This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lecen (talk | contribs) at 23:32, 20 March 2013 (→Statement by Lecen: Reply to Roger Davies and The ed17. It starts on "What was the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism movement?"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Argentine History

Initiated by Lecen (talk) at 10:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas (for a general view)
• Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Third opinion (WP:3O)
• Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#RfC: Use of Nationalist/Revisionist sources on Juan Manuel de Rosas (RfC)
• Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Juan Manuel de Rosas (failed mediation)

Statement by Lecen

I have great faith in the concept behind Misplaced Pages: a group of anonymous people, with distinct interests, acting together to create a source of knowledge at disposition of everyone and based upon verifiable sources... and available for free. I truly believe that the vast majority of Wikipedians work honestly and are motivated by good intentions. Unfortunately this is not the case for all.

I have been forced to the conclusion that, over the last three or four years, Cambalachero has taken advantage of the community's good will, lack of deep knowledge related to subjects he monitors, and seemingly in some cases, naivety. His contributions are chiefly limited to articles that touch on Argentine history. He has been systematically distorting historical facts in several articles by using as sources Argentine Fascist historians (the so-called in Argentina "Nationalists/Revisionists"), to skew articles toward that viewpoint. The result has been whitewashed takes on the subjects of several articles, e.g., the brutal dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793-1877), for example, has become in the hands of Cambalachero a democratic and liberal leader, with the mainstream view relegated to a "criticism" section (a fine example of removal of sourced content: ) In this instance, the problem has been compounded with the creation and expansion of sub-articles (e.g., Argentine nationalism, Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas and Repatriation of Juan Manuel de Rosas's body , among others) to reinforce the appearance of legitimacy to a minority and politically motivated viewpoint. Biographical articles about the aforementioned fascist-linked historians (Manuel Gálvez, etc.) have even been created that give the false impression that they are reliable authors with views that are respected and reflected by mainstream historians.

The historical narrative being promoted by Cambalachero has no similarity to what mainstream historiography presents. The MoS is clear: "Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." Cambalachero has insisted on bypassing English histories that cover Rosas, since they uniformly consider Rosas a brutal dictator. Not a few, not some, not even most, but every single book published in English calls him a dictator. Cambalachero isn't even faithful to his own Fascist-linked sources, since they also portray Rosas as a brutal dictator, though they excuse this on the (predictable) basis that it was necessary for the greater good of Argentina and to maintain order and unity.

In the event that I have not communicated the seriousness of what is going on here, and in other articles, I'll offer an analogy: Imagine if a Wikipedian had written the article about Adolf Hitler using as sources Nazi or Neo-nazi authors, while excluding any mention of the Holocaust, removing any mention of the Nazi dictatorship, minimizing the cult of personality and portraying Hitler as a misunderstood liberal democrat and that only his "critics" regarded him a dictator (as if that was merely another point of view). That would not be History. It would be thinly disguised political revisionist proselytism. Such an attempt to whitewash Hitler might even be successful, were Hitler not such huge a figure in modern consciousness.

Insistence on presenting an unrepresentative view is counterproductive and harms the credibility of such articles. We are not talking about a Wikipedian who has been arguing an alternative point of view backed by legitimate authors, but rather about PoV being zealously promoted and maintained through the use of dubious (sometimes spurious) sources that often promote a political agenda. This is serious, as well as extremely wearying and discouraging to editors who would like to make genuine improvements. It's the reliability of Misplaced Pages at stake.

Thus, the question I make is: does the community need or desire editors such as Cambalachero to continue this? At this point, I cannot believe so. If this editor cannot be prohibited from working on articles related to history, more broadly banned, or some other remedy that solves the problem, I hope that at least an experienced Wikipedian could be appointed to monitor his activities. Either way, I ask the Arbitration Committee to do something to resolve this serious matter.

P.S.: For those who may be interested in learning more about mainstream historical views of Rosas and the Argentine fascist/revisionist historians, see my sandbox. --Lecen (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

To Roger: I believe the sources were both cherry-picked and misrepresented. I have a few doubts, I hope you won't mind answering. This is my first time at the ArbCom and I never stopped by before to see how it works. I thought I was supposed to write one small piece of text to explain what was wrong (according to my point of view) and then, after the request was taken, I would be allowed to expand my reasoning. But Cambalachero already replied (I thought he was supposed to do that only after the arbitration request was taken) and some editors have made a few comments here and there. Can I start bringing all my thoughts about the subject or should I simply reply to questions directed to me until the arbitration request is accepted or not? --Lecen (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What was the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism movement?

The Nacionalismo (Nationalism) was a far-right wing political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1930s. it was the Argentine national equivalent to Nazism (in Germany), Fascism (in Italy and in Spain) and Integralism (in Brazil and in Portugal). The Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement that also supported eugenics. The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of the Argentine Nationalism.

What was the Argentine Nationalism’s main goal? It was to establish a national dictatorship: "In Rosas and his system, the Nationalists discovered the kind of state and society they wished to restore. Rosas had ruled as a military dictator..." Rosas and his regime served as models of what the Argentine Nationalists wanted for Argentina. This is where the Revisionism came in handy: the Revionists’ main purpose within the Nationalism was to rehabilitate Rosas’ image.

How was Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?

Writing in 1930, The Hispanic American Historical Review said: “Among the enigmatical personages of the ‘Age of Dictators’ in South America none played a more espetacular role than the Argentine dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas, whose gigantic and ominous figure bestrode the Plata River for more than twenty years. So despotic was his power that Argentine writers have themselves styled this age of their history as ‘The Tyranny of Rosas’.” Thirty and one years later, in 1961, Rosas’ image had not improved at all, according to the same The Hispanic American Historical Review: “Rosas is a negative memory in Argentina. He left behind him the black legend of Argentine history-a legend which Argentines in general wish to forget. There is no monument to him in the entire nation; no park, plaza, or street bears his name.” (p.514)

How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians?

Did Cambalachero try to hide that mainstream historiography see Rosas as a dictator?

Cambalachero tried to hide any mention that Rosas was a dictator as can be seen on his edits on Platine War and on Juan Manuel de Rosas. See:

• Changed "Dictator" to "Governor".
• Removed "...as dictator" from the sentence "...he governed the country for more than 20 years as dictator".
• Removed "...as dictator" from the sentence "He governed the province of Buenos Aires and ruled over the Argentine Confederation from 1829 until 1852 as dictator".

Notice that he removed sourced content. And this has been going on for over three years.

Did Cambalachero attempt to white-wash Rosas?

Juan Manuel de Rosas executed around 2,000 political enemies and he "was responsible for the terror: contemporaries affirmed it, and historians agree", said biographer John Lynch. Cambalachero dismissed the killings and according to him the people executed under Rosas' regime were petty criminals, mutinied soldiers, spies and traitors. According to Cambalachero, the allegations of executions of political enemies were originated from a fake list paid by the French firm and was no more than a fabricated excuse made by European powers "to justify a declaration of war". Cambalachero also created an article called Blood tables to debunke the allegations of political executions. The article has only two sources: one book written by José María Rosa and published in 1974 and the other by Carlos Smith and published in 1936. Both authors are Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists.

Rosas owned slaves and he "was severe in his treatment of slaves, and he favored the lash to keep them obedient and preserve social order." And more: "Yet in the final analysis the demagogy of Rosas among the blacks and mulattoes did nothing to alter their position in the society around them." But when you read the article it says: "Although slavery was not abolished during his rule, Rosas sponsored liberal policies allowing them greater liberties". I complained about in the article's talk page (see here). Cambalachero did not care and mostly ignored what I said and did not try to correct the error. According to him: "I don't see a contradiction". Almost three years earlier, he removed one piece of text that had a negative view of Rosas and his relation with slaves. He replaced it with "Detractors of Rosas accused him of having afroamerican slaves". The author given as source is Pacho O'Donnell, yet another Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist (or, more precisely, a "Neorevisionist").

What Cambalachero has done when asked to show which sources say that Rosas was not a dictator?

What has Cambalachero done when faced with the most respected biography of Rosas which has been published so far?

I pointed out to Cambalachero that it is written on Misplaced Pages: Verifiability: "Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." The best available is the biography written by John Lynch. The first edition was published in 1981 with the name "Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas". The second edition came in 2001 under the title "'Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas". It has been used by Encyclopædia Britannica as the main source about Rosas, which it considers the "definitive" biography (see here). Hugh M. Hamill called it an "lready classic biography of Argentina's most significant caudillo." Daniel K. Lewis regarded it "n outstanding work on the dictator and his historical significance". Michael Goebel said that it is "a classic work about Rosas in English". Donald F. Stevens called it "he essential biography of Rosas by a distinguished historian". Ricardo Piglia regarded it an "excelent account" or Rosas' career.

I brought to Cambalachero’s attention the existence of the aforementioned biography, but he never took it seriously. He said that the “historiography of Rosas is a topic in itself, with books about that specific topic, and none of them considered Lynch even worth a single mention.” He single handedly dismissed Lynch’s work and regarded it (based solely on his personal opinion) as “faulty”, full of “contradictions”, the opinions given as “mere political analysis” and accused it of “plagiarism” and that “Lynch merely repeats misconceptions he read somewhere else, instead of investigating them himself (as any serious historian, not a mere divulgator, would do)”.

In fact, Cambalachero considered Lynch’s book “outdated” and for that reason it should be ignored. Cambalachero was talking about a book published in 2001 while he (as shown above) has been using as sources books written by Nationalists/Revisionists who are dead for over 35 years! --Lecen (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero

As arbitration does not focus on article content but on user's conduct, I will skip that topic. Before any actual discussion tooks place (only an attempted change of the lead image), he requested article ownership here and here, and clarified here and here: he wants to write the article alone and without needing to find consensus for edits that he knows will be controversial. Here and here he tries to describe me as an antisemite or nazi sympathizer. He posted provocative threads here and here, that I did not answer to prevent unneeded drama, and jumped to dispute resolution here (immediately closed here). He created a huge report at the talk page, talking about details from all the myriad angles he could conceive (no single edit to link, but it’s still visible at the talk page), named "About the lack of neutrality, the biased view and arbitrary choice of facts added into this article". He said "done" here and requested third opinion here, just 8 minutes afterwards. I divided his thread in subtopics and begin to answer: he made only a pair of replies here and here and jumped to Dispute Resolution again here, closed again here. Finally, some other users began to join the discussion. However, Lecen rejected all proposals and compromises (either from me or from other editors) that were not a flat-out support to his proposal as originally conceived. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. He tried to influence the discussions by trying to convince the users joining it at their talk pages, for example here, here and here. He had an edit war with MarshalN20, who rejected any authorship on a draft I wrote (which I indeed wrote alone): see here, here and here; Lecen justified that it was his own comment and should not be modified by anyone here. He resorted to tag bombing here, here and here, and later here. This led to full article protection here. When it expired, he began to actually work in the article, rewriting sections and adding images. Then I continued his work, editing some things here and there; he reverted everything (both his and my edits) here. He said here that I had "butchered the article beyond recognition" (sic). Another edit war ensued (I did not take part in it), and the article was protected again here. For the following section, I proposed here to work on a talk page draft and and move it to article space when we were all satisfied: Lecen never made any comment. He dropped the whole discussion, almost a month ago, and restarted it when I made a comment at a FAC of another article here.

I have spotted him lying at least two times, here (providing a quotation with a removed part, which completely changes the meaning) and here (concealing information about a historian). Lecen did not read the book in Google books, he owns the physical book, as he had scanned the front page at File:El maldito de la historia oficial.jpg. In both cases I provided scans from the book to prove its acual content. Requires Spanish, but it’s there, visible, you don’t have to "trust" me. There are several other examples within Misplaced Pages: note one right here, he blames me for the expansion of the article on Manuel Gálvez, when if you check the edits you will notice that my edits are minor and the actual writer of most of the article was User:Keresaspa.

He also pointed here that neither of us was willing to "give up on each other's view". That's not my case, I would have no problem in working with him as adults and rational people (but if he thinks that I would be "butchering" his work, it's his problem, not mine), but the message actually points his own motivation: he said that he will not give up his point of view. In other words, battleground mentality.

As for the main discussion: Lecen claims time and again the existence of a certain academic consensus, that would require us to ignore the authors that do not follow it. I pointed at Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Arbitrary break 2 that, according to policies and guidelines, the existence of such a consensus must have a specific source that says so clearly and directly, it can not be decided by assesment of Misplaced Pages users. If there is no such academic consensus then WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ensues. Lecen tried to derail the discussion, but I insisted time and again that he pointed sources with the alleged consensus he claims. He never did, and dropped from the discussion, until today, until I pointed some flaws of an article he nominated for FAC.

Note about sources: Juan Manuel de Rosas#Criticism and historical perspective, Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas and Repatriation of Juan Manuel de Rosas's body use only English-speaking sources or Argentine sources wich are not revisionist (except for minimal things such as quotations). All the claims contained in those articles can be checked in such sources. And I told several times in the discussion that I had no problem in working with all sources (for example, here). In fact I have already cited Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, who provides many analysis critizing Rosas. It is Lecen who rejects to work with sources he disagrees with, with a rationale that is not found anywhere. Cambalachero (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, we have barely began to talk, and Lecen has already played the Nazi card. Even calling me an Holocaust denier (a very grave personal offense, that I hope he will apologize for). The comparison of Rosas and Hitler is a pointless association fallacy, hardly worth a serious reply; but I can easily give one if it is deemed necessary. Cambalachero (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram

If this case is accepted, I strongly believe it should be not given name "Cambalachero" suggested by editor Lecen, but rather should be given a neutral name, rather than one suggested by the first combatant to get to Arbitration. A natural candidate would be "Lecen vs. Cambalachero", I suppose, or perhaps something neutral and topical about "Negotiations between 2 editors" or some other description.

I submit that it is 100% absurd to believe that an arbitration proceeding is not affected by its name. Obviously persons having grudges against a named person will be more likely to show up and introduce evidence, is just one way that the naming has an effect.

I have no familiarity with either of these parties and am 100% uninvolved. --doncram 00:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17

This arbitration request stems from a long-term dispute between two prolific editors. At its heart, I believe it revolves around Lecen's assertions that Cambalachero is misrepresenting or omitting sources that have negative views of the leaders of Argentina. That would mean that this could be narrowly accepted as a user conduct case, though it will be extremely difficult to separate user conduct from content, as you will have to decide whether Cambalachero's content misrepresents the mainstream historiographic views of individuals like Juan Manuel de Rosas. If so, that is actionable through a topic ban or mentor. If not, the case will probably require some sort of interaction ban. Both outcomes are within the committee's remit and would solve the dispute at hand, but the committee will need to decide whether this is too close to its content borderline. Please note that I have collaborated with Lecen on two Brazil-related articles (South American dreadnought race and Template:Sclass-), but have had almost no part in this dispute. With regards to NYB's comment, while I have done some work in Latin American history, I wouldn't consider myself a subject matter expert on its nineteenth century. Ed  07:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@Lecen, Roger Davies. While I think Lecen knows that these sources aren't allowed on the English Misplaced Pages except under very limited circumstances (e.g. Historiography in the Soviet Union), I think it is a roundabout way of looking for reassurance that the committee will take the time to read through the entirety of the evidence, as it will be complex and possibly lengthy. Historiography—which is essentially what Lecen will have to do to prove his claims—tends to be like that. As an aside to Lecen, it may be helpful to define what "fascist literature" is, given the plethora of meanings the word can have today. Ed  01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Adversarial (X v. Y) names are not used for modern (post-2006) arbcom cases. I pinged the arbs about this request. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• It could easily be called Argentine History, of course. - Penwhale | 05:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• ... which I basically just did so. - Penwhale | 08:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think so renaming this case request is for the best. AGK 11:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Argentine History: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/2>-Argentine_History-2013-03-19T03:19:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Content disagreements are not addressed by this Committee; user misconduct, which may include disruptive editing and misrepresentation of sources, is addressed, when other dispute methods have failed. We could use some input here from previously uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise as to which side of the line this dispute falls on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)"> ">
• @Lecen. Could you please supply some examples of contentious claims referenced to Spanish sources available online ... ? Ideally, this would be as an English/Spanish parallel text. Once that's done, it would be good to get Cambalachero's comments. As a further thought, isn't the suggestion here that the sources have been cherry-picked rather than misrepresented?  Roger Davies 18:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Lecen: best to keep it as brief as you can but it would be good to see some actual examples (say, four or five) to help us all in deciding what to do.  Roger Davies 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Lynch 2001, p. 118.
2. Lynch 2001, p. 53.
3. Lynch 2001, p. 54.
4. Lynch 2001, p. 56.
5. Hamill 1992, p. 354.
6. Lewis 2001, p. 207. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLewis2001 (help)
7. Goebel 2011, p. 18.
8. Stevens 1998, p. 101. sfn error: no target: CITEREFStevens1998 (help)
9. Piglia 1994, p. 219.