Revision as of 22:01, 9 April 2014

• WP:ARCA

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Modified by motion 2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notification
• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
• DangerousPanda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification

I've included the user who filed the request (Fram) as well as the admins who discussed it for notification purposes. I haven't included all users who commented, I'll leave that up to the arbs and clerks if they believe it necessary.

Statement by Callanecc

Fram (talk · contribs) submitted an arbitration enforcement request regarding some recent edits by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs). I've copied the applicable contents of that request below so that they are recorded here with this request, I won't copy Rich's statement across in case he wishes to say something different in this context.

1. 04:49 8 April 2014: whether the original page was created using automation may be hard to prove (although everything points in that direction as well). But this subsequent edit is clearly not manually made. Every instance of " (*" (an opening bracket preceded by a space, plus every character after that on the same line) has been removed, no matter if that was wanted or not. The result is that you get changes like:

• Albategnius (al-Battani) (1333*) to [[Albategnius
• Alhazen (al-Haitam) (2490*) to [[Alhazen
• Alicia (344*) Boole (340*) to [[Alicia
• Julia (1945*) Bowman (1924*) to [[Julia
• ibn Sina (1984*) (1965*) to [[ibn Sina
• Anna (530*) Johnson (516*) to [[Anna
• Lord (2752*) Kelvin (2702*) to [[Lord
• Leonardo of Pisa (2250*) (2223*) to [[Leonardo of Pisa

And about ten further instances of the same pattern. Perhap others will see this as a manual edit nevertheless, but to me it certainly matches "For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.".

1. 06:27 6 April 2014 This one is taken from the end of this document, pages 104-105 (or from a different site with the same information and formatting, his page lists no source); note how, in Rich's article, four companies have a name ending in (a); 79 TOTAL Deutschland GmbH(a), Germany, 191 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining S.A. / NV(a), Belgium, 192 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining USA Inc. (a), United States, and 207 TOTAL UK Limited (a), United Kingdom. These just happen to be the same four companies that have a "*" after their name in the original document, indicating a footnote for "multi-segment entities". It seems unlikely that Rich Farmbroug made the same typo four times, matching exactly these four "starred" companies, the only ones to have that extra bit.

User:Fram, Special:Permalink/603418882

The administrators discussing the enforcement request could not agree if using the find and replace function meets the criteria set down by the Committee and if it does what an appropriate sanction would be. Given the disagreement regarding this and considering the Committee's motion that further violations will likely lead to a site-ban I thought it was best to refer this to the Committee for appropriate action. I'll close the AE request with a message that I've referred the issue to here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It's not asking for it to be rescinded at all, it's asking if the Committee considers it to be a violation and if they do then asking them to take action. That's becasue the highest sanction AE can hand down (a one year block) has already been applied and hasn't worked, therefore it's the Committee's turn to decide whether to block again or enact the site-ban they threatened. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I was just about to close this as a 'close call but not actionable', but I was too slow and was edit conflicted twice, so I will post my draft closure decision here.

Most of the other admins here believe this doesnt fit within the arbitration committees decision, for a variety of reasons. Only Sandstein sees it that way, but I dont think it is healthy for him to be the leading enforcement admin on the third AE regarding Rich in a row. Given the other input to this AE, I dont think this is worth a clarification request. If Rich is trying to see how much he can get away with, it wont be long before there will be more a actionable AE request. These diffs are different from previous two reported to AE, and the general thrust of prior editing problems. The first diff is userspace, which should be ignored unless it is disruptive due to side effect on other users, which hasnt been claimed here. The second diff is a list article created by Rich (articles of this type are often created offline by manipulating other datasets) and the very minor issues in the initial version are within acceptable levels given the size of the page. It would have been easy to miss those '(a)'s even in a close review of the wikitext. If Rich regularly leaves small bits of junk in new content pages, this would be actionable, but not for just one instance. Rich, if you are going to create articles in this manner, I strongly suggest that you first of all push the data elements into Wikidata, and extract the data from there to obtain your draft wikitext table to be incorporated into the new Misplaced Pages article. That will reduce errors like the one Fram found, as it separates data extraction from data reporting, and utilises Wikidatas datatypes to validate the data. John Vandenberg 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Considering the surprisingly intense disagreement among administrators (and other users of unclear involvedness) responding to the AE request, I recommend that the Committee examine whether the restrictions imposed in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough should continue to apply as written (in which case, in my view, Rich Farmbrough's apparent use of search-and-replace functionality violates the restrictions and should lead to an enforcement block), whether the site ban announced in the decision as a likely consequence of violations should be imposed, or whether the sanction should be modified or lifted.

I have not followed the original case and therefore express no opinion as to whether or to which degree the restrictions are (still) needed to prevent damage or disruption to the project.  Sandstein  10:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves

I do implore ArbComm to review this situation, determine if the supposed transgression was indeed a transgression, and if it was, cast your stones upon the transgressor in the manner that you see fit.

Let me start by saying that I do not believe that I have been one of Rich's supporters in the past.

Personally, I find the AE Enforcement filing to have been distasteful, inappropriate, and simply "someone looking for a reason - weak as it was - to get Rich booted". In that light, I would actually desire sanctions imposed that would prevent such divisive and inappropriate behaviour from ever happening again, be it WP:IBAN, blocks, whatever. No editor should be targetted so regularly, and for such small things.

I suppose the predecessor to that, however, will be determining if using Find...Replace is considered to be an "automated tool" to make "automated edits", in contravention of the meaning and spirit of RF's restrictions.

I don't want to sound like a wikilaywer, but you'll also have to define what "editing Misplaced Pages" means. Is it the action of clicking "save" once? Or, is it sitting down, reading, searching, referencing, typing, copying/pasting over an entire editing session. For example, I may make some edits, go to ANI, use CTRL-F and search for a specific report, make some comments, go elsewhere and make article edits ... is all of this considered to be "editing Misplaced Pages", or just the few times I clicked "save" - this is important, because if I have a restriction against using a so-called "automated tool", and you consider Find...Replace to be "automated", then so is using CTRL-F because it prevents me from having to manually scan a page of words using my own eyes. If CTRL-F is "automated", I'll bet you'll need to block Rich a dozen times a day.

You'd then have to define if Copy...Paste is also an automated tool? Always? Sometimes? Never? It depends? For example, if I go to the article on Trinidad and Tobago right now, select a small amount of text, copy it, open the article on Tobago and paste it in ... am I using an "automated tool" because it prevents me from having to type the words manually? If copy and paste between articles is verboten as automated in that case, what about when I go to the top of the page and highlight the entire URL of the page I'm looking at, then paste it into a new browser window ... was that a use of an automated tool while editing Misplaced Pages?

Define the differences? Is there a difference between an "automated tool" and an "editing tool", or an "automated process", or "automated edits".

So, yeah, I was a bit cheesed off last evening when I saw the AE Enforcement request as I considered it petty, wrong, and harassment. So please, clarify for everyone edits, editing, automated proccesses and editing tools. Then, you'll need to cast stones in one of 2 directions ... or both. ES&L 11:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: I'm one of your more vocal opponents? No, I grew up many years ago and don't play that game. You dropped by my talkpage, became offensive, I shut it down, case closed. Grudges are something that children hold. So, to close you down once is not being "a vocal opponent". To be forced to restate the same thing to you every time you re-hash the same stupid "he hates me" thing, again, it doesn't make me a "vocal opponent". You're the one bringing it up again and again, not me - which forces me to say over and over again "no, wrong". ES&L 12:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

The ArbCom remedy in the Rich Farmbrough case is quite clear. It (Remedy 2) says:

Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Misplaced Pages. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so. (emphasis added)

While some of the admins at AE expressed surprise that search-and-replace would fall under this definition, there can actually be no argument that a software routine which makes edits as specified by a human editor is not a manual edit, but the use of automation. Search-and-replace is so familiar to us that we don't think of it that way, but this is nonetheless true.

So, given the clarity of the remedy, and the fact that search-and-replace is undeniably automation, what's being asked for here is, in fact, not really a clarification of the remedy, but the rescinding of it, because it seems "nonsensical" to some. Perhaps they are right, perhaps it is "nonsensical" -- but it is also abundantly clear, and has been already used to block Farmbrough for a year. There is no difference here, despite Farmbrough's attempt to Wikilawyer the remedy into submission by reference to a definition of automation used in a different part of the Committee's decision (Principle 3.1), which does not and cannot overide the clear definition of automation given in the remedy.

Given all this, the Committee should reaffirm its previous remedy and sanction Rich Farmbrough appropriately. BMK (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

EatsShootsandLeaves starts with "Let me start by saying that I do not believe that I have been one of Rich's supporters in the past.", but forgots to add that he is one of my more vocal opponents, having forbidden me to go to his talk page in the future, and concluding "Just when one thinks that someone is improving as a person AND as an editor - WHAM! - they fuck it up badly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)" When one points out that one is an objective commentator, it may be more correct to indicate the position one has about both editors, certainly when he concludes "Then, you'll need to cast stones in one of 2 directions ... or both.", as if the possibility that no stones will be cast doesn't exist. As for the substance of his comments: the difference between his examples and what happened here is that the result is what counts; how you browse or read pages is of no consequence, how you find things is your business, but if someone chooses to replace hundreds of instances of "A" with "B" in one unsupervised go, including some "A"s that shouldn't have been replaced, then yes, that is automation as defined in the rstriction, and similar to the one that led to the previous year-long block. What message are you trying to send with wanting to silence the one person that did most of the legwork in establishing that there was a pattern of problematic editing in the first place, and who corrected hundreds of such edits after the case ended and it became obvious that no one else would? Fram (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC) @EatsShootsandLeaves "close you down once" = told me not to come to your talk page again, with the clear wish that some other admin would block me if I did. "To be forced to restate the same thing to you every time you re-hash the same stupid "he hates me" thing, again, it doesn't make me a "vocal opponent".": let me count the ways: "restate", "same", "every time", "rehash", "same", and "again" in one sentence (and a few more in the next), wow, there must have been countless times I have made such "he hates me" statements. Shouldn't be too hard to find a few examples then. As far as I can remember, I raised the issue once before this. Please refresh my memory on all these other times. Fram (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

Arbcom '12 messed this up. "Automation" is one of those words that we bandy about without thinking about too much -- it seems to have some sort of meaning so we're comfortable using it. It's a vague general nebulous concept, not something that is crisp and well understood. As an intentionally absurd argument, consider: on 4 April RF edited Poundworld, and since that time maybe 200 folks have viewed that page. Did RF make that edit 200 times -- no, it's automation! Or the text substitution of a {{u|NE Ent}} template is (or isn't), or the spell check built into the browser -- at one point Arbcom '12 members were arguing about whether that counted or not.

"may make reasonable inferences regarding the probable use of such tools on the basis of several factors, including the speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits". Okay, so what if RF makes a series of 20 edits that are exactly 18 seconds apart? What if the 20 edits vary from 17 to 19 seconds, but are uniformly distributed instead of Gaussian -- or should "normal" editing be a Poisson distribution???

More ridiculous examples upon request.

The bottom line is that, despite Arbcom '12s good intentions, it is just inherently unreasonable to use "reasonably" in a remedy that references something as ill-defined as "automation." I think Arbcom '14 has to open this back up and provide a remedy that is clearly and unequivocally understood.

Note: I commented in the case pages under prior username Nobody Ent NE Ent 13:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

The devil lies in the detail. The Arbcom definition of automation cited above remains very subjective and leaves a lot to be desired. In truth, our notions of what constitutes automation evolves with the state of technology. My take is that in today's world, where we rely on computers to do routine and mundane things, performing calculations #instead of longhand or mental arithmetic# or copy–paste #instead of handwriting# is so off-the-scale in terms of what might reasonably be defined or considered "automation"# Clicking on the undo button for a series of articles is equally not automation# The beginning of true automation lies somewhere between running a single regex and a 20-regex script over more than a small handful of articles# The edits brought here as examples look like one-off edit of one single and simple regex at worst# #https://en#wikipedia#org/search/?title=Poundworld&diff=prev&oldid=602721301 Poundworld# is not an automated edit# Even if #https://en#wikipedia#org/search/?title=User:Rich_Farmbrough/wanted/mathematicians&diff=prev&oldid=603256880 this# were in mainspace, it's the product of a simple regex that I'd be inclined to dismiss as a piss-take# #https://en#wikipedia#org/search/?title=Subsidiaries_and_affiliates_of_Total_S#_A#&oldid=602967025 This extraction# seems like something that can be manipulated with a spreadsheet or word processor# It seems so limited end of my definition that it would be unreasonable to consider it a breach# In addition, RF's editing seems not to have fallen foul of the "speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits" criteria either# -- Ohc  15:40, 9 April 2014 #UTC#

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I'll repeat what I said at AE:
I hadn't planned on commenting, but I am taken aback by the suggestion that Find and Replace searches aren't automated searches. As a software developer for the past 15+ years, I can say that using a text editor's search and replacement feature is absolutely an automated process and one that requires special attention to each and every edit. While I don't know the specifics of RF's ArbCom history, apparently this user has screwed this up so many times that the community has decided that they cannot be trusted to do this again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse Rschen7754 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I do not see the disputed edits as warranting any sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• The restriction is clear (and the edits in question constitute a violation) and it is also draconian. It would not have had to be that draconian if Rich hadn't continued to test the boundaries of his previous sanction. That said, although the disputed edits are indeed a violation, I'd say this is a case of de minimis non curat ArbCom. What worries me, however, is that Rich appears to be once again trying to test the boundaries of his restriction and to be doing so immediately after his previous block expired. So I'm really on the fence, but I think I'll probably go with a warning that further acts with the appearance of boundary testing will not be tolerated. Salvio 16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Did Rich's edits violate the letter of the very explicit restrictions he is under? I think they did. Is there any benefit to the project in making a big deal out of him editing anything in his own userspace in this manner? Probably not.

• Fram: I think you need to find something else to do with your on-wiki time. These prolonged interpersonal disputes reflect badly on all involved.
• Rich: Stop testing the boundaries of the sanctions. You know this is what you did. You're a long term, highly prolific contributor to this project. We want you to stick around or you would already be banned, but if you insist on playing these little games it may come to that. Is it really so hard to just not make any kind of automated edits? You're better than this, at least I hope you are. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• As has already been agreed, I consider Rich to have breached his restriction. More to the point, I have little remaining patience for his refusal to abide by the direction that he edit like a human. Taking into account Rich's long record of skirting this automation restriction, I would now recommend sanctioning him. AGK 21:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Argentine History

Initiated by Lecen (talk) at 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

Argentine History

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Cambalachero-Lecen interaction ban
2. MarshalN20-Lecen interaction ban

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Information about amendment request

• Allow myself and the others to comment on each other only on this case (and nowhere else)

Statement by Lecen

Almost a year ago I brought to the attention of the committee that Cambalachero and MarshalN20 were systematically spreading misinformation on several articles related to Latin American History, using sources scorned by mainstream historians, who regarded them as pieces of political propaganda published by Latin American fascists.

At the end the committee agreed with me and Cambalachero and MarshalN20 were both topic banned indefinitely. I also showed to the committee that both users had continuously harassed me in an attempt to scare me off. Thus I eventually requested a mutual interaction ban, which was granted. The problem was that months later I made a good faith comment on this case right here which resulted on a one-month block for myself. This is something that I want avoid from occurring again.

I request the committee to make one simple modification to the mutual interaction ban that could allow me and the other two users to comment on each other in here, and only in here. I am not asking to be allowed to talk with them or about them on talk pages or anywhere else. I am not even asking to be allowed to talk directly with them in here, only to comment on them. To be more precise: Cambalachero asks for his topic ban to be lifted. I would like to comment on his request, to make my point whether or not it should be granted. That's all. Certainly the committee could show some faith on this experienced editor.

Hello, Kurtis. I appreciate your words, but if you don't mind I'd like to say a few things to clarify:

1) "... articles on Latin American history are relatively free of "Fascist" POV-pushing (as you call it)" It's not I the one who call those sources "fascists". Historians do. Not only I brought to the Evidence page what kind of sources were being spread all over Latin American History articles, but I also took time to show how historians regarded them. You can see dozens of books there. But I went further than that. I reached the two greatest specialists in that subject (Fascist sources) in the United States and showed to the arbitrators the e-mails I exchanged with them. The two specialists were Michael Goebel (author of "Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History") and David Rock (author of "Authoritarian Argentina. The Nationalist Movement: Its History and its Impact"). So, to make things clear: I never said anything, that would be my POV. The greatest specialists in the field are the ones who said it.

2) "Who cares what the other two editors who are sanctioned say about you at this point?" I don't care what anyone thinks about me. What I want is to be allowed to warn the arbitrators in case the other two users repeat their behavior regarding sources. I don't want to talk about Marshal nor Cambalachero. But I want to be allowed at least to say "Cambalachero is using Fascist sources again and Marshal is yet again supporting him" or "Marshal has shown no regret (and no recognition) on his actions and the ArbCom should think twice before allowing him to edit articles related to Latin American History". That's all. I am not asking too much. I am not even allowed to talk about the ArbCom case without being threatened with block!

I came here, warned the ArbCom that two users were ruining the encyclopedia's credibility, they agreed with me and somehow I'm treated like the one who is guilty! I am a valuable contributor, I wrote 14 Featured Articles. I am not joking around. Do you really believe I enjoy wasting my time with Cambalachero and Marshal? I wish I hadn't, but there is no one else with enough expertise on Latin American History to stop those two. And the ArbCom wants to silent me! It makes no sense! This is like a fireman telling a person who is warning him about a fire in a building to "shut up". Does it make sense to you?

Lastly, Marshal was not topic banned indefinitely from ALL articles related to Latin American History because he "misbehaved" on a couple of move requests. Are you kidding? Do you really believe that? See the ArbCom case! He was sanctioned so hard because he fiercely supported Cambalachero on the use of Fascists sources. See the ArbCom case. See the diffs provided. Every time someone tried to remove the sources Marshal reverted it back. Every time someone complained about it Marshal supported Cambalachero. He did that on 3rd Opinion, on mediation, on request for comment, on talk pages, etc...

I don't want to be here. I don't want any of this. But I find unacceptable that Marshal and Cambalachero not only still do NOT recognize what they did, and thus, see nothing wrong with it, but also that NO ONE among the arbitrators say a word about it. --Lecen (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oddly, I am accused of "bullying", of having a "battleground mentality", of sending friends to harass MarshalN20 and Cambalachero but it's their friends who show up here, it's their friends who gang up to intimidate me and other users (see ES&L and Wee Curry Monster working together along with MarshalN20 and Cambalachero here, here and here) and it was Marshal who was said to have battleground mentality by the arbitrators. I wish I had friends to support me. Obviously that somehow the arbitrators will fail to see that Cambalachero, MarshalN20, Wee Curry Monster and ES&L work as a team and will persist on their side. --Lecen (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MarshalN20

For Heaven's sake, this user needs to STOP claiming that I was topic banned for "systematically spreading misinformation." I have requested this casting of aspersions to be stopped both here at Arbitration Requests () and at the Administrator's Noticeboard (). This needs to stop NOW, once and for all. I have exhausted all the formal venues to ask for these aspersions to stop. I don't know what else to do! Administrators and/or arbitrators, please take care of this situation.
Lastly, I recommend that this haughty request be denied. This interaction ban does not need any exceptions. The voice on whether topic bans should be lifted (or not) is up to either the Misplaced Pages community or the arbitration committee (which the community have entrusted to be the final voice on conflict resolution). The interaction ban was granted to stop "mutual acrimony" (the words of T. Canens). Lecen has clearly no intention of dropping the stick, and continues with the same battleground mentality.
I am busy with many tasks in real life, and the last thing I need at this time is to think that this unpleasant individual is again being given an opportunity to slander me. Anyhow, he already is insulting me (again)! And, nobody does anything aside from the usual reprimand...
Best regards.--MarshalN20 23:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Kurtis, the interaction ban was a mutual request. Please note that Lecen was not the only one who requested it.

At the time, arbitrator Kirill wrote: "The requests for mutual interaction bans appear reasonable, particularly in the context of the ongoing acrimony between the parties; I will propose the applicable motions below." The plural use of the word "request" is clear.

Regards.--MarshalN20 00:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Kurtis, thank you for the correction. Three users (Salvio, ES&L, and Laser brain) have stated that the accusations continuously presented by Lecen and his friends are inaccurate.

Laser brain summarized his assessment of the situation in the following statement: "I agree with the assertion that MarshalN20 was never sanctioned for POV-pushing or fringe editing; in fact, it's telling that ArbCom explicitly stated that Cambalachero was being sanctioned for POV-pushing but not for MarshalN20."

I was sanctioned for "tendentious editing" due to my behavior in Move Requests at talk pages. This is the reason why one of principles was specifically on talk page (please see ).

I am not proud of my behavior in the talk pages, but this has nothing to do with "systematically spreading misinformation" (which is a far, far more terrible accusation that falls on the realm of academic misconduct).

The accusation of academic misconduct is terrible slander.--MarshalN20 00:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: My comment on this matter concerns the slander targeted towards me by a group of editors, all led by this user with whom I have an interaction ban. I have used various venues (except for the dreaded "appeal to Jimbo") trusting that Misplaced Pages administrators and/or arbitrators would be able resolve a matter concerning volunteer conflict. Nonetheless, despite best efforts (including an excessive amount of warnings), the same slander continues to be spread across the project by the same individual.

The sad thing is that this has been going on since the end of the case last year (please see ]). Salvio was one of the first try and stop this continuing issue. On August 1, 2013, Salvio wrote: "Well, since Lecen has agreed to stop interacting with you, I don't see what's left to do wrt him." And yet, here were are again. Therefore, I ask, who is the editor consistently breaking the interaction ban?

Even here, after being warned to stop accusations and insults, the matter continues with WP:TLDR partisan soapboxing.

Ultimately, I am the user who is topic banned from articles. Yet, I am also the one that keeps getting consistently bullied by the same editor (and his friends). There is a record of this that dates back at least as far back as July 2013.

My plea for help is not a plea to end my topic ban. As ES&L notes, the situation here is unacceptable.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 12:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I encourage all those interested in this matter to read with care the July 2013 situation (). Warnings to stop this abusive slander against me have been issued now for over 8 months. This is absolutely horrible.

Also, given this situation, how can anyone critique Sandstein for his decision? All in all, he may have been too kind...--MarshalN20 13:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

Am I the only one who finds a one-month block based on these two posts to be grossly disproportionate? Lecen himself requested the interaction ban to prevent the other two editors from slandering him, and as the person who filed the original arbitration case, it would make sense that he participates in subsequent amendment requests. I'm not saying that Lecen has never made any mistakes, but he is nevertheless a very productive editor who cares about the integrity of the encyclopedia. Are we really resorting to long-term blocks against positive contributors over something so trivial?

Where's the ANI thread about this incident? And why didn't Lecen press for an unblock from the very beginning? He has every right to have his voice heard. Kurtis 00:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: OK, I'll keep that in mind. Sorry for misrepresenting the situation; I just mentioned Lecen as being the person who requested the interaction ban because he was the one who filed the amendment request. I had little doubt that all involved parties preferred it that way.

Another point is that the Arbitration Committee enacted the topic ban against your participation in the specified areas following a finding that you have "engaged in tendentious editing". Tendentious editing is defined as "a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out." Don't take this comment personally; I'm just reiterating that this is what ArbCom agreed upon based on a thorough review of the evidence. It has no relevance to my own views on the matter. Kurtis 00:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@WTT: This, to me, seems more like venting frustration than something I would block over. Not the best judgment call on Lecen's part, but I don't think Sandstein's decision was condusive to a positive outcome, all things considered.

@MarshalN20: I should also note that I did not do any in-depth research into the case; I just read the proposed decision, checked a few references (specifically the ones provided), and took David Fuchs word for it that there was more on the evidence page. I also skimmed through that one using the text search option for your name, but no pertinent results came up. I was too tired at the time to look through each and every link provided, so I'm sorry if my earlier comment indirectly cast you in an unduly negative light. If the whole page move thing was all you were sanctioned for, then the topic ban seems a little excessive in your case as well.

@Lecen: My original comments still stand, and I don't think you deserved an outright block for those postings. But at the same time, please try not to stoke the flames with ArbCom. Trust me on this one, man. You got what you originally came here for — articles on Latin American history are relatively free of "Fascist" POV-pushing (as you call it). Who cares what the other two editors who are sanctioned say about you at this point? It only matters as much as you'll let it. For God's sake, don't put yourself in the firing line. Misplaced Pages's bureaucracy has chewed up more valuable editors than anyone should be shaking a stick at, all because they were too busy sweating the small stuff. Kurtis 02:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lecen: I don't know much about Latin American history, so please forgive me for not realizing that historians classify specific sources as Fascist. That term has come to bear negative connotations due to its association with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany - it refers to an ideology where subjugation to the state takes precedence over all. The only historical Latin American figure I'm aware of who is considered a Fascist dictator by academic consensus is Juan Perón, who is himself a divisive figure known to have had the genuine support of his country. The argument could also easily be made for Rafael Trujillo, and I would agree with classifying him as such. If you're willing to stretch the definition to include any totalitarian regime where an ideology is imposed on its people and a personality cult is established, Fidel Castro may also qualify. Otherwise, every other dictator you could name was merely authoritarian (albeit brutal in most instances), not Fascist.

To no one in particular, I would like to apologize if my comments come across as ill-informed and heavily biased. I have not gone through extensive research into this case, and in fact prior to commenting here, I only knew of Cambalachero from ITN/C where he commented on the death of former Argentine dictator Jorge Videla. I supported a full blurb because he was responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, and I described him as one of the worst dictators in recent history; Cambalachero felt that this equated Videla to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao (who are of course in a league of their own). Because of my brief interaction with him, I was slightly intrigued when I saw the Argentine history case come up before ArbCom, but not enough to follow it closely. I harbour no prejudice against any of the editors involved. Kurtis 04:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves/DangerousPanda

Lecen has been warned again and again to stop mischaracterizing the reasons behind Marshal's topic ban. He has been advised that making such false statements constitutes a personal attack. Yet again, he mischaracterizes those reasons. Is there any GOOD reason why Lecen is not currently indefinitely blocked for a) continual personal attacks, b) massive battleground behaviour, and c) what now appears to be an utter inability to act and behave within the community norms that they agreed to? Any desires to comment on someone else's requests, based on their history of making false and unfounded comments on users across the board, is simply spurious and unacceptable. ES&L 11:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lecen : Accusing me of being "on the same team" with Marshal would show that you really don't know how pissed off Marshal was about a decision that I was involved with about an article. Let's just say that Marshal clearly didn't like me so much at the time LOL. I don't "side" with anyone - and suggestions that I a) hold grudges, b) run in a pack are suggestions that don't hold up under even the most basic of scrutiny. Oh, and retirement or not, we all know you're reading this :-) ES&L 12:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero

I think that this request is completely pointless. The discussion where the interaction ban was enforced has been over since months ago, and there is no ongoing discussion where Lecen can't comment. He says "Cambalachero asks for his topic ban to be lifted", which is not true. I am not asking for that anywhere. If I ask for that someday, then that day he can simply ask some arbitrator for an exception, and it may be granted or not according to the circumstances of the moment and the arbitrator's best judgement. Or perhaps I will never request that: I may leave wikipedia in discontent, be blocked for some other issue, have to leave for real-life issues such as getting married or having sons, or lost the interest in history; and in either case Lecen would not need to say anything about anything.

Now, as for the request itself: all the drama after the topic ban that led to the interaction ban was precisely located here, not in our user talk pages or other project pages. By the way, I requested the interaction ban, not him, see here. So, making an exception only for Arbitration discussions is precisely returning to the very problem that we initially tried to fix with it. Still, there is a point in that he should have the right to take part in discussions about a case that he initiated. There's a possible solution: allow him to take part in such discussion, if it ever takes place, but focusing on some of the conditions drafted at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 8#Conduct at AE. Basically, zero unsupported allegations, provide evidence without histrionics, no misrepresentation of evidence. And I might add, comments stricly focused on whatever it is being requested, and not using the discussion as an excuse to vent old grudges, pass judgements over other editors or praise himself. Those rules should apply for the 3 of us (Lecen, MarshalN20 and me), and enforced when needed. Under this conditions, I may accept Lecen to take part in such discussions. I leave it up to Arbitrators to decide if such rules should apply to this specific case or became a standard for all Arbitration discussions.

By the way, I would feel more confident in thinking that Lecen may follow such rules if he edits his original request here and remove all the parts of it that would go against those proposed rules. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if I commited a mistake replying in this amendment request. I will do as the Arbitrators say. Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

I must admit to being unsurprised that this case continues to fester. I felt the original ruling by Arbcom failed to address the issue of battlefield behaviour based on my interaction with User:Lecen at Talk:Paraguayan War here back in 2012. A very minor comment of mine , pointing out the article name Paraguayan War was a minority term used predominantly in Brazil and that the predominant term in the English language was the War of the Triple Alliance prompted this bizarre response. I commented on his WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality during the arbcom case. I see nothing has changed.

If you are unfamiliar with Latin American history you may not be aware of the Revisionista movement in Argentine history, which seeks to revisit historical events from a Peronist perspective. It is a revisionist approach to history that to a certain extent rewrites historical accounts to fit a modern political agenda. An example would be the perspectives on Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas, who is regarded rather differently by the Revisionistas where he is generally regarded in a positive light. The revisionist view is pretty much mainstream in Argentina but not outside of the country. I am not aware of User:MarshalN20 supporting those views and as he is a Peruvian historian this is not entirely unsurprising.

As I see it, there is an unhealthy attitude within WP:BRAZIL, with a group of editors who act in co-ordination. Paraguayan War vs War of the Triple Alliance being one such example, where the article is maintained at a minority term not used in English due to the co-ordinated lobbying of editors is just one example. Its irritating to someone familiar with the subject and in a way damaging albeit in a minor way. At one time I demonstrated the redirect was hit 3 times more often than the article direct, so its not great from a server load perspective. What is of more concern is that having been unable to comment due to the interaction ban, other within this cabal continued to do so. Examples , , . Lecen has been getting away with battlefield behaviour for years now, it seems that his prodigious output of FA articles has left him immune from criticism, his behaviour is also condoned by those in his group who lament every time he "retires".

The accusations of academic dishonesty have been repeatedly show to be unsustainable. It really is time that this was put to bed and this particular boil lanced. This request for clarification is yet another example of the system being used to continue to cast aspersions rather than a genuine need for any clarification. There needs to be a clear statement that these allegations aren't true and that there will be an exscalating series of blocks if they're repeated. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I regard User:MarshalN20 as a wiki-friend, I make no effort to hide it. If I've felt his actions were inappropriate I've told him so, where I feel he has been unfairly treated I have defended him. An important difference is that where Marshal has been wrong, I would never defend him.

As regards User:Cambalachero, even at our most charitable, neither of us would describe the other in friendly terms. We strongly disagree on a number of matters and have clashed on many occasions. Its simply another example of how Lecen's battlefield mentality sees conspiracy against him everywhere.

To accuse User:EatsShootsAndLeaves of anything is simply bizarre and a further example of a battlefield mentality that sees conspiracies against User:Lecen everywhere. As can be seen here he favours neither Marshal or myself, he has simply commented because he saw inappropriate behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kahastok

The original Arbcom case does not state, suggest or imply that Marshal was topic banned for "systematically spreading misinformation on several articles related to Latin American History". OTOH it does find as a matter of principle that "t is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation" - which is what Lecen is doing here. The fact that he repeats the attack in his request demonstrates why the ban is needed.

Lecen is appealing the scope of the interaction bans, not the topic bans. He does not need to comment on the reasons for the topic bans to make his argument. And these sorts of attacks are precisely the sort of the behaviour the interaction ban is in place to prevent. I would suggest that the spirit of WP:BANEX does not allow editors appealing an interaction ban to throw around accusations unrelated to the appeal about the editors with whom they are banned from interacting. So IMO the original comment should also be treated as an interaction ban violation. Kahastok talk 20:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Generally with interaction bans, there isn't a problem with the interaction ban itself being discussed. I'd see that as the case here too - in situations where a party requests the interaction ban be lifted, then I would expect the other party to be able to comment on whether or not it should be lifted. However, should either Cambalachero or MarshalN20 ask for their topic ban lifted, I would not expect Lecen commenting. That line is clear to me. In the same way, it seems clear to me that Lecen has again breached their topic ban with comments about Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that are not relevant to the interaction ban, the entire first sentence of Lecen's request, for example. Worm(talk) 07:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Kurtis: you may have missed Lecen's own comments at the AE request which firstly went on to further violate the interaction ban and secondly specifically suggested he be blocked for one month (or more) over the matter. Worm(talk) 07:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I entirely reject Lecen's proposal that more rancour would be good for the project. Decline. AGK 21:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• All three of the editors under this interaction ban need to learn to ask first and comment later. Ask ArbCom first if you are allowed to initiate arbitration requests, or comment at arbitration requests initiated by the other two editors. Then wait. And only if you are given permission should you then comment. It can be difficult to restrain yourself, but that is the point of an interaction ban (to separate people unable to restrain themselves when interacting). And the distinction between: (i) commenting on a specific request; and (ii) returning to general complaining about the other editors, is an important one. Being unable to distinguish the specific and general matters and keep them separate is another reason why interaction bans are imposed. At most what is needed here is a motion to formalise the 'ask first and wait' principle, and the 'keep things specific and separate, rather than lumped together and general' principle (if this has not already been made clear in previous clarification threads). Carcharoth (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I am open to the idea that there may be cause to further ammend this decision, but not in the way being asked for in this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Lecen was previously blocked for one month for allegedly violating the interaction ban by commenting on a thread on this page. Lecen opened that very comment by stating that he believed the comment was permissible, but that someone should tell him if it wasn't. In my view it was at least in a gray area, but an enforcement request was made against him anyway, and the one-month block ensued. Given that Lecen had suggested in good faith that he'd withdraw his comment if it were deemed to be disallowed, and that that he had no previous AE blocks, I thought this block was misguided or at least excessive, and had it been appealed to us, I would likely have voted to reverse it. (See my comment here). As for the current request, the interaction bans that were adopted state that they are subject to the "ordinary exceptions", which include "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once); asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban; appealing the ban." I can understand why Lecen thinks that if the other parties to the Argentine history case were to ask for their restrictions to be modified, he is an interested party with regard to such request, as the person who brought attention to allegedly improper editing in a topic-area unfamiliar to most of us to our attention. The question presented here, which I identify rather than answer, is how, if at all, we can gain the benefit of Lecen's substantive knowledge without renewing the feuding and name-calling that led to the interaction ban in the first place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• My opinion is that this request should be declined with the stern warning that future comments by Lecen about either party will lead to sanctions. If and when one of them asks for his sanction to be lifted, then Lecen may ask, without making comments concerning the requester's conduct, to be allowed to take part in the discussion. Salvio 11:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)