the problem and he is not. If you think that walls of text on this talk page or (hilariously) attempting to bait/argue with the arbs over minor tangents like the definition of civil pov-pushing does anything but confirm that, then you need to wake up.

The only thing Lecen should do is stop posting. Better yet, stop reading this page and await the inevitable notice from a clerk that the case is closed in his favor. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Canadian IP, your view that Lecen "has won" anything is highly misguided. An true essay of worth can be read at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not about winning.

Given that this case has no apparent relation to you, a simple value model would indicate that either (a) you are irrational or (b) have some involvement in the case. In either situation, you are either blocked or afraid to show your account. Regardless, taking advise from you would be a dumb decision from my part.

Your assumptions of my thoughts aside, what I actually have in mind is that the proposals presented by Cambalachero and me (in addition to the immediate-ban suggestion of Salvio) are better than what is currently proposed in the project page.

The arbitrators are not infallible, and the case is still open (meaning there is still time for changes). If Salvio presents this proposal and it passes, the bickering among the parties would be restrained while the Misplaced Pages project would not suffer the consequences.--MarshalN20 | 15:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The best part about being an irrational, block-evading, scrutiny-dodging sockpuppet ip is getting to point out the elephants in the room. Of course Misplaced Pages isn't about winning. No civil wikipedian would ever suggest otherwise. But bringing a case to arbcom and having both parties named by you topic banned while getting, at worst, a reminder not to be baited? That's a win and a rare one at that. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall calling you a sockpuppet. Am I correct in saying, hello again Br'er Rabbit (or Alarbus or Davenbelle)? How are the blocks treating your multiple personalities?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | 17:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank everyone who has chimed in here; now I need a bit to ponder, before casting my votes. This discussion, however, is now becoming little more than bickering; I'd like to ask all those who have already expressed their opinion to please stop replying to each other, to allow others to voice their thoughts, if they so wish. Thanks. Salvio 19:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

The language of this is unfortunate, as it is not clearly linked to incivility, and makes it sound like simple assertions are never acceptable. Surely there are circumstances where comments on character are expected, and without formal diffs, like perhaps RfA. It is unfortunate that such a statement can be used by someone who is disruptive to avoid scrutiny of their actions, or to keep notices of RFCU's away from the editors who would be most interested in commenting on them, or even used by admins to block out of hand. Intention is hard to gauge as well ("in an attempt to besmirch"--was that their real motivation?), especially without stepping over the line of AGF. NYB's proposed copyedit is an improvement, but correct me if I'm wrong -- aren't there situations where the evidence is not necessary? The preliminary phase of an arbcom request comes to mind; the diffs come later if the case is accepted, yes?203.81.67.122 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit finding the phrase "civil POV-pushers" quite comical. As POV-pushing is an uncivil act, the juxtaposition of it with what is essentially its antonym creates an interesting arrangement. It makes about as much sense as the proposed topic ban against me, justified by edits done in an article over a year ago. If what the arbitrators want is for me to not interact with Lecen (an "interaction ban"), that would be more efficient rather than blocking me from Latin American history topics. I ask, when have I provided unreliable content to any of the articles that I have edited in Misplaced Pages?--MarshalN20 | 14:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you may find the phrase "Civil POV-pusher" comical because you do not understand it. It is defined and explained at Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing. All that stuff about "POV-pushing" and "uncivil act" is nonsense; the phrase simply refers to somebody who pushes a particular POV while pretending not to be editing disruptively. AGK 18:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It remains a comical phrase; a POV-pusher is nothing more than that (regardless of whether courteous or rude). Calling my explanation "nonsense" and using an essay to justify also has its own comedic tone. In any case, why do you focus on a tangent instead of answering my question?

Nonetheless, if I may add, there is one point from Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing worthy of further consideration: The first point made in the "behavior" section ("They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme"). Let us analyze it through a simple thought experiment to catch the WP:SPA.

1. Let's say that I get topic banned from Latin American history articles (which seems to be the result with the current best chances of occurring). While that would severely hurt my content contributions to Misplaced Pages (hurting it more than me), I would still be able to effectively participate in articles related to football, science (plant-related, a personal hobby), economics, culture (drink & music), among other things.
2. Now, let's assume that the other party gets topic banned for a year. Since this is a result with the current worst chances of occurring, let us narrow it down specifically to a topic ban of subjects related to the history of the Empire of Brazil. Based on the other party's edit history, what other subject can it contribute to the encyclopedia? Obviously, my answer to this is none. However, I encourage you to find an answer to this for yourselves, assuming that you have the best resources available to find out on your own the other party's edit history.

Based on this though experiment, who is the single-purpose account?

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To the 203... IP's original post: the principle doesn't relate to accusations on the requests for arbitration page (though a request for arbitration needs to be backed up with some evidence to be accepted), but elsewhere, such as on article talk or usertalk pages or on noticeboards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, there are a few of doubts I have: 1) Topic ban on "content related to the history of Latin America". Does this include, for example, articles about countries? Could they edit Argentina, Brazil and others? Or are they prohibited from editing the articles' history section only? What about their talk pages? 2) What should I do in case editors who have close and obvious links to both users start appearing on articles I'm editing and presenting the same arguments or showing the same behavior as MarshalN20 and Cambalachero? I mean, editors who had never edited the articles, or at least, had never shown any real interest on them before? 3) The Arbitrators apparently believe that there is no need for an interaction ban between us. What am I supposed to do in case I find myself having the same problems I had before with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 (they showing up in my FACs, standing against my views on articles they never edited before, meddling in talk pages discussions they were not invited, etc...)? I believe this is all the points which I need a little bit more of clarification. --Lecen (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)