Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeppiz (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 26 March 2013 (→‎Statement by Jeppiz). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Malayalam cinema industry hub   26 March 2013 {{{votes}}}
Jesus   25 March 2013 {{{votes}}}
Parts of Jerusalem that are geographically in North West Jerusalem   23 March 2013 {{{votes}}}
Argentine History   16 March 2013 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 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 {Party 2}

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 <0/0/0/0>

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]

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].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 <0/3/0/0>

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]

Parts of Jerusalem that are geographically in North West Jerusalem

Initiated by TiberiasTiberias (talk) at 17:23, 23 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

Ramot is geographically in North West Jerusalem, although politically some consider it East Jerusalem. I believe this statement shows 2 different issues, one geographically and one politically. I understand politically some consider it to be Est Jerusalem, but also understand many do not. That is why politically I show both points of view - some consider it political East Jerusalem and some do not.

Even the ones who consider it East Jerusalem for political purposes can see on a map that is it geographically both North and West Jerusalem. When I get in a cab with a Palestinian/Arab/Muslim cab driver and tell him to take me to East Jerusalem, he will not take he anywhere near Ramot. Even the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim people who actually live in Jerusalem, know geographically the difference between East Jerusalem and North West Jerusalem.

There are many sources calling Ramot "East Jerusalem" and there are many calling it "NorthWest Jerusalem" also.

Here is a link from a Pro-Palestinian website describing Ramot as "Located northwest of Jerusalem city."

Here is a link from the Jerusalem Municipality - Ramot "marks the north-west boundary of the city"

Wikipedia defines East Jerusalem as "East Jerusalem or Eastern Jerusalem refer to the parts of Jerusalem captured and annexed by Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War[citation needed] and then captured and annexed by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War". Ramot does not fall into that definition. It was never captured nor annexed by Jordan. It was not captured and annexed by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. It was a demilitarized zone. It would seem that Ramot was never East Jerusalem.


Statement by {Party 1}

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Parts of Jerusalem that are geographically in North West Jerusalem : Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/1/1>

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

  • Comment: This appears to be a pure content dispute, and might better be addressed by a third opinion or some form of mediation. Unless subsequent commenters can show that there is a behavioural element to this disagreement, I will likely decline. Risker (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Please see Risker's advice on how to proceed through the appropriate dispute resolution channels. NW (Talk) 23:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Risker and NuclearWarfare. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Risker and NW. Also note that this area is already under discretionary sanctions, and if there are any conduct issues, they should be first brought to WP:AE. T. Canens (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. It is possible that TiberiasTiberias has not yet completed his case request because at the moment it's mainly a background statement regarding Ramot, and there's little indication as to what user behaviour we should be looking at. Having looked at the article history and the talkpage, I can see that there has been some difficulty in indicating both the political status and geographical location of Ramot, and that editors are still working toward a workable solution. However, I don't see any user misconduct, so I'm declining at the moment - but will re-examine if I have misunderstood the situation, and some evidence for user misconduct is presented when/if TiberiasTiberias completes the case request. Meanwhile, that some editors disagree with a proposed wording is not reason for an Arbitration Committee case. I suggest engaging in more discussion on the talkpage, and - as Risker and NW indicate above - getting some assistance from neutral editors if discussion becomes deadlocked. I would say that if asking for assistance, the key focus would be on if "northern East Jerusalem" is an appropriate term to use. The term is used in six Wikipedia articles so would have an impact beyond just the Ramot article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as content dispute. Courcelles 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. (But for what it's worth, I agree with the comments above.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, content dispute WormTT(talk) 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: content dispute.  Roger Davies talk 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per the above. Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Arbitration proceedings would not help this dispute. I suggest the disputants try formal mediation. AGK [•] 14:38, 26 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".[19]
  • Removed "...as dictator" from the sentence "...he governed the country for more than 20 years as dictator".[20]
  • 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".[21]

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.[22]
  • 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").[23]

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".[24] Cambalachero also created an article called Blood tables to debunke the allegations of political executions.[25] 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".[26] 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".[27] 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)”.[28]

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’.”[29]

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.”[30]

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).[31] 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.”[32] He single handedly dismissed Lynch’s work and regarded it (based solely on his personal opinion) as “faulty”,[33] full of “contradictions”,[34] the opinions given as “mere political analysis”[35] and accused it of “plagiarism”[36] 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)”.[37]

In fact, Cambalachero considered Lynch’s book “outdated” and for that reason it should be ignored.[38] 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’.”[39] 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.”[40] (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]

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, or "convoluted" in your view, 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 [41]), Lecen decided to revert all changes both he and Cambalchero had done on the article (see [42]); I disagreed with Lecen, restored the article and improved it (see [43]), and then Lecen again decided to remove everything (see [44]). 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]

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, a quick look by 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 very sadistic. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an issue of stalking and harassment. [45][46] 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]

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”.[47] His second and third posts are also supportive of Cambalachero.[48][49] 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). [50][51] (April 2012). Then, when Cambalachero tried to rename the article MarshalN20 again supported him (and again opposed Lecen): [52]

It seems MarshalN20 first met Lecen when the latter successfully requested the move of Paraguayan War. MarshalN20 opposed it (back in October 2011).[53] 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):[54] Then he finally made a move request.[55] It was not successful. It seems that MarshalN20 and Cambalachero’s friendship began here. Cambalachero sided with MarshalN20 and opposed Lecen:[56] 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.”[57] 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]”. [58] He also said: “You cannot force another person's [Cambalachero] point of view as my point of view”.[59] 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.[60] Not surprisingly, he did that after Cambalachero also opposed the nomination just a little earlier.[61] 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[62] (January 2012) and Farroupilha Revolution[63] (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]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Thanks. I think so renaming this case request is for the best. AGK [•] 11:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine History: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/5/1/3>

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Decline and encourage all parties to try the mediation route once again. Anyone who thinks that mediation might be time-consuming hasn't been involved in an arbitration case. Risker (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per SilkTork and Risker. Kirill [talk] 01:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per same lines as SilkTork and Risker. Courcelles 15:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • NW's point is well taken. I can go with accepting this and not having it boomerang back in our laps six months from now, still causing problems. Courcelles 01:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Risker's thoughts match mine exactly. WormTT(talk) 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Mediation needs to be tried (again) before arbitration. It would help if others as well as Lecen and Cambalachero helped to assess what is going on here, to make this less adversarial than it seems to be at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following further statements, am switching to accept for this request. Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per NW. T. Canens (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=547133334"