Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 372: Line 372:


::We have been though this before. Lecen posts a giant report that goes in all the myriad ways, I try to answer to all the myriad ways mentioned, and the result becomes an unmanageable [[WP:TLDR]]. The huge block of text that Lecen has just posted surely goes way beyond the pair of points requested. So, I will halt the discussion here: if a member of the Arbcom requests me to answer to that huge text, I will do it. If they consider it to be too long, dispersed or focused in content rather than user misconduct, I will wait for Lecen to fix it, and then answer. By the way, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me an Holocaust denier. [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 01:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::We have been though this before. Lecen posts a giant report that goes in all the myriad ways, I try to answer to all the myriad ways mentioned, and the result becomes an unmanageable [[WP:TLDR]]. The huge block of text that Lecen has just posted surely goes way beyond the pair of points requested. So, I will halt the discussion here: if a member of the Arbcom requests me to answer to that huge text, I will do it. If they consider it to be too long, dispersed or focused in content rather than user misconduct, I will wait for Lecen to fix it, and then answer. By the way, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me an Holocaust denier. [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 01:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As the case was accepted, I will reply to the things Lecen has been saying. It will get a bit too long, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. As it has not been selected which of all the points raised by Lecen will be mediated, I will answer all. It may be helpful if the administrators propose to narrow the discussion into specific topics.

First things first: I’m aware that, in English casual speaking, "revisionism" is usually associated to the denial of the Holocaust in nazi Germany. Lecen’s constant mentions of nazism may reinforce the idea. But no, that’s a misunderstanding. [[Historical revisionism]] is itself a tool of historiographic studies, part of its scientific method, which can be misused or used correctly (in the neonazi case, misused, if even used at all and not taken as an excuse). Each case must be considered separately. And another thing: check the dates. Lecen began this discussion on last December, but keeps pointing to things that happened 4 years ago during a good article review. He loves to say that things have been going on for years, but that is false. I’m amazed that he has hold a grudge for so much time about something that even I had already forgot about... and worse, a grudge for a discussion that actually ended the way he wanted it to end. To keep things shorter, I will avoid the outdated discussions (but I can explain them if so required). And third: the name "History of Argentina" was selected as a better name than one with users, to avoid the confrontation tone, but the discussions have always been specifically about Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles (check the links in "other steps" at the begining). We have never discussed about articles on other time periods of Argentina.

{{hidden
|Argentine nationalism vs. German nationalism
|"it was the Argentine national equivalent to Nazism (in Germany)..." Stop. Hold the phone there. Argentine and German nationalisms are in no way comparable. In 1930, Germany was a world power, with centuries of history and a clear and defined idea of nationhood and national identity. Argentina, on the other hand, was only an emerging power, which had only one century of history, a century with ever-changing national limits during a long civil war, and most of the population died during that conflict and the void was replaced by a great immigrantion wave of Europeans. Argentine nationalism was a very weak ideology, it was more whishful thinking than something with tangible effects. Just compare the results: the 1930s German nationalist began the highest genocide and the biggest war in human history. The 1930s Argentine nationalism began the coup d’etat of José Félix Uriburu... that only lasted for a year and half, before having to call to elections and hand government to his political enemy, Agustín Pedro Justo.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}

{{hidden
|Misuse of the term "fascist" and similar ones
|Specifically talking about historians, the main problem of Lecen approach is that it is a huge [[association fallacy]]: "X was revisionist, X was also fascist, therefore all revisionists are fascists" (Note as well that he uses "nationalist", "fascist" and "nazi" as if they were synonyms; see [[Fascist (insult)]]). For example: the revisionist and fascist Leopoldo Lugones wrote "The Hour of the Sword" ("La hora de la espada"), calling for a military coup against president Hipólito Yrigoyen, setting a comparison between it and the military victory at the battle of Ayacucho. Reprovable. Should we consider Lugones an unreliable author because of having such reprobable political ideas? Perhaps. But even if we agree on that, why should we extend the concept to Emilio Ravignani, who warned that history should not be used for apology of modern dictatorships, or to Gálves, who rejected the coup of Uriburu? Or to make it closer in time: Lecen has mentioned as well the author Pacho O’Donnell, author of a recent best-seller biography of Rosas. May I ask for a source that ''specifically'' describes Pacho O’Donnell as fascist or nazi? Or, in the other direction, Adolfo Saldías wrote the "History of the Argentine Confederation" in 1881. Will we call him a fascist too... a fascist from 3 decades before fascism itself existed? To make it clear and to the point: I have no problem in banning nazi authors with a confirmed nazi ideology (such as [[Hugo Wast]], I don’t even have his books anyway). But on a case-by-case basis, and with specific discussion. A rationale "everyone who did not say that Rosas was a monster is a nazi/fascist/nationalist/neonazi" is completely out of place.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}

{{hidden
|Academic acceptance
|As for the idea itself of revisionism, there are two aspects to it: the academic and the cultural. Don’t mix them. The academic aspect was: the historiography of Rosas written so far was not reliable because of ignoring important primary sources, and using others without taking the biases of the time into account. Did they do that with a political agenda? It does not matter, not for the scientific approach, same as we did not reject the first photo of the [[far side of the Moon]] because of being taken by communists. If they have a sound point, it is accepted regardless of other contexts. Let’s put an specific example: Lecen mentioned the [[blood tables]], a report of deaths that took place during Rosas’ rule, written by a political enemy of Rosas. A lot of time ago, it was accepted as a legitimate source, and even republished and used as school textbook. Lecen says that, according to Lynch, there were 2,000 deaths and that I’m downplaying that by citing authors who say that the Blood Tables are not reliable. The link to the book is below (it breaks the "hidden" template if placed here). Go to page 117. Let me quote: "''It is impossible to quantify the terror under Rosas. Contemporaries attempted to do so, but the results were flawed by bias and error. The so-called tables of blood compiled by the journalist Rivera Indarte listed 5,884 victims of terror and 16,520 killed in military action. These opposition" figures are probably too high and fail to discriminate between delinquents and victims of political persecution, between legal punishments and assasinations''". The 2,000 deaths that Lecen cites are in the following page: they do not come from a specific primary source that Lynch trusts, but from a speculation: an educated speculation, but a speculation nonetheless. Lynch even points that "''these were not mass murders''". As you see, Lecen is openly misquoting sources here. He mentions 2,000 deaths as a confirmed fact supported by Lynch and that those deaths are being denied by revisionists authors at the "blood tables" articles, but it happens that (according to Lynch himself) the blood tables listed 22,404 deaths, a difference of 20,000 deaths, and says '''exactly the same thing''': that the report is biased and unreliable. Smith and Rosa do not say that there were no deaths, they say that they were not the 22,404 claimed by Indarte, and Lynch agrees. How many deaths were then? Nobody knows for sure: Lynch speculates a number, and the others prefer not to speculate. The same thing goes for most other things pointed by revisionists. The whole thing is detailed in [[Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas]] and [[Juan Manuel de Rosas#Criticism and historical perspective]]. Lecen claims that those articles are biased "to reinforce the appearance of legitimacy" of revisionism, but have a closer look. Except for Pepe Rosa, whose book is used as the source of a quotation, all the authors cited in those articles or sections and all the important claims are made by foreign authors, or by non-revisionist Argentines, such as Félix Luna or Fernando Devoto. If it seems as if revisionism has been accepted and incorporated into the mainstream history, is because that is precisely what has happened. Note that the quotes that Lecen took here talk about the political ideas of the 1930s historians, but they never actually say that their research was faulty or flawed, or that it was rejected. Perhaps because that is beyond the scope of David Rock’s book, which is about the 1930s nationalism and not about the historiography of Argentina.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}
[http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=JJRZL1JM7iIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Rosas+Lynch&hl=es-419&sa=X&ei=61ZUUdrAJYO29gTjhoGYBA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas]
{{hidden
|Acceptance of Rosas as a national hero
|The other approach of revisionism was trying to promote Rosas as a national hero. That is not a topic of historiography, but a topic of culture, it uses history but it is not history in itself. Rosas is currently considered a national hero of Argentina, and have most of the homages usually associated to such heroes, such as monuments, national days and even his face in currency banknotes. Is there fascism involved? No. First, Rosas himself was no fascist, fascism did not even exist back in the 1830s.Yes, there was an attempt by fascists revisionists to promote Rosas as a national hero, but it was a complete failure. They succedded in pointing the flaws of the history of Rosas as it was understood so far, but failed to change the popular perception of Rosas. Lecen detailed it himself at the "How was Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?" section. As of 1961, Rosas was not seen as a national hero: the acceptance of the work done by the 1930s historians was limited to the academics in their ivory towers. The popular acceptance of Rosas came in the 1970s, part of a different and unrelated movement. Both movements saw Rosas as a role model, but for completely different reasons: in the 1930s it was mainly because of his conservatism, religosity and strict observance of the law. In the 1970s it was mainly because of his economic protectionism, his popular support and the victories against the British and French blockades.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}

{{hidden
|Modern academic vision
|How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians? Good question. I have pointed some info at [[Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas#Modern times]]. Lecen claims the existence of a certain academic consensus against Rosas. But as I pointed in my initial post, according to policies and guidelines (such as [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Academic consensus]]), 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 Wikipedia users. When requested and insisted for such a source, Lecen tried to derail the conversation. And here... once more, he tries to answer to that question cherry-picking quotes from books and proposing his personal assesment, evading to bring a source as those that policies require.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}

{{hidden
|The word "dictator"
|The word "dictator" is not absent from the article: the "second government" section already points "There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento compared Rosas with historical dictators, while José de San Martín considered that the situation in the country was so chaotic that a strong authority was needed to create order".
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}

{{hidden
|Slaves
|As for the slaves, I don’t really understand which is the problem. Lecen pointed that Rosas owned slaves when he was a rancher, I accepted the point and added it to the article myself (see below the template). I told at the talk page that I added that mention, and the discussion ended. So what is he reporting? As I said in my answer, those were 2 different stages of Rosas’ life. If he wanted more clarifications, he should have continued the discussion and say why didn’t he find my addition good enough.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&diff=prev&oldid=533460007 Here] I added the info.
{{hidden
|Language of sources
|The policy says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Lecen reads it as if that means that non-English sources have no space in Wikipedia. Which is not the case. The key words are "assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Juan Manuel de Rosas, an Argentine governor of the XIX century, is not a topic of universal interest, but local interest. In topics of universal interest (such as astronomy, biology, medicine, chemistry, etc) it makes complete sense to give priority to English-language sources. Only Argentines are deeply interested in the details of the history of Rosas, so it is not surprising that the bulk of the historiographical work regarding Rosas comes from Argentina. Lynch points so in the prologue of his book: Rosas is all forgotten in the English-speaking world. His bibliography at the end of the book seem to confirm it: most authors mentioned are Argentine ones.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}

{{hidden
|Astynax
|As for the other editors that joined the arbitration, The ed17 and MarshalN20 have mentioned their previous involvement in it. Astynax forgot to do so: he is a supporter of Lecen in this discussion, and even helped him to draft the report that Lecen gave. See [[User talk:Astynax/Archive 11#Juan Manuel de Rosas]] (the second thread with that name, the link may go to the first one). He’s not an editor "who also wrote more than a dozen FAs", if you check them, most of them are ''’the same''’ FAs. They have worked toguether for years. There’s nothing wrong in that, but as it is needed to point that MarshalN20 has supported me in some previous discussions, so has Astynax done for Lecen.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}

{{hidden
|Move requests
|As for the move requests, I have all South American wikiprojects in my watchlist, and check for any automated report about things going on with some article, and say something when I can help. This rationale that "he has never edited the article" seems completely novel, move requests are made ''precisely'' to request the attention of editors who are not the regular editors (besides, being a regular editor does not confer any special right over an article). But note that, although I did not work very much with [[John VI of Portugal]] and [[Farroupilha Revolution]] as Cristiano points, neither did Lecen. He had edited Jon VI only 2 times before the move request (january 2011) and only 18 times the Revolution one (but, in a closer look, most of those 18 entries are just vandalism revert, move logs and trivial corrections, he hardly added any substantive content). Links below.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}
[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Lecen&page=John+VI+of+Portugal&server=enwiki&max=100 Lecen's edits to John VI of Portugal] and [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Lecen&page=Farroupilha+Revolution&server=enwiki&max=100 Lecen's edits to the Farroupilha Revolt]
{{hidden
|Featured articles do not give priviledges
|As for Lecen’s featured articles, it was already pointed that having a number of featured articles does not give a special status of an editor over another. I do not have that many featured articles because I edit articles on a broader scope: history, politics, geography, television, etc. As you can see in the links below, I have made almost the double of total edits during our stay in Wikipedia, and almost to eightfold unique articles. That does not mean that I’m better or worse than him, it just mean that we work in Wikipedia with different approaches. It also means that neither of us is a novice or newcomer. And there’s a detail that should be considered: all those featured articles that he wrote are about obscure topics for the English-speaking world, and hardly anyone besides him is interested in working with them. I’m not saying that on a derogatory sense: the same thing goes for almost all South American related articles (including the ones that I have created or expanded). All those articles have been made by Lecen and other users supporting him with copyediting or working with images. I’m saying this to point that, despite of his number of featured articles, Lecen has little experience in working toguether with someone pointing flaws in the content of his articles. His approach has been rather poor: instead of trying to work toguether, or talk about things, he tries to get me out of the way, to work alone as he always done. I have pointed that in my initial post: Lecen began to ask for mediation ''before'' any actual discussion or article editing took place, began threads on article content only as an excuse to request mediation and left them at the second or third reply, focusing on the "get Cambalachero out of here" focus, and moving to other venues each time he could not get consensus for his outlandish request.
|headerstyle=background:#ccccff
|style=text-align:center;
}}
[http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Cambalachero&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Edit count for Cambalachero]
[http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Lecen&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Edit count for Lecen]


===Statement by Doncram===
===Statement by Doncram===

Revision as of 23:55, 28 March 2013

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Malayalam cinema industry hub   26 March 2013 {{{votes}}}
Jesus   25 March 2013 {{{votes}}}
Argentine History   16 March 2013 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 7 November 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Malayalam cinema industry hub

Initiated by Prathambhu (talk) at 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

In addition several IPs (possibly sock puppets) also are involved.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Prathambhu

The matter of dispute in Malayalam cinema page is the hub of the Malayalam cinema industry. The version existed till February 18, 2013 said the present hub of Malayalam film industry is Kochi. This information was supported by citations based on published information in reliable sources in English such as The Hindu, Times of India, Indian Express, New Indian Express, Passline Business Magazine, Deccan Chronicle and in Malayalam such as Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi and Deshabhimani which are the most widely read newspapers of India and Kerala. All of this published information stated that Kochi is the hub of Malayalam cinema industry presently. Some reports also said that Malayalam cinema industry have shifted to Kochi from its earlier bases in Chennai and Thiruvananthapuram. The same information existed in South Indian film industry page too for many months.

From February 18, 2013 onwards IP numbered 69.47.228.36 started editing out the information existed then, along with citations. In place of it, IP number 69.47.228.36 inserted the claim that "Thiruvananthapuram is also a hub of Malayalam cinema industry". There were no citations from reliable sources s/he could provide for this claim. IP number 69.47.228.36 removed the citations that existed as s/he found that most of those news reports contradicted her/his claims. Despite talk page discussions this continued. There was a prolonged edit war in which user IP number 69.47.228.36 was supported by User:Aarem, User:Salih and numerous IPs, many of them numbered alike (suspected sock puppets).

The edit war spilt into South Indian film industry where information existed there for many months were removed by the above editors and also User:Samaleks. It further spread into Cinema of India too. Followed by a freeze of edit of Malayalam cinema by administrator User:Ged UK, there was an even longer talk page discussion. The dispute remained unresolved. Further under the suggestion of administrator User:Ged UK, I placed a Request for Comments in the Talk:Malayalam cinema. Apart from IP number 69.47.228.36, a few other IPs similar to the ones that took part in the edit war also made comments in the Request for Comments section.


In there, I tried to point out that any claim needs to be supported with information published in reliable sources as per core sourcing policy of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Verifiability and also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

The problems with the present version inserted by the above editors in Malayalam cinema page is that

1) not a single published information is found in support of this claim

2) it contradicts most of the available published information in reliable sources such as the ones mentioned above.

Presently IP number 69.47.228.36 insists that her/his claim be accepted without any evidence in the form of published information from reliable sources. In the Talk:Malayalam cinema page, IP numbered 69.47.228.36 even went on to overrule Wikipedia sourcing policy. As one can see in the latest response from IP number 69.47.228.36, s/he has referred to all media as liars, apart from calling me so.

In view of this, I am forced to abandon any hope for reasoning with this group who are here with a set agenda. This group have shown the audacity to overrule Wikipedia's policy and I found it safer to end the discussion in talk page and request arbitration. Let me request the Wikipedia administrators to kindly to look into this issue and hope for a resolution in accordance with Wikipedia's stated policies. Thank you, Sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aarem

Malayalam Cinema is not centered in Kochi. Most of the production facilities are in Trivandrum. The leading production facilities in Kochi includes Max Labs, Lal Media, Navodaya(not fully functional now) and sound recording studio annex of Chitranjali. There is no leading animation studios in Kochi and no studios with large campus for outdoor shooting facility. 60% of the films that are now released in Malayalam is being shot in Kochi and suburbs. But that alone does not make it to be called the centre of industry. If in that case, before 10 years, 60% of the films were shot in villages of Ottapalam and Pollachi. Can it be then declared as the centre of the industry?

Trivandrum is having the maximum number of studio facilities and production facilities. This includes:

  • Chitranjali studios - with and indoor studio of around 12,000 sq.ft. (second largest indoor in Asia) with sound proof floor

Outdoor campus of 70 acres. Pre built Out door of Police station, Hospital, Class room, Office rooms, Village houses, Temple, etc are available. Chitranjali studio has a single window system to obtain permission from the Government Departments and agencies for various locations for shooting. It has recording studios, preview theatre, four outdoor film units, reel printing facilities

  • Prasad Colour Labs - The leading colour labs in South India has its facilities in Trivandrum.

This is the only processing lab in Kerala. They are the pioneer in Digital processing and negative processing in South India. They are the leading colour lab in Graphics (VFX) and not only Malayalam films are processed in their facility in Trivandrum (eg; Enthiran post production works were done here).

  • Merryland studios - with a big outdoor campus facility of 36 acres. Now mostly used for mega serials
  • Accel Animation Studios – More known for its motion capture facilities and 3D graphics.
  • Vismayas Max – First DTS studio in Kerala. It has both animation facilities and regular film editing facilities. The sound recording unit of Vismaya is having a branch at Kochi too.
  • Toonz Animation – Subsidiary of Singapore based Toonz company. Major works include Indian releases like Tenali Raman, Hanuman, etc and international releases like XMen and Wolverine, Gatturro etc.

Also, if you look at the addresses of actors published in the official website of AMMA(Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes), majority are given the address at Trivandrum as their permanent address.addresses link Even AMMA is headquartered in Thycaud, Trivandrum. If Kochi is the centre of the industry, why Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes(AMMA) is not headquartered in Kochi ?

There are many companies in Kinfra film and Video park with full SEZ facilities for animation and gaming. There are hundreds of small studios in the city to support all the "serial" shooting and production for various TV channels. Trivandrum has much more production facilities than any other city in Kerala. Events like International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) and presence of organizations like Kerala Film Development Corporation, Chalachitra Academy, Soorya etc are in Trivandrum.

Citations are available for all these organizations. The links provided by User:Prathambhu are featured articles in the city page with peacock terms and biased reports to promote real estate and business in a region.

So in short, the movie industry in Kerala is not centred only in one location. Major facilities are in Trivandrum followed by Kochi. So to be impartial, no one can say that Malayalam movie industry is only centered in Kochi. Infact, it is scattered across Kerala with more presence in Trivandrum and Kochi.

The current statement is the article is as follows : " Malayalam film industry returned and established itself in Kerala with a major chunk of locations, studios, production and post-production facilities in Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi. " There is nothing wrong in this statement, as you can find majority of the studios and production facilities in both the cities. There is no official status like "centre of film industry". Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 10:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I support a sock puppet investigation as the User:ChroniclerSanjay(Special:Contributions/ChroniclerSanjay) is suspected to be the sock of User:Prathambhu.

@Newyorkbrad: Note: You may check here, what a neutral user has to say as a response to "Request for Comment" : by User:Jack Sebastian and response. -- Aarem (Talk)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Malayalam cinema industry hub: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0/2>

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

Jesus

Initiated by Humanpublic (talk) at 18:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Humanpublic

I believe there is a dispute requiring intervention involving Jeppiz, History2007, Seb, and several others regarding the topic of the historicity of Jesus. The handling of the dispute thus far is characterized by unequal treatment, a topic ban based on wrong info, misleading characterizations of editors (such as yours truly), stereotypes of religious skepticism, lawyering to keep legitimate skeptical content out of Jesus, lawyering to trick and trap editors into being banned, forum shopping, misleading and fallacious insertion of sources into articles, and hounding an editor (yours truly) from one article to another.

Examples:

  • Active Talk discussion forciby archived, twice. When I try to de-archive it, I am insulted "your useless deaf ears", reported for 3RR, and warned [1] [2] The editor who insulted me is not warned. (This editor, Ian.thomson, previously said to another editor on Talk:Jesus: "Take your WP:BATTELGROUND attitude and bigoted and unfounded accusations of bias elsewhere, you blind fool....you're too much of a crusading bigot to contribute anything worthwhile.[3])
  • Then Seb az86556 does the whole forced archiving thing again, I complain, and Seb is warned [4]
  • I went to ANI to complain about Seb az86556 on Feb. 15.
  • Jeppiz shows up at Jesus immediately thereafter, and repeatedly reverts me [5], [6], [7]. Feb. 17 he follows me to Christ myth theory, where his only edit is to revert me. [8]. Then he shows up at Argument from silence, which I've been editing, where he doesn't directly revert me (I've mostly stopped editing articles by now), but does oppose my view of the article.
  • Seb az86556 follows me to Christ myth theory, where his only edit in the history of the article is to revert me [9]. He makes no comment on Talk. Then he follows me to Argument from silence where his only edits are to revert me [10] [11]. Again, no comments on Talk.
  • History2007, who almost exclusively edits Bible-related articles, frequently misrepresents sources. In one of Seb's reverts of me above, History2007 had used an example of usage of "argument from silence" from a dictionary as a claim about the concept. Recently, he added this text "arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as falacies.[6][7]" which misrepresents source #7. While editing Jesus, he copy/pasted an entire paragraph of text from Christ myth theory that included several book-length sources. I asked him to provide the quotes from the books, and replied: "Trust me on that one per WP:AGF. I do not need to quote my source so you can assess it" and it became apparent he hadn't read all the sources he copy/pasted.
  • The other observations I wish to make 1) I'm the only editor to attempt DR, yet I was banned for lack of collaboration, [12], [13] 2) I am constantly being accused of arguing Jesus didn't exist: ""POV-pushing, fringe and unsourced personal agenda....etc" I don't have an opinion on the historicity of Jesus. The fact that there is no evidence that dates from his time belongs on Wikipedia without being pooh-poohed and downplayed. I also think there are no RS for what "ALL scholars believe". Those are the main two positions I've advocated. Neither is fringe or POV promoting, it is not “forum” to make the case on relevant Talk pages. I am now topic-banned from discussing the validity of a source that mentions religion, regarding an article not directly related to religion Argument from Silence.

There are also multiple false accusations of vandalism, etc. that are on my Talk page. Obviously I haven't been a little angel. But I've been harassed, characterized in unfair and stereotypical ways, and admin treatment has been unequal. So, I'm frustrated. There is an overall atmosphere of vindictiveness, gamesmanship, and stereotyping in these areas. I asked for DR, and then was topic-banned with nobody trying DR first. Humanpublic (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken. I made this request because, among other reasons, I was told it is how I should appeal my topic-ban. Humanpublic (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrators. I can't return to ANI and AN with these points. I would immediately be accused of "forum" and "point" and disruption. There would be an immediate proposal for a site-wide ban. I can't believe you've read through all the threads that are basically popularity contests, understood the atmosphere there, and think I should go back. It needs something not based on quick judgements by the crowd. Humanpublic (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this policy: "If a user in good standing believes that something is part of your topic ban, then it is part of your topic ban, period." You might as well sew a yellow badge on me. Humanpublic (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeppiz

In brief: in the discussion at AN, all admins who commented supported a topic-ban on Humanpublic. Among ordinary users, most supported the topic ban and one was neutral. The only one who opposed it was Humanpublic's pal Strangesad who said AN is a lynch mob [14] and urged Humanpublic to create a sock to evade the topic ban [15]. So either Humanpublic is the victim of gigantic conspiration involving all admins who have looked into his case, or all the admins who have supported a topic -ban on Humanpublic, several of whom suggested a total block, did so for a reason. While individual diffs can be cherrypicked to support either of the two alternatives, I suggest anyone interested in getting the full picture study the discussion about the topic-ban as well as the edits of Humanpublic after the topic-ban. As for the accusations Humanpublic makes about me, I'd point out that my reverts at Jesus simply restored what the source said. At Argument from Silence I actually supported Humanpublic in part, finding the article a bit POV. As is clear from my edit histort, almost all of my edits (luckily) have nothing to do with Humanpublic.Jeppiz (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition As the user who proposed the topic ban at AN, I should add that the topic ban is of course not based on Humanpublic's views, but on Humanpublic's repeated disruption when editing topics related to religion. I'm sorry to say that nothing I've seen after the topic ban was put in place suggests any change. On the contrary, Humanpublic has challenged a lot of (previously) uninvolved admins both on their pages and on his own. This recent edit summary in response to a user who had tried to explain Wikipedia's policies is revealing [16], not to mention this comparison between those who disagree with him and the nazis [17]. Humanpublic is the viction of nothing but the consequences of his repeated breach of WP:CIVIL.Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by History2007

WP:OWB is an interesting essay, and per item 3 there, I will be brief. I did not participate in this user's topic ban discussion; but it was a straightforward case of WP:NOTHERE. This brouhaha is now a case of user doesn't like his topic ban. Given that the account has 47 article edits in 8 months and has been banned and blocked in the process, and has been frankly advised about how Wikipedia operates, OWB item 4 may be a gem as well. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Since Humanpublic is under an editing restriction "Indefinitely banned from making edits related to faith and religion, broadly construed", why is this request even being considered? Surely this is editing on that topic, broadly construed - and an attempt at a "back door" hit at editors HP disagrees with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: I agree that everyone should have the right to appeal a sanction placed against them, but what Humanpublic has filed here is not that appeal, it's a request to open a case against other editors. That's more on the order of an attempt at retribution rather than an appeal. Besides, wouldn't the proper place to appeal a community sanction be to the community, or BASC? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

Humanpublic says above that one of the reasons he's filing this is to appeal his existing topic ban. I guess Humanpublic might not be particularly familiar with ArbCom, but I tend to think that WP:ARCA would be the appropriate venue to request changes to his existing sanctions. John Carter (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by King of Hearts

Just a quick clarification: @Beyond My Ken: Yes, Humanpublic is allowed to appeal his topic ban. However, @John Carter: ARCA is not the correct place; that is for ArbCom-imposed sanctions only. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opine by Hasteur

Just a suggestion, perhaps the only thing the committee needs to deal with is the question about the topic ban being valid and in need of modification. If the ban stands, then the rest of the complaint is moot. If a modification to the ban permits reasonable discussion then the remainder of the complaint can be referred to another DR venue (which would bypass the forum/admin shopping concerns). Either way, a full case is not needed, simply a motion from the committee once they feel enough statements have been presented regarding the topic ban Hasteur (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Jesus: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0/0>

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

  • Decline: this seems to me too blunderbuss, too premature, and with too much of the dispute focusing on content, for us to accept. I suggest unpicking the components and raising each separately at the applicable forum. It will be much easier to deal with this in bite sized pieces.  Roger Davies talk 18:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The potential problem with that is that Humanpublic is currently topic-banned, and for him to raise issues on this subject in any other forum would be in breach of the ban. The triage here is probably to first ask whether Humanpublic has a reasonable objection to his topic-ban. If so, we should proceed to consider the request for arbitration, which might include our referring issues to some other venue. If not, we should decline the case which would close the matter, at least unless and until another user without such a restriction raises the issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - aspects of this may need attention, but arbitration is the wrong venue. Suggest taking Roger's advice. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to Roger's position, I actually think this dispute could be appropriately handled in arbitration, albeit with some of the obvious points of disputed content stripped out. However, the dispute as it stands seems to be in a relatively early stage, and too few attempts have been made to use higher levels of community dispute-resolution. DRN, ANI, and RSN (which are for low-level disputes) have already been used, but other methods of dispute resolution have not. At this point, proceeding to formal mediation or an RFC would be more appropriate than proceeding to arbitration. Decline as premature. AGK [•] 14:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. As noted above, Humanpublic is currently topic-banned from edits regarding faith and religion, which obviously would include edits concerning the historicity and reported miracles of Jesus Christ. On a review of Humanpublic's editing and the topic-ban discussion, the topic-ban seems to be necessary. Many of Humanpublic's edits consist of his pointing out, in articles about Biblical topics, that Biblical events such as the resurrection of Jesus are not possible according to science—thus overlooking that a definition of a miracle in the religious sense is precisely that, an occurrence that is not possible in the everyday world and can only be explained, if it occurred, as an instantiation of the ineffable or divine. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, as well as respect for the common-sense intelligence of our readers, render it unnecessary to point out the scientific inexplicability of (for example) the resurrection of a human being three days dead every time our coverage of the New Testament mentions the Resurrection. Moreover, for us to realize this does not bias the encyclopedia in favor of a Christian point of view, any more than our failure to interpolate "(but of course this is just a silly story and this couldn't possibly have happened)" into every article about a Greek or Roman myth biases the encyclopedia in favor of an Ancient Greek or Roman point of view. For his failure to understand this and related precepts after multiple explanations, and for repeated instances of grossly uncivil commentary and personal attacks, the topic-ban was properly imposed, after a sufficiently thoughtful discussion on the noticeboard. Nothing that Humanpublic has posted above leads me to believe that the necessity for the topic-ban has ended. Therefore, to the extent the request for arbitration can be taken as an appeal from Humanpublic's topic-ban, my vote is to decline. As for the allegations against other editors, I see little evidence of misconduct, and in any event, being topic-banned Humanpublic is in no position to pursue an arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Brad. T. Canens (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Newyorkbrad. NW (Talk) 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine History

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Lecen

Summary of the problem as I see it:

Cambalachero 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. In this instance, the problem has been compounded with the creation and expansion by him of sub-articles to reinforce the appearance of legitimacy to a minority and politically motivated viewpoint. Biographical articles about the aforementioned fascist-linked historians have even been created that give the false impression that they are reliable authors with views that are respected and reflected by mainstream historians.

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: it's the reliability of Wikipedia at stake. I ask the Arbitration Committee to do something to resolve this serious matter. If possible, with topic ban.

To understand who were the Argentine Fascist "Nationalists/Revisionists" and see just a few examples of Cambalachero's conduct when editing articles, see the following topics:

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,[1] anti-Semitic,[2] racist[3] and misogynistic political movement that also supported eugenics.[4] The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of the Argentine Nationalism.[5]

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..."[6] Rosas and his regime served as models of what the Argentine Nationalists wanted for Argentina.[7] This is where the Revisionism came in handy: the Revionists’ main purpose within the Nationalism was to rehabilitate Rosas’ image.[8]

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".[20]
  • Removed "...as dictator" from the sentence "...he governed the country for more than 20 years as dictator".[21]
  • 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".[22]

He tried to convince others from removing anything the he regarded demeaning to Rosas on Platine War's talk page. When no one supported him:

  • Cambalachero removed both the "GA" status from the article and the link to Wikiproject Argentina.[23]
  • He also removed any mention of the Platine War from other articles (removed: "Rosas also declared war on Brazil in late 1851, starting the Platine War, which led to the defeat of the Argentine Confederation by coalition of Entre Ríos, Corrientes, Brazil and Uruguay").[24]

Since he could not change what the article said about Rosas, he tried to remove as many wikilinks he could that led to Platine War. I can give other examples.

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.[9] 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".[25] Cambalachero also created an article called Blood tables to debunke the allegations of political executions.[26] 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[10] and he "was severe in his treatment of slaves, and he favored the lash to keep them obedient and preserve social order."[11] 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."[12] 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".[27] 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".[28] 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?

Examples:

Noleander, who volunteered as WP:3O, said: “article currently contains virtually no mention that many historians consider him a dictator, so some white-washing has been definitely been going on”. He also said: “User Lecen provided very strong sources showing that mainstream historians do consider him a dictator, so using the encyclopedia's voice seems warranted. The other editors (MarshalN20 and Cambalachero) claim that the "he is not a dictator" viewpoint is equally well represented by historians (and thus that the encyclopedia's voice should not be used per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) but when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)”.[29]

Cambalachero gave a lengthy reply. Noleander said in return: “I asked you to provide your 3 or 4 best sources that asserted that Rosas was not a dictator, and you did not provide a single one.” When met with silence Noleander asked: “Once again, for the fifth time, I ask: Can you provide a few reliable sources that state something like: ‘Contrary to what some historians say, Rosas was not a dictator because blah blah ..’? My ‘obfuscate and stonewall’ comment is accurate, because the prior 4 times I've asked that same question, I've received lengthy replies that did not respond to the question. Most recently, immediately above in Cambalachero's reply (where he lists five sources that do not even mention the word ‘dictator’.”[30]

All that Cambalachero could say was that we were “running in circles here”, to which Noleander replied: “No, we are not running in circles. (1) Despite being asked five times, you still have not provided any sources that rebut the numerous modern historians that claim Rosas was a dictator; (2) The sentence in the article you cite (‘There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento ... while José de San Martín ...’) presents the opinions of two of Rosas contemporaries (politicians from the 19th century). The proposed compromise is suggesting adding material based on the analysis of modern, objective historians.”[31]

Finally, after a long time, Cambalachero brought five scholars to back his claims (but he never said what were the pages and from which books were they taken).[32] Who were them? Manuel Galvez (1882-1964), Arturo Jauretche (1901-1974), Ernesto Palacio (1900-1979), Jaime Galvez (unknown birth and death, books published in the 1950s) and Pacho O'Donnell (1941-). All of them are Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists. And four out of five are dead for over 35 years. The only one who is alive (O’Donnell) is not a historian, but a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright.

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

Examples:

I pointed out to Cambalachero that it is written on Wikipedia: Verifiability: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, 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 "[a]lready classic biography of Argentina's most significant caudillo."[13] Daniel K. Lewis regarded it "[a]n outstanding work on the dictator and his historical significance".[14] Michael Goebel said that it is "a classic work about Rosas in English".[15] Donald F. Stevens called it "[t]he essential biography of Rosas by a distinguished historian".[16] Ricardo Piglia regarded it an "excelent account" or Rosas' career.[17]

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.”[33] He single handedly dismissed Lynch’s work and regarded it (based solely on his personal opinion) as “faulty”,[34] full of “contradictions”,[35] the opinions given as “mere political analysis”[36] and accused it of “plagiarism”[37] 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)”.[38]

In fact, Cambalachero considered Lynch’s book “outdated” and for that reason it should be ignored.[39] 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)[reply]

How was Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?

Examples:

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’.”[40] 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.”[41] (p.514)

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

Here is a list of what historians have told about Rosas in the past 25 years (emphasis added):
  1. "Buenos Aires hastened to renominate Rosas as governor. He requested and received renewed dictatorial authority, investing him with the 'plenitude of the public power' (suma del poder público)"; "Throughout the Rosas years... the government made liberal use of terror and assassination. Scores of its opponents perished by throat-cutting at the hands of the mazorca."[18]
  2. "...Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator who dominated Argentine politics from 1829 to 1852.";[19] "More sinister was Rosas' increasing use of terror and violence to impose his will."[20]
  3. "It was no ordinary election, for the new governor was given dictatorial powers...";[21] "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government, to eliminate enemies, to discipline dissidents..."[22]
  4. "...the Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas."[23]
  5. "Juan Manuel de Rosas returns to the governorship of Buenos Aires, establishing a terrorist dictatorship..."[24]
  6. "...but never with the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas. Rosas ruled Buenos Aires from 1829 to 1852..."[25]
  7. "...during the mid-nineteenth-century dictatorship of Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[26]
  8. "The United States did take sides in Argentinian dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas' attempt to conquer Uruguay..."[27]
  9. "...is Juan Manuel de Rosas, the bête noire of lettered Argentines... against the dictator..."[28]
  10. "This group was headed by Rosas, who became dictator of Buenos Aires, and effectively of the whole country. for most of the period between 1829 and 1852. His was a brutal reign in which he asserted..."[29]
  11. "In Buenos Aires, Rosas demanded and received dictatorial powers (la suma de poder público). Any educated man who henceforth thought to dissent risked being daggered by agents of his political police, the Mazorca."[30]
  12. "...drew in Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Buenos Aires."[31]
  13. "...the federale Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[32]
  14. "During Juan Manuel de Rosas' dictatorship, political allies..."[33] and "The dictatorship survived the second blockade as it had the first. Within Buenos Aires province, political terror and propaganda checked all signs of resistance."[34]
  15. "Rosas brutally repressed any opponents. His spies, the police, and the military led a reign of terror. He had housands tortured and killed and many people fled the country."[35]
  16. "...In the city he demanded and received dictatorial powers. Any educated man who henceforth risked voicing a dissident opinion might end up knifed by agents of his political police, the Mazorca."[36]
  17. "The first, written by Rosas himself, shows an angry dictator using force and terror to impose his authority."[37]
  18. "Juan Manuel de Rosas, governor of Buenos Aires, emerged as the undisputed leader in Argentina after about 1829. Rosas was a tyrant..."[38]
  19. "Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Argentina since the 1830s as caudillo of Buenos Aires, its richest province and its major port..."[39]
  20. "Juan Manuel de Rosas's dictatorship saw land grants..."[40]
  21. "Argentina's gaucho dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas, had a natural..."[41]
  22. "[t]rhough his terrorist organization, the Mazorca, Rosas made himself master of the country."[42]
  23. "...costly intervention in Uruguay by Argentine Dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[43]
  24. "...that process from the presidency of Juan Manuel de Rosas, governor and sometime dictator of Buenos Aires province from 1829 to 1852."[44]
  25. "...thanks to the policies of dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas. Rosas used diplomacy, threats, and occasionally military force to monopolize foreign trade..."[45]
  26. "...until the beginning of the dictatorship of Juan Manuel de Rosas in 1829."[46]
  27. "...the era of the nineteenth century Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[47]
  28. "...The federalists ruled even Buenos Aires, in the person of the flamboyant dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas... And when all else failed—or perhaps even before—Rosas applied physical violence to his opponents..."[48]
  29. "...of 19th-century dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas and became..."[49]
  30. "Rosas was elected governor of the province of Buenos Aires in 1829, putting in place an authoritarian regime (and repressing political opponents) ... Rosas used the opportunity to build a powerful dictatorial regime. Backed by the army and his own police force (the mazorca), Rosas managed to hold power until 1852."[50]
  31. "Rosas was re-elected as Governor on 13 April, this time with dictatorial powers ... Rosas would reign supreme in Argentina thereafter until the Battle of Caseros in 1852 creating a secret police force named the Mazorca which punished disloyalty by means of state terrorism. Its most notorious acts were committed during the months of April and May 1842, when, if contemporary accounts are true, the streets of the capital were awash with blood..."[51]
  32. "Under the strong-arm rule of Juan Manuel de Rosas, governor of Buenos Aires and later dictator on and off from 1829 until 1852, Argentina became..."[52]
  33. "...temporarily eclipsed by Rosas' dictatorship..."[53]
  34. "Some of these, such as dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas..."[54]
  35. "...Gorriti's fiction, like that of her contemporaries, is highly romantic and haunted by Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas."[55]
  36. "...against the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas, overthrowing him at the battle of Monte Caseros in 1852, thus thwarting his feared attempt to reestablishing the Viceroyalty of..."[56]
  37. Etc, etc, etc...
References and Bibliography:
  1. ^ Rock 1995, p. 102.
  2. ^ Rock 1995, pp. 104–105, 119.
  3. ^ Rock 1995, pp. 103, 106.
  4. ^ Rock 1995, p. 103.
  5. ^ Rock 1995, p. 120.
  6. ^ Rock 1995, p. 119.
  7. ^ Rock 1995, p. 108.
  8. ^ Johnson 2004, p. 114.
  9. ^ Lynch 2001, p. 118.
  10. ^ Lynch 2001, p. 53.
  11. ^ Lynch 2001, p. 54.
  12. ^ Lynch 2001, p. 56.
  13. ^ Hamill 1992, p. 354.
  14. ^ Lewis 2001, p. 207.
  15. ^ Goebel 2011, p. 18.
  16. ^ Stevens 1998, p. 101.
  17. ^ Piglia 1994, p. 219.
  18. ^ Rock 1987, p. 106.
  19. ^ Shumay 1993, p. 113.
  20. ^ Shumay 1993, p. 120.
  21. ^ Bethell 1993, p. 20.
  22. ^ Bethell 1993, p. 29.
  23. ^ Chevalier 1997, p. 573.
  24. ^ Marley 1998, p. 487.
  25. ^ Rein 1998, p. 73.
  26. ^ King, Whitaker & Bosch 2000, p. 123.
  27. ^ Sondhaus 2001, p. 43.
  28. ^ Rotker 2002, p. 57.
  29. ^ Leuchars 2002, p. 16.
  30. ^ Whigham 2002, p. 53.
  31. ^ Centeno 2002, p. 54.
  32. ^ Posturee 2002, p. 94.
  33. ^ Lewis 2003, p. 47.
  34. ^ Lewis 2003, p. 57.
  35. ^ Link & McCarthy 2004, p. 27.
  36. ^ Kraay & Whigham 2004, p. 188.
  37. ^ Clayton & Conniff 2005, p. 72.
  38. ^ LaRosa & Mejía 2006, p. 82.
  39. ^ Needell 2006, p. 121.
  40. ^ McCloskey & Burford 2006, p. 32.
  41. ^ Lewis 2006, p. 84.
  42. ^ Saeger 2007, p. 27.
  43. ^ Jaques 2007, p. 207.
  44. ^ Tilly 2007, p. 100.
  45. ^ Hodge 2008, p. 43.
  46. ^ Herb & Kaplan 2008, p. 273.
  47. ^ Natella 2008, p. 144.
  48. ^ Chasteen 2008, p. 167.
  49. ^ Bao & Mutić 2008, p. 90.
  50. ^ Edwards 2008, p. 28.
  51. ^ Hooker 2008, p. 15.
  52. ^ Meade 2010, p. 140.
  53. ^ Goebel 2011, p. 24.
  54. ^ Lockard 2011, p. 562.
  55. ^ Ihrie & Oropesa 2011, p. 460.
  56. ^ Prien 2013, p. 313.
  • Bao, Sandra; Mutić, Anja (2008). Buenos Aires: city guide (5 ed.). Lonely Planet. ISBN 1741046998. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Bethell, Leslie (1993). Argentina since independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43376-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Centeno, Miguel Angel (2002). Blood and debt : war and the nation-state in Latin America. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02165-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Chasteen, John Charles (2008). Americanos: Latin America’s Struggle for Independence. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517881-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Chevalier, Tracy (1997). Encyclopedia of the Essay. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. ISBN 1-884964-30-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Clayton, Lawrence A.; Conniff, Michael L. (2005). A History of Modern Latin America (2 ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson Learning Academic Resource Center. ISBN 0-534-62158-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Edwards, Todd L. Argentina: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-85109-986-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Goebel, Michael (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 9781846312380. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Hamill, Hugh M. (1992). Caudillos: Dictators in Spanish America. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8061-2428-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Herb, Guntram H.; Kaplan, David H. (2008). Nations and Nationalism: A Global Historical Overview. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-85109-907-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Ihrie, Maureen; Oropesa, Salvador (2011). World Literature in Spanish: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-33770-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Johnson, Lyman L. (2004). Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-3200-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Hooker, Terry D. (2008). The Paraguayan War. Nottingham: Foundry Books. ISBN 1-901543-15-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • King, John; Whitaker, Sheila; Bosch, Rosa (2000). An Argentine Passion: María Luisa Bemberg and Her Films. ISBN 1-85984-308-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kraay, Hendrik; Whigham, Thomas (2004). I die with my country: perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864–1870. Dexter, Michigan: Thomson-Shore. ISBN 978-0-8032-2762-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • LaRosa, Michael J.; Mejia, German R. (2007). An Atlas and Survey of Latin American History. New York: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-1597-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lewis, Daniel K. (2003). The History of Argentina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-6254-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lewis, Paul H. (2006). Authoritarian Regimes in Latin America: Dictators, Despots, And Tyrants. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0-4725-3739-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Leuchars, Chris (2002). To the bitter end: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32365-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Link, Theodore; McCarthy, Rose (2004). Argentina: A Primary Source Cultural Guide. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8239-3997-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lockard, Craig A. (2011). Societies, Networks, and Transitions. Vol. 3. Boston, Massachusetts: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-1-4390-8534-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lynch, John (2001). Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas (2 ed.). Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books. ISBN 0-8420-2897-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Marley, David. Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-837-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • McCloskey, Erin; Burford, Tim (2006). Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide. Guilford, Connecticut: The Globe Pequot Press. ISBN 1-84162-138-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Meade, Teresa A. (2010). A History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to the Present. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-2050-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Natella, Arthur A. (2008). Latin American Popular Culture. Jefferson, North Carolina: Macfarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-3511-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Needell, Jeffrey D. (2006). The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831–1871. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5369-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Piglia, Ricardo (1994). Artificial Respiration. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-1426-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Posturee, Bad (2002). Understanding Holocausts: How, Why and When They Occur. Lincoln, Nebraska: Writers Club Press. ISBN 0-595-23838-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Prien, Hans-Jürgen (2013). Christianity in Latin America. ISBN 978-90-04-22262-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Rein, Mónica Esti (1998). Politics and Education in Argentina: 1946-1962. New York: M. E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-0209-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Rock, David (1987). Argentina, 1516-1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06178-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Rock, David (1995). Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History and Its Impact. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20352-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Rotker, Susana (2002). Captive Women: Oblivion and Memory in Argentina. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-4029-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Saeger, James Schofield (2007). Francisco Solano López and the Ruination of Paraguay: Honor and Egocentrism. Estover Road, Plymoth: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-3754-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Shumay, Nicolas (1993). The Invention of Argentina. Los Angeles: University of Californa Press. ISBN 0-520-08284-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Sondhaus, Lawrence (2001). Naval Warfare, 1815-1914. Lane, London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-21447-7. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Stevens, Donald F. (1997). Based on a True Story: Latin American History at the Movies. Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books. ISBN 0-8420-2781-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Tilly, Charles (2007). Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521701538. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Whigham, Thomas L. (2002). The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct. Vol. 1. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-4786-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Reply to SilkTork: We are not talking in here about two legitimate points of views (even if opposing point of views). We are talking in here about a user who has written several articles based on Fascists authors. It would be the same as if we look at American Civil War and find out that the U.S. South fought for freedom and slaves were happy to be slaves. Or that Hitler was a democrat and that no Jews were killed. What Cambalachero is doing it not presenting an alternative point of view. He is pushing an agenda. If the Arbitration request is accepted, I'll be able to show how Cambalachero has been working all along. Proposing a mediation won't work. He won't accept it. He didn't accept it the first time, he won't do it now. He may even say that he will, only to drop out again. The Arbcom has to decide whether or not someone is allowed to ruin Wikipedia's reputation. All I'm asking is to have the request accepted. Once that occurs, if the Arbcom decides that Fascist sources are acceptable to corrupt several articles across Wikipedia, then it's fine. I won't bother anyone any longer. But the Arbcom cannot clean its own hands and ignore such a grave matter. Lecen (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
We have been though this before. Lecen posts a giant report that goes in all the myriad ways, I try to answer to all the myriad ways mentioned, and the result becomes an unmanageable WP:TLDR. The huge block of text that Lecen has just posted surely goes way beyond the pair of points requested. So, I will halt the discussion here: if a member of the Arbcom requests me to answer to that huge text, I will do it. If they consider it to be too long, dispersed or focused in content rather than user misconduct, I will wait for Lecen to fix it, and then answer. By the way, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me an Holocaust denier. Cambalachero (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the case was accepted, I will reply to the things Lecen has been saying. It will get a bit too long, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. As it has not been selected which of all the points raised by Lecen will be mediated, I will answer all. It may be helpful if the administrators propose to narrow the discussion into specific topics.

First things first: I’m aware that, in English casual speaking, "revisionism" is usually associated to the denial of the Holocaust in nazi Germany. Lecen’s constant mentions of nazism may reinforce the idea. But no, that’s a misunderstanding. Historical revisionism is itself a tool of historiographic studies, part of its scientific method, which can be misused or used correctly (in the neonazi case, misused, if even used at all and not taken as an excuse). Each case must be considered separately. And another thing: check the dates. Lecen began this discussion on last December, but keeps pointing to things that happened 4 years ago during a good article review. He loves to say that things have been going on for years, but that is false. I’m amazed that he has hold a grudge for so much time about something that even I had already forgot about... and worse, a grudge for a discussion that actually ended the way he wanted it to end. To keep things shorter, I will avoid the outdated discussions (but I can explain them if so required). And third: the name "History of Argentina" was selected as a better name than one with users, to avoid the confrontation tone, but the discussions have always been specifically about Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles (check the links in "other steps" at the begining). We have never discussed about articles on other time periods of Argentina.

Argentine nationalism vs. German nationalism

"it was the Argentine national equivalent to Nazism (in Germany)..." Stop. Hold the phone there. Argentine and German nationalisms are in no way comparable. In 1930, Germany was a world power, with centuries of history and a clear and defined idea of nationhood and national identity. Argentina, on the other hand, was only an emerging power, which had only one century of history, a century with ever-changing national limits during a long civil war, and most of the population died during that conflict and the void was replaced by a great immigrantion wave of Europeans. Argentine nationalism was a very weak ideology, it was more whishful thinking than something with tangible effects. Just compare the results: the 1930s German nationalist began the highest genocide and the biggest war in human history. The 1930s Argentine nationalism began the coup d’etat of José Félix Uriburu... that only lasted for a year and half, before having to call to elections and hand government to his political enemy, Agustín Pedro Justo.

Misuse of the term "fascist" and similar ones

Specifically talking about historians, the main problem of Lecen approach is that it is a huge association fallacy: "X was revisionist, X was also fascist, therefore all revisionists are fascists" (Note as well that he uses "nationalist", "fascist" and "nazi" as if they were synonyms; see Fascist (insult)). For example: the revisionist and fascist Leopoldo Lugones wrote "The Hour of the Sword" ("La hora de la espada"), calling for a military coup against president Hipólito Yrigoyen, setting a comparison between it and the military victory at the battle of Ayacucho. Reprovable. Should we consider Lugones an unreliable author because of having such reprobable political ideas? Perhaps. But even if we agree on that, why should we extend the concept to Emilio Ravignani, who warned that history should not be used for apology of modern dictatorships, or to Gálves, who rejected the coup of Uriburu? Or to make it closer in time: Lecen has mentioned as well the author Pacho O’Donnell, author of a recent best-seller biography of Rosas. May I ask for a source that specifically describes Pacho O’Donnell as fascist or nazi? Or, in the other direction, Adolfo Saldías wrote the "History of the Argentine Confederation" in 1881. Will we call him a fascist too... a fascist from 3 decades before fascism itself existed? To make it clear and to the point: I have no problem in banning nazi authors with a confirmed nazi ideology (such as Hugo Wast, I don’t even have his books anyway). But on a case-by-case basis, and with specific discussion. A rationale "everyone who did not say that Rosas was a monster is a nazi/fascist/nationalist/neonazi" is completely out of place.

Academic acceptance

As for the idea itself of revisionism, there are two aspects to it: the academic and the cultural. Don’t mix them. The academic aspect was: the historiography of Rosas written so far was not reliable because of ignoring important primary sources, and using others without taking the biases of the time into account. Did they do that with a political agenda? It does not matter, not for the scientific approach, same as we did not reject the first photo of the far side of the Moon because of being taken by communists. If they have a sound point, it is accepted regardless of other contexts. Let’s put an specific example: Lecen mentioned the blood tables, a report of deaths that took place during Rosas’ rule, written by a political enemy of Rosas. A lot of time ago, it was accepted as a legitimate source, and even republished and used as school textbook. Lecen says that, according to Lynch, there were 2,000 deaths and that I’m downplaying that by citing authors who say that the Blood Tables are not reliable. The link to the book is below (it breaks the "hidden" template if placed here). Go to page 117. Let me quote: "It is impossible to quantify the terror under Rosas. Contemporaries attempted to do so, but the results were flawed by bias and error. The so-called tables of blood compiled by the journalist Rivera Indarte listed 5,884 victims of terror and 16,520 killed in military action. These opposition" figures are probably too high and fail to discriminate between delinquents and victims of political persecution, between legal punishments and assasinations". The 2,000 deaths that Lecen cites are in the following page: they do not come from a specific primary source that Lynch trusts, but from a speculation: an educated speculation, but a speculation nonetheless. Lynch even points that "these were not mass murders". As you see, Lecen is openly misquoting sources here. He mentions 2,000 deaths as a confirmed fact supported by Lynch and that those deaths are being denied by revisionists authors at the "blood tables" articles, but it happens that (according to Lynch himself) the blood tables listed 22,404 deaths, a difference of 20,000 deaths, and says exactly the same thing: that the report is biased and unreliable. Smith and Rosa do not say that there were no deaths, they say that they were not the 22,404 claimed by Indarte, and Lynch agrees. How many deaths were then? Nobody knows for sure: Lynch speculates a number, and the others prefer not to speculate. The same thing goes for most other things pointed by revisionists. The whole thing is detailed in Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas and Juan Manuel de Rosas#Criticism and historical perspective. Lecen claims that those articles are biased "to reinforce the appearance of legitimacy" of revisionism, but have a closer look. Except for Pepe Rosa, whose book is used as the source of a quotation, all the authors cited in those articles or sections and all the important claims are made by foreign authors, or by non-revisionist Argentines, such as Félix Luna or Fernando Devoto. If it seems as if revisionism has been accepted and incorporated into the mainstream history, is because that is precisely what has happened. Note that the quotes that Lecen took here talk about the political ideas of the 1930s historians, but they never actually say that their research was faulty or flawed, or that it was rejected. Perhaps because that is beyond the scope of David Rock’s book, which is about the 1930s nationalism and not about the historiography of Argentina.

Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas

Acceptance of Rosas as a national hero

The other approach of revisionism was trying to promote Rosas as a national hero. That is not a topic of historiography, but a topic of culture, it uses history but it is not history in itself. Rosas is currently considered a national hero of Argentina, and have most of the homages usually associated to such heroes, such as monuments, national days and even his face in currency banknotes. Is there fascism involved? No. First, Rosas himself was no fascist, fascism did not even exist back in the 1830s.Yes, there was an attempt by fascists revisionists to promote Rosas as a national hero, but it was a complete failure. They succedded in pointing the flaws of the history of Rosas as it was understood so far, but failed to change the popular perception of Rosas. Lecen detailed it himself at the "How was Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?" section. As of 1961, Rosas was not seen as a national hero: the acceptance of the work done by the 1930s historians was limited to the academics in their ivory towers. The popular acceptance of Rosas came in the 1970s, part of a different and unrelated movement. Both movements saw Rosas as a role model, but for completely different reasons: in the 1930s it was mainly because of his conservatism, religosity and strict observance of the law. In the 1970s it was mainly because of his economic protectionism, his popular support and the victories against the British and French blockades.

Modern academic vision

How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians? Good question. I have pointed some info at Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas#Modern times. Lecen claims the existence of a certain academic consensus against Rosas. But as I pointed in my initial post, according to policies and guidelines (such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Academic consensus), 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 Wikipedia users. When requested and insisted for such a source, Lecen tried to derail the conversation. And here... once more, he tries to answer to that question cherry-picking quotes from books and proposing his personal assesment, evading to bring a source as those that policies require.

The word "dictator"

The word "dictator" is not absent from the article: the "second government" section already points "There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento compared Rosas with historical dictators, while José de San Martín considered that the situation in the country was so chaotic that a strong authority was needed to create order".

Slaves

As for the slaves, I don’t really understand which is the problem. Lecen pointed that Rosas owned slaves when he was a rancher, I accepted the point and added it to the article myself (see below the template). I told at the talk page that I added that mention, and the discussion ended. So what is he reporting? As I said in my answer, those were 2 different stages of Rosas’ life. If he wanted more clarifications, he should have continued the discussion and say why didn’t he find my addition good enough.

Here I added the info.

Language of sources

The policy says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Lecen reads it as if that means that non-English sources have no space in Wikipedia. Which is not the case. The key words are "assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Juan Manuel de Rosas, an Argentine governor of the XIX century, is not a topic of universal interest, but local interest. In topics of universal interest (such as astronomy, biology, medicine, chemistry, etc) it makes complete sense to give priority to English-language sources. Only Argentines are deeply interested in the details of the history of Rosas, so it is not surprising that the bulk of the historiographical work regarding Rosas comes from Argentina. Lynch points so in the prologue of his book: Rosas is all forgotten in the English-speaking world. His bibliography at the end of the book seem to confirm it: most authors mentioned are Argentine ones.

Astynax

As for the other editors that joined the arbitration, The ed17 and MarshalN20 have mentioned their previous involvement in it. Astynax forgot to do so: he is a supporter of Lecen in this discussion, and even helped him to draft the report that Lecen gave. See User talk:Astynax/Archive 11#Juan Manuel de Rosas (the second thread with that name, the link may go to the first one). He’s not an editor "who also wrote more than a dozen FAs", if you check them, most of them are ’the same’ FAs. They have worked toguether for years. There’s nothing wrong in that, but as it is needed to point that MarshalN20 has supported me in some previous discussions, so has Astynax done for Lecen.

Move requests

As for the move requests, I have all South American wikiprojects in my watchlist, and check for any automated report about things going on with some article, and say something when I can help. This rationale that "he has never edited the article" seems completely novel, move requests are made precisely to request the attention of editors who are not the regular editors (besides, being a regular editor does not confer any special right over an article). But note that, although I did not work very much with John VI of Portugal and Farroupilha Revolution as Cristiano points, neither did Lecen. He had edited Jon VI only 2 times before the move request (january 2011) and only 18 times the Revolution one (but, in a closer look, most of those 18 entries are just vandalism revert, move logs and trivial corrections, he hardly added any substantive content). Links below.

Lecen's edits to John VI of Portugal and Lecen's edits to the Farroupilha Revolt

Featured articles do not give priviledges

As for Lecen’s featured articles, it was already pointed that having a number of featured articles does not give a special status of an editor over another. I do not have that many featured articles because I edit articles on a broader scope: history, politics, geography, television, etc. As you can see in the links below, I have made almost the double of total edits during our stay in Wikipedia, and almost to eightfold unique articles. That does not mean that I’m better or worse than him, it just mean that we work in Wikipedia with different approaches. It also means that neither of us is a novice or newcomer. And there’s a detail that should be considered: all those featured articles that he wrote are about obscure topics for the English-speaking world, and hardly anyone besides him is interested in working with them. I’m not saying that on a derogatory sense: the same thing goes for almost all South American related articles (including the ones that I have created or expanded). All those articles have been made by Lecen and other users supporting him with copyediting or working with images. I’m saying this to point that, despite of his number of featured articles, Lecen has little experience in working toguether with someone pointing flaws in the content of his articles. His approach has been rather poor: instead of trying to work toguether, or talk about things, he tries to get me out of the way, to work alone as he always done. I have pointed that in my initial post: Lecen began to ask for mediation before any actual discussion or article editing took place, began threads on article content only as an excuse to request mediation and left them at the second or third reply, focusing on the "get Cambalachero out of here" focus, and moving to other venues each time he could not get consensus for his outlandish request.

Edit count for Cambalachero Edit count for Lecen

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)[reply]

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 [talk] [majestic titan] 07:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lecen, Roger Davies. While I think Lecen knows that these sources aren't allowed on the English Wikipedia 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 [talk] [majestic titan] 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@declining arbs. Please note that Lecen just attempted to begin a second round of mediation, but it was quickly declined by one of the parties. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies. "... can easily be handled by one of the usual noticeboards." Really? You think something this complex can be handled at ANI? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from MarshalN20

This arbitration request should not be accepted. Please allow me to, briefly state why:

  • Background: I participated in the dispute between Cambalachero and Lecen in the Juan Manuel de Rosas article. My attempt was to serve as a mediator to both parties, but (along the way) drifted towards Cambalachero's position. I have continuously attempted to help both editors productively focus their work on the article, but (for the most part) they spend their time having tedious discussions on the article's talk page (more similar to a WP:FORUM than anything else). Most of these discussions are caused by Lecen, who uses ad hominem attacks on Cambalachero and the sources of Cambalachero.
  • Why this case should not be accepted: Lecen has done next to nothing to refute Cambalachero in the article itself. As Cambalachero notes, Lecen has a clear intent to WP:OWN the article and edit it as he likes it and without input from any other editor (especially an editor who holds a distinct point of view from his). For example, after Cambalachero edited parts of the article that Lecen had previously edited (see [42]), Lecen decided to revert all changes both he and Cambalchero had done on the article (see [43]); I disagreed with Lecen, restored the article and improved it (see [44]), and then Lecen again decided to remove everything (see [45]). This "incident" went on for a couple of more edits.
  • Recommendation: Both editors need to work out this problem on their own. Lecen needs to accept that Wikipedia is a group project (which, at times, will involve him working with people of different viewpoints to his). If Cambalachero does have nationalist intentions to whitewash Argentine history, the best way to overcome his position is by using better sources in the article. The WP:BRD process needs to take effect prior to anything else.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am flattered by the attention provided to me by Cristiano. I would reciprocate the action, but hold little interest in him.
All of Cristiano's statement is a well-crafted lie. Here is why:
  1. My first comment on Juan Manuel de Rosas' talk page ([46]) was not taking anyone's side. In fact, I proposed the usage of the term "Caudillo", which neither Lecen nor Cambalachero had proposed. Subsequent comments further expanded on the importance of the term "Caudillo" ([47]). It was later, when it became apparent that Lecen was unwilling to reach consensus, that I began backing Cambalachero.
  2. The Platine War article name, merge discussions revolve around ambiguity and the name's lack of usage. Cambalachero proposed the article to be merged with Battle of Caseros. I never agreed with Cambalachero. Instead, I proposed that the article should be renamed to Guerra Grande. Lecen did not approve of my proposal, and Cambalachero also did not support it beyond a statement explaining how the new name could help resolve the naming issue. Most oppose votes came from mostly random (some not) Brazilian editors.
  3. The War of the Triple Alliance is a different story. Lecen blatantly manipulated the first move request (that got the article's name changed to "Paraguayan War") with false Google Books results. I noted the error on the talk page, then moved it back to "War of the Triple Alliance". When the move was challenged, I made a request. The number of votes favoring the move was superior, but the closing administrator sided with the Brazilian editors. This arbitrary decision even led to a second minor discussion ([48]).
  4. The Third Opinion request ended up in favor of my proposal. Lecen ignores it. Cambalachero was also not too happy with it, because (again) his view differs from mine.
  5. The FAC request for Uruguayan War came up on my watchlist for WP Military History ([49]). My comment on it is not an oppose.
Cristiano's awfully long analysis seeks to invent a "problematic behavior" that does not exist. These different events took place over months, during which all users spent time doing different things. That we meet every now and then in South American history articles (more specifically, multinational history articles) is not surprising, given that we are all interested on South American history.
However, what Cristiano fails to note is that none of these "discussions" take place when each of the editors are involved in their respective regions (Lecen working on solely Brazilian matters, Cambalachero working on Argentina, and me working on western Andean articles or the Falklands).
In fact, it is Lecen that continues to have behavior problems, mainly WP:OWN (see [50]), even while working on Brazilian articles.
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, Lecen writes this snarky brag about the ArbComm case: "You were able to convince them when I and everyone else failed. Thank you." ([51]).
As I wrote in NY Brad's talk space ([52]), if this case will also take a look at Lecen's behavior, then I am certainly looking forward to it.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Astynax

Although Lecen has focused on a specific article in the case above, it is a mistake to be distracted into seeing this as a content dispute. The removal of material that reflects the mainstream view of reliable sources, and substituting a fringy or minority viewpoint supported by fringy or minority sources (if the change is even cited or correctly summarizes the sources at all), has occurred on multiple occasions in multiple articles. Other editors of other and less familiar subjects (politics, religion, science, etc.) regularly do the same: an exasperating situation in which dispute resolution too often seems unable or unwilling to resolve except when a disruptive editor slips up and commits a 3RR. What I believe Lecen is reporting is not a content dispute. Although MarshalN20 seemingly sees Lecen's attempted to edit the poorly and inadequately sourced Rosas article (and others) as some sort of vindictive reversion, what actually happened was a purge of Lecen's attempt to introduce better sources and more accurate reporting of what reliable sources actually say. Nor does demanding editor consensus before improvements are made trump policy's insistence that articles reflect mainstream reliable sources in a way that reflects due weight, nor does it prevent removal of unsourced or badly sourced material in favor of material supported by mainstream sources. Ignoring policy and refusing to get the point is not a matter of content, it is disruptive behavior (I have seen constructive contributors drop out when this same behavior goes on very long). I think the illustration comparing a hypothetical neo-Nazi editor who doggedly insists upon using skinhead sources to edit an article to cast Hitler in a more favorable light and to remove any edits that conflict with that view is both germane and the heart of Lecen's complaint. • Astynax talk 10:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jehochman

Accept per NuclearWarfare. When reliable editors request help with a purported behavioral problem affecting content, ArbCom should be ready to help. Sometimes it can be nearly impossible on a thinly trafficked article to get sufficient opinions by the uninvolved to counteract a persistent POV pusher. If the content problem are obscure or the POV pusher is skillful, the denizens of WP:ANI won't spot the problem with a quick look. We need the more thoughtful and deliberate approach of ArbCom to sort out the problem. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker, "try mediation again"? Again? Are you serious? If the process fails because one party doesn't want it to work, sending them back to try again sounds futile. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an issue of stalking and harassment. [53][54] Editors previously uninvolved in a process follow another editor there in order to give him a hard time. Since the problem has festered unresolved, it is incumbent upon the arbitrators to take a closer look. Jehochman Talk 19:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that this dispute has been spreading like kudzu to multiple pages. My very own talk page was blemished with Nazi innuendos, which were removed[55] by a passing editor. Jehochman Talk 11:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cristiano Tomás

About MarshalN20 and Cambalachero: MarshalN20 said in here: “My attempt was to serve as a mediator to both parties, but (along the way) drifted towards Cambalachero's position.” This is not what happened. In his very first post on Rosas’ talk page regarding the present dispute he clearly took Cambalachero’s side arguing that the article should not use the term “dictator”.[56] His second and third posts are also supportive of Cambalachero.[57][58] I couldn’t find a single moment where MarshalN20 tried to place himself as a neutral arbiter. All his remaining posts are equally supportive of Cambalachero. And even if he had tried to present himself as a neutral arbiter, he shouldn’t have tried to. Checking the history of the relation between MarshalN20 and Lecen and Cambalachero reveals that MarshalN20 always, without exception, stood by the side of Cambalachero against Lecen. During Cambalachero’s several attempts to get rid of the article Platine War (see his reasons on Lecen’s post above), Marshal N20 always supported him. When Cambalachero asked the article to be merged with another, there was MarshalN20 supporting him (and opposing Lecen). [59][60] (April 2012). Then, when Cambalachero tried to rename the article MarshalN20 again supported him (and again opposed Lecen): [61]

It seems MarshalN20 first met Lecen when the latter successfully requested the move of Paraguayan War. MarshalN20 opposed it (back in October 2011).[62] He then changed the name of the article to the one he liked the most (ignoring the previous move request and not requesting a new move request):[63] Then he finally made a move request.[64] It was not successful. It seems that MarshalN20 and Cambalachero’s friendship began here. Cambalachero sided with MarshalN20 and opposed Lecen:[65] Something that I noticed: it Cambalachero had never edited on Paraguayan War until the move request that Lecen opposed (January 2012). Neither had MarshalN20 had ever edited on Platine War when there was the move request that Lecen opposed (April 2012).

Now let’s return to the present discussion. Enough with time travel. As mentioned earlier, MarshalN20 opposed Lecen during the discussion in Rosas’ talk page. To be more precisely, during the 3O (Third Opinion) request. In the dispute resolution noticeboard MarshalN20 again opposed Lecen and supported Cambalachero. In fact, he was very clear: “As a Latin American historian, I completely agree with Cambalachero.”[66] When Lecen opened a RfC and added both Cambalachero and MarshalN20’s names as the other party MarshalN20 repeatedly modified Lecen’s post (which, as far as I know, it’s not acceptable) claiming that: “You have no right to use my username in association with the ideas of another Wikipedian [Cambalachero]”. [67] He also said: “You cannot force another person's [Cambalachero] point of view as my point of view”.[68] That’s the same MarshalN20 who said that he “completely agree[d]” with Cambalachero.

Sometime later, Lecen nominated the article Uruguayan War as a F.A.C. Even though MarshalN20 had never edited the article, had never edited its talk page and as far as I know, had never bothered to review any FAC before, there he was. And there he was to oppose Lecen’s nomination.[69] Not surprisingly, he did that after Cambalachero also opposed the nomination just a little earlier.[70] Cambalachero had never edited the article nor its talk page.

Cambalachero’s sudden appearance on articles closely related to Lecen (Platine War, Paraguayan War and Uruguayan War) which he had never edited before is not new and they aren’t the only ones. On John VI of Portugal[71] (January 2012) and Farroupilha Revolution[72] (September 2012) Cambalachero supported move requests that Lecen opposed. Notice that on both cases there were discussions occurring where Lecen opposed a name proposed. Cambalachero then simply made the move requests even though he had never edited these articles nor their talk pages before (and was not taking part on the aforementioned discussions).

Are there sudden appearances over the years by both Cambalachero and MarshalN20 on articles which neither had ever edited before (nor demonstrated any interest) always to cause complications to Lecen considered “okay”? Why they began after Lecen realized that there was something very wrong about how Cambalachero edited the articles related to Argentine history?

For all I showed above the Administrators should really think again about whether or not they should accept the request for Arbitration. We are not talking in here merely about content dispute. We are talking about two users (Cambalachero and MarshalN20) with (at least) a problematic behavior. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

A related SPI has been filed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambalachero. --Rschen7754 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Argentine History: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/3/1/2>

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)[reply]
    • Decline at this stage, per the comments below. Particularly at this stage, an arbitration case is not the best way to resolve this dispute. I generally agree with the comments below, and I also still think this issue could benefit from the participation of some additional, knowledgeable editors with subject-matter expertise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reevaluating; can we please keep the request open for another day or two? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accept given recent developments and comments. Aspects of this dispute may still turn out to be too content-based for us to resolve (based not only on the scope of the Committee's "remit" but equally importantly on our lack of subject-matter expertise), but our decisions establish that there does come a point where what start out as content issues become conduct ones. We can't yet decide whether any editor's editing has reached that point here, but the situation is worth our taking a look at. To all concerned, please note that our voting to take the case is not a criticism of or adverse finding as to any editor; our acceptance of a request for arbitration is the beginning, not the end, of a process. The Committee would benefit from informed participation by uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise at the evidence and workshopping stages, on the question of whether the allegations of use of highly disreputable and unreliable sources, quotation of Spanish-language sources incompletely or out of context, and the like appear to have merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @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 talk 18:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 talk 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline. Having looking through the additional material, this is primarily a content dispute though a very convoluted one. Any remedial action - say interaction restrictions or topic bans should they prove necessary - can easily be handled by one of the usual noticeboards.  Roger Davies talk 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. AGK [•] 23:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I'm seeing this as a content dispute. Both editors have worked on the Juan Manuel de Rosas article since 2009, and there is disagreement over the content, and the two parties have been discussing the matter. Sometimes it can be difficult to reach a solution; however, it is not ArbCom's place to make a decision on content. ArbCom looks into conduct disputes, and I'm not seeing where there are conduct issues. There has been a suggestion that Lecen is gaming the system to get what he wants, though when a user is raising a concern and not getting satisfaction, it is entirely appropriate to go to the next level. I note that Cambalachero became inactive at the start of the mediation request, and became active again when the request was closed. That is an unfortunate coincidence, but it happens. As Cambalachero is active again now, perhaps another attempt at Formal mediation could be tried? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed and reaffirm decline. Until the claims of deliberate fringe pushing are 1) affirmed by an examination of the claims by the community, and 2) the community then finds they are unable to make a decision as to what to do, this is not an ArbCom case. Too many cases are coming to ArbCom that could be resolved by the community. I'd like to see the day when ArbCom is no longer needed because the community's dispute resolution procedures are working efficiently. We can assist that process by identifying situations which the community can handle, and rejecting those requests. Too much this year we have been accepting cases which can be dealt with by the community, and that erodes the community's confidence and ability to tackle cases themselves. I am also uncomfortable that we would consider accepting cases on a hierarchical system where concerns raised by FA contributors are taken more seriously than concerns raised by other members of the community. We should accept cases based on a judgement of the disruption to the community because of an inability for the community to resolve the matter, rather than on who is raising the concern.SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless at least one other editor is willing to state that they agree with Lecen's statement, I am inclined to decline the request. The Committee can and should be willing to address serious breaches of content policy, but right now I have no way to fairly evaluate whether any breaches have occurred. NW (Talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept It is a minority position at this point, sure, but when two editors who have both contributed multiple featured articles to the encyclopedia are saying that an editor is strongly pushing a fringe point of view, I think it is incumbent upon us to not just push it off because it seems like it would be too hard to resolve the dispute. NW (Talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=547524424"