Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Word limit

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

He asked the drafting arbitrators for an extension. If it's granted, he can keep his evidence as-is; otherwise, he'd have to trim it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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

You are free to ask for an extension too, but lets wait to see what the arbitrators say about it first. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. How does my deletion of an image ([1]) justify his claim that I am pushing fringe views or reverting "all of his attempts at improvement"? Here is Lecen's original edit ([2]), and notice that the "Gauchos resting in the pampas" image is completely random for the biographical article (hence my deletion).
2. How exactly is my "comment" (explicitly called comment) on a FAC ([3]), where I even write that "the article is great", suddenly get turned into an "oppose" vote?

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

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

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

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

Lecen must follow the guidelines of the process he initiated.

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

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

Is that alowed?

There are a lot of stuff added by Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that are plain misquotations or simply untrue to the facts. This is a fine example. Cambalachero said: "Note that Lecen misquotes sources. 'How is Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?' describes the 1960s, not 2013, things changed since then as described." I'm very clear on my statement: "Writing in 1930..." and "Thirty and one years later, in 1961, Rosas’ image had..." Nowhere the year "2013" is mentioned. The only place that the year 2013 is mentioned is in another section called "How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians (1987–2013)?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing personal attacks

Lecen continues insulting me. The latest ([4]): "You and your friend Cambalachero have been caught pushing the political views of Anti-Semitic Fascists across several articles and now the Arbitrators will decide what to do with both of you." The evidence provided by Lecen here barely mentions me, and (although I have attempted to take the Nazi, Anti-Semitic, Fascist, etc. in a light manner) by this point his accusations are nothing more than personal attacks.
It is also worth noting that I have already tried to talk about this with Lecen ([5]), but he continues to ignore the point.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Evidence presentation

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