Case clerk: Hahc21 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Timotheus Canens ( Talk) & Kirill Lokshin ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Inactive:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. -- do ncr am 00:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
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 Minas Geraes-class battleship), 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)
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)
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)
There is also an issue of stalking and harassment. [1] [2] 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)
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”. [4] His second and third posts are also supportive of Cambalachero. [5] [6] 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). [7] [8] (April 2012). Then, when Cambalachero tried to rename the article MarshalN20 again supported him (and again opposed Lecen): [9]
It seems MarshalN20 first met Lecen when the latter successfully requested the move of Paraguayan War. MarshalN20 opposed it (back in October 2011). [10] 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): [11] Then he finally made a move request. [12] It was not successful. It seems that MarshalN20 and Cambalachero’s friendship began here. Cambalachero sided with MarshalN20 and opposed Lecen: [13] 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.” [14] 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]”. [15] He also said: “You cannot force another person's [Cambalachero] point of view as my point of view”. [16] 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. [17] Not surprisingly, he did that after Cambalachero also opposed the nomination just a little earlier. [18] 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 [19] (January 2012) and Farroupilha Revolution [20] (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)
A related SPI has been filed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambalachero. -- Rs chen 7754 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been working on an improvement for the Falkland Islands article (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4).
Pretty simple. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
@Lecen, could you please show a single diff where I (not Cambalachero) knowingly add a "fascist source" to any article? Otherwise, your statement breaks the "casting aspersions" principle from the Arbcomm case (see [23]) and the "proposed remedy" warning made to you (see [24]). I kindly request arbitrators to take action on this matter.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
@David, given enough rope, the Incas made pretty good bridges. [;-)]-- MarshalN20 | Talk 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
@Arbitrators, I am requesting to edit the article Falkland Islands (not Falklands War, where my only interest in it is the "secret" participation of Peru and Chile). I am requesting to edit the Falkland Islands article solely because, as a previous dispute resolution arbitrator on it (see User:MarshalN20/sandbox), I successfully managed to help opposing sides of the dispute reach a fruitful solution. I must re-emphasize that the claims accusing me of being a disruptive editor in Falklands War are a complete lie (again, please see [25]). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@AGK, you have been awfully unfair to me throughout this whole situation and continuously shown a strong favoritism towards Lecen. The comment you quote from me is a response to Lecen's aggressive declarations that included uncalled personal attacks. Not only that, but Lecen continues his relentless baiting against me (see [26], where he edits out a war name which I had previously included [27] and that he had opposed without success). I actually care about the quality of Wikipedia...and that's the only "baggage" I have ever carried around with me. You may turn a blind eye to Lecen and other truly disruptive editors, but please don't expect me to do the same.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@Arbitrators, I'll further add that this is not a request to continue interacting with Lecen. In fact, both Salvio and NuclearWarfare have proposed we keep a informal interaction ban. Moreover, as Cambalachero explains, Lecen has no significant activity on topics related to the Falkland Islands. I would understand AGK's position if I was requesting to end an interaction ban with Lecen, but that is not the case. AGK is mixing my view towards Lecen with my request to edit an article where I would not interact at all with Lecen (thereby, making AGK's argument a logical fallacy). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
@Arbitrators, thanks for trusting me. I promise to not let you down.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that in response to Marshal's proposal, I merely agreed in principle to act as the "supervisor" suggested by NuclearWarfare. I don't have anything to say on whether or not the committee should make an amendment or not. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 17:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to remind you all that neither MarshalN20 nor Cambalachero have expressed any regret for their actions. In fact, both have shown that they do not believe that they did anything wrong and that the ArbCom was unfair to them. "What bothers me the most is that you also received the punishment for no other reason than having a different point of view from the other editor. It's completely ludicrous" See User talk:Cambalachero#Re: Hello, as well as User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 6#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History closed ("Despite never being uncivil (an arbitrator even used the funny term "Civil POV-pusher" to describe me), and merely deserving of a WP:TROUT, I was topic banned from Latin American history for a year.") And most important of all, see the entire Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision.
If you're willing to allow two editors who never demonstrated any regret to edit controversial articles, or even to narrow the topic ban, be sure of what you're doing because experience tells that these kind of editors won't change their behavior. -- Lecen ( talk) 22:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Do you really expect to see two editors who used unreliable sources written by Fascists with the purpose of political propaganda to "bringing about high-quality, unbiased editing"? Even more when these editors never showed any regret nor acknowledgement of their wrong actions? -- Lecen ( talk) 23:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point that MarshalN20 has requested a controversial article because NuclearWarfare suggested him to do so. See User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 38#MarshalN20. There's no need to guess in advance if he would do a good or bad work in it: that article has been edited by 2073 different editors, and the talk page by 519 different editors. If he tries to do something wrong, or to introduce bias in either direction, he would be noticed immediately. If he has no hidden agenda, then the many editors that watch that article will be watching him and won't find anything wrong, and his edit history would proceed without problems. As for Lecen, he should drop the stick: he has never been interested in editing the articles of the Falkland Islands. If that article becomes good or featured with this trial period for MarshalN20, then it would be something positive for everybody.
Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk ( talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Lecen ( talk) at 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Extended content
|
---|
Clarification According to "proposed decision" on the Argentine History case "[t]his dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America". User MarshalN20 had "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" and was thus "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces" (emphasis added). See here, here and here. As far as I know, MarshalN20 was banned because he and Cambalachero had been using Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources. And these are regarded unreliable by mainstream historians. See here. The problem is that since then MarshalN20 has argued over and over that he has no idea why he was topic banned. In fact, he has claimed that he was topic banned because he made a move request on Paraguayan War (War of the Triple Alliance), which has no relation to Juan Manuel de Rosas nor to Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists. A few examples:
I'd like to see clarified: were MarshalN20 and Cambalachero topic banned because they used Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources? If not, why were they topic banned? |
Amendment
The proposed decision was published on 23 June 2013. Since then I had a hard time trying to move on. MarshalN20 hasn't stopped talking about Juan Manuel de Rosas and myself:
I dont believe anything will be done regarding MarshalN20' continuous topic ban violations. However, I'd like to request a formal amendment for permanent interaction ban. And, if possible, to declare that MarshalN20 cannot speak about me anywhere unless if requested by an arbitrator or administrator. The same may apply to me if the Arbcom wishes. What I want is simple: to be left alone. That's all.
I would like to note that it is the consensus of the uninvolved administrators who reviewed the arbitration enforcement request that a mutual interaction ban is necessary. There is evidently a great deal of bad blood here, and I don't see interactions between the two without some disengagement. Salvio's informal warning was unfortunately insufficient to achieve that, so I believe we need an enforceable remedy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Should the committee accept this request, and I hope they will, can I plead that they make the interaction ban wide enough so that obvious skirting of it is actionable? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to request an interaction ban with Lecen as well. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll start by writing that this whole subject has turned into a ridiculously childish situation. The last time I recall being in this position was back in grade school when me and a kid argued over watering plant seeds (science project), and even that situation was less silly than this matter between Lecen and me.
Above you can interpret from Lecen's point of view that I am as evil and manipulative as
Darth Sidious. Yet, his argumentation (premises and results) is filled with misguided assumptions and erroneous conclusions. My answer to them: The enforcement board dismissed all of his claims as unfounded or exaggerated.
Yet, it should come as no surprise that Lecen continues carrying
the stick, and continues accusing me of being a misogynist propagandist, supporter of fascism and anti-Semitism, and mastermind meatpuppeteer. He has already been told various times to stop, but he continues with these accusations.
But, this is to be expected because, in Lecen's view, he is the "good guy" who is doing nothing wrong. When his close friend
User:The ed17 files a report against me (despite Ed has no relation whatsoever to this case), it's obviously not meatpuppetry. When Lecen accuses me of being a Fascist propagandist, that obviously is not an insult. And, when I respond to any of his aggressions, I am obviously ranting. So, the "logic" here is pretty black-and-white.
Topic Ban, clarifications (Part 1)
My understanding of the ARBCOM ruling is that I was topic banned due to "tendentious editing and battleground conduct". The diffs used to justify the position all come from my edits in the article on the
Paraguayan War.
As I expressed in AGK's talk page (see
[28]), I understand what I did wrong in the move request and have repeatedly expressed regret for my actions. However, I also point out that not only did this move request take place over a year ago (February 2012), but that at the time I was also unaware of other options available to continue a reasonable intellectual discussion (including the move review board & the conflict of interest board).
Lecen, however, claims that I was topic banned for the reasons he uses to justify his insults of Fascism, anti-Semitism, etc.
This is what confuses me. I have never used Fascist sources in my entire life (although I did once read a book on Mussolini for a European history course), and the only editing action I ever took in the article "
Juan Manuel de Rosas" was to copy-edit the material that was already in the article's introduction and "early life" sections (I never added a single source to that article).
This is why I am asking for clarification on what else I did wrong (so that I may correct it), because I honestly do not understand how this February 2012 move request justifies such a broad topic ban ("Latin American history") and harsh accusations (tendentious and battleground editing).
Topic Ban, clarifications (Part 2)
Yes, I took part in the talk page discussions that erupted into the "Argentine history" ARBCOM case. However, my position was simply that of being against source-censorship (per
freedom of speech). Up to this point, I don't understand why the author's political leanings are a problem to the history of Juan Manuel de Rosas.
Rosas was not a woman (no worry for "misogynists"), he was not a Jew (no worry for "anti-Semitism"), and certainly was not a Fascist (the roots of Fascism, according to Wikipedia's article on
Fascism, do not even start until the 1880s. Rosas died in 1877). Rosas was a
caudillo (the "quintessential" one according to
John Lynch), who acted like many other Latin American caudillos of the era.
If there really was a need to distinguish "revisionists" from other authors, then that distinction could have easily been made in the article ("According to revisionist historian blah blah, [...]"). Not only that, but Cambalachero even provided a source that clearly stated that (at least in Argentina) revisionists were now regarded as reliable as the "mainstream" historians of Rosas (who were instead now being accused of purposely disfiguring Rosas).
Regardless, I again point out that at no point did I add a source to the Rosas article. It was my hope that Cambalachero and Lecen could work together...but Lecen did not want anyone with a different point of view to edit the article with him.
I have asked Lecen (countless of times) to show a single diff that demonstrates otherwise. Yet, he does not do it. Instead, he constantly associates me with Cambalachero in an attempt to confuse you (the arbitrators) into thinking we both did the same actions.
Actions post-"Argentine history" ruling
Several interesting results can now be analyzed (nearly two months have passed) from the "Argentine history" ruling.
Conclusions
Suggested solution I suggest that the arbitration committee take the following decisions for this case:
The result of these sanctions would allow me to work on articles related to Andean history (my expertise), the Falklands, and Central American history. It would also allow Cambalachero to continue providing valuable contributions to Argentine topics, avoiding those related to Rosas. And, of course, the interaction bans would prevent further problems among the three of us.
I'll add, as promised to Seraphim, that the interaction ban is strongly supported by several editors (see
[29]).
Best regards.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk
02:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
1) Cambalachero and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.
2) MarshalN20 and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Cambalachero ( talk) at 03:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
In the case Argentine history I have been topic banned from all pages related to the history of Latin America. I also edit articles on modern politics, and I want to know how much back in time can I go before politics turn into history. I asked it to NuclearWarfare ( here, he told me that the last 15 years would be acceptable, but advised as well to clarify this, to avoid misunderstandings. My idea would be to work with the presidency of Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) and the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-today), and the events that took place in them. More or less, the last decade.
I may also work with articles that are clearly not historical, but may need to mention a small detail about history. For example, when I wrote about the actor Roberto Carnaghi (which I wrote before the ban), I mentioned a historical period and something that was going on by then, without much detail, to describe his character in a telenovela. If I work with articles on heavy metal bands, I may need to point the censorship they received during the military government, or their problems during the 1989 or 2001 economic crisis. In those cases, if the description is kept short and to the point, only the basic info needed for the non-historical article, would it be acceptable?
This is a much-discussed topic in the field. However, colleagues and professors alike often consider anything starting from 1980 (or 1985) to be "contemporary history". I would suggest the arbitrators to not only clarify this but also amend the case with a statement that exempts contemporary history from the topic ban. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I am completely uninvolved with this topic area, but I agree that a clarification is needed. The history of most countries and regions is divided into conventinal eras. If there is a consensus among reliable sources on such conventional eras then the cutoff should be set at one of those. If there is not, then based solely on the present state of the History of South America and History of Argentina articles it would seem that the latest reasonable cut-off date would be 1998 (election of Hugo Chávez). Looking specifically at Argentina, 1983 (end of the military dictatorship) would seem logical and workable. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
To the arbs: If/when you decide on a date, please be clear whether that date is inclusive or exclusive of the range covered by the ban. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
There needs to be a clarification on the Latin American history topic ban. History is a very broad topic. A prior clarification request discussion showed there was plenty of troubles with the broadness of the ban and its inherent lack of precision. Please see ( [33]), where Brad writes, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." The result here was that "recent history" was excluded from the topic ban.
The topic ban's lack of precision recently caused me to get into a minor block incident over a football article (see [34]). The first block incident was caused by inaccurate interpretation of the TBAN exception's "vandalism clause".
To summarize this request into questions:
Additional relevant evidence (from my part):
In response to Sandstein, the Chile-Peru football rivalry is an ongoing event. To claim that it "is entirely about past events" is a terrible premise that dismantles the whole argument and conclusion. This is also why the unblock request was accepted by the community. Per WP:TBAN: "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not." The "history" section in Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly delimited. That the article is a badly written one also does not help the case made against me.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The last clarification request resulted in a statement from the Committee that events in or after December 1983 are not "history" for the purposes of this topic ban. So the edit that led to the block [37] - reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 to an article that is primarily about sports - was not in any way I can conceive of covered by the topic ban.
Accordingly I would suggest that the topic ban be explicitly refined to:
For example a 2010 book about the War of the Pacific would be covered by the topic ban, sections of History of Argentina about events in or after December 1983 would not be. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.
weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
This is yet another example of Marshal trying to neuter this topic ban, which was "broadly construed" to forestall these exact issues. There have been several previous enforcement and clarification requests that Marshal has chosen not to link. These show a clear pattern of skirting the topic ban, breaching it only in unclear gray areas:
“ | ... I've a long-standing belief that we need to show editors who are fucking around that we mean business. Why do people get topic banned to begin with? Because they can't check their emotions at the door and edit within some topic matter like a normal person. At this point, if MarshalN20 finds himself editing any article related to anything that happened in the past in Latin America and starts getting all hot and bothered, he should walk away. Instead, he decided to get into an edit war. Is the article peripherally related to Latin American history? Sure, it's a gray area. But why push it? You'd better believe that if I got topic banned from articles about the history of New York and I found myself edit warring in an article about a historical New York sports rivalry, I'd expect to get blocked. It amazes me that people carry on like this and then act like they didn't know they were doing anything. | ” |
And as a final side note, trying to litigate individual sections of articles Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. Any article that deals with the history of the region should be and is covered under the topic ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all, MarshalN20 is not requesting an amendment of the case, but a clarification on the actual limits of the case as it is. The previous block was caused precisely by a misunderstanding on the extension of it, so the clarification request is appropiate, and it is precisely meant to avoid further troubles. In fact, I suggested him to request this clarification, I thought that if the limits are clear for everybody then there will be less of those discussions, or no such discussions at all. And there's no big need to link all the previous clarifications, amendments or enforcements of this case, because all those are already included at the case's main page or subpages anyway; arbitrators know where to seek them.
First, the topics. I think that "history" means the topics that we can seriously expect to find in a book named "History of Argentina", "History of Peru", or similar. The main topics that such books talk about are warfare, in the periods when the country is at war, and politics, when the country is at peace. With both terms broadly construed: in this context politics would mean anything that is related to the governance of a country (including economy, international relations, social rights, etc.), and warfare would mean anything that is related to conflicts between military factions (including ships or military hardware, cancelled or proposed military operations, etc.). If it is clarified this way, then we can be more certain if an article about a football rivalry (or any other topic that may arise) is included in the ban or not.
And second, the frontier between current things and history. It was said during the block discussion (I forgot where or by whom) that the 1983 limit is only for Argentine history, and did not apply to other countries. That is correct: when that clarification was requested, I declined to clarify a year for the whole of latin america, because contemporary latin american history was not among my interests anyway. And 1983 was selected because it's a natural turning point in Argentina, as it was described by then; but it is meaningless for the other countries. I don't think there's such a meaningful event for the whole continent, so to keep it close to the limit that has already been decided for Argentina, we can set the limit in the begining of the 1980s (January 1, 1980). The turning of a decade should be a good universal turning point. Of course, that would leave some articles half-allowed and half-banned (such as the National Reorganization Process), but I would simply avoid such articles. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been notified as the administrator who made the two most recent enforcement blocks. Because I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about whether a topic ban is needed to prevent misconduct by MarshalN20, and if yes, how broad that topic ban should be. But in the cases raised in an enforcement context, as listed by The ed17, I've observed that MarshalN20 has repeatedly violated or tested the boundaries of their topic ban. It's up to the Committee to decide which if any conclusions should be drawn from this history of noncompliance.
If I were a member of the Committee, I'd be concerned that by deciding to lift the block I imposed on MarshalN20 for editing Chile-Peru football rivalry (in my view, pretty clearly an "article ...related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed" as per the terms of the topic ban), the participants in the noticeboard discussion may de facto have already modified (in the sense requested here by MarshalN20) or vacated the Committee-imposed topic ban, in violation of the principle that Arbitration Committee decisions are binding ( WP:AP). This raises the question whether the procedure documented at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions requires amendment to prevent this sort of "appeal to the community" against Committee decisions (in the context of their enforcement), which is not envisioned by the community-adopted arbitration policy. Sandstein 15:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me that too many administrators go around looking for excuses to block or ban other editors, and Sandstein is one of the worst of those. (Redacted) he ought to be banned from the arbitration enforcement cock pit nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not following this discussion closely, so perhaps I have misread things, however, if Sandstein has blocked Lecen while his block of MarshallN120 is under discussion, then that doesn't appear wise. The arbitration enforcement should have been left to someone else. DrKiernan ( talk) 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Having worked elbow-to-elbow with both MarshallN120 and Lecen, I'm happy to see someone is finally addressing Lecen, whose attitude and belligerence were quite a pain in my petusky when I was FAC delegate. I don't understand why MarshallN120 can't work on soccer articles, and my experience with Lecen indicates he's unlikely to adapt his behavior(s) with anything short of blocks. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be yet another case where Sandstein's enforcement of arbitration remedies is clearly problematic. I think the Arbs should consider that aspect of the question as well. Either bar him from enforcing arbitration remedies altogether or restrict him so that he at least cannot act unilaterally when enforcing them. He does seem to avoid some of the more egregious problems when other admins are there to rein in his excesses.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As I stated on AN/ANI, because the lead of the soccer rivalry article clearly asserts that the important of that rivalry comes from history (not sports history). In fact, one could argue that without that importance/notability statement, this article would not necessarily exist. As it was patently obvious that this article was related to Latin American history, and thus was subject to the topic ban, even though the article was primarily about soccer. ES &L 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue is clearly how broadly "broadly construed" should be construed.
I suggest the current standard of "Six Degrees of Separation" is untenable, and that therefore the term ought to be finally deprecated.
I suggest "reasonably and directly related to the case giving rise to the restriction" is a far more logical wording. Postulate a person barred from all articles relating to "American History" -- "broadly construed" would clearly apply to "The Beatles" as referring to a "British invasion" by one using the "broadly construed" standard. And those who insist that all violations should be treated in a draconian manner (as the Queen of Hearts once said "Off with their head!") are confusing the trees with the forest. Collect ( talk) 12:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Further comment: The proposed motion still retains "broadly construed" which conflicts with the wording "directly related" on the same motion. It is not logical to have conflicting criteria in the same sentence. The motion ought be better phrased as
Which would avoid the "broadly construed" potential misuse. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Referring to User:The ed17 above and the reference to the first month long block under this broadly construed topic ban. It would be informative to put this into context:
I note that in the case of the first block, the editor was blocked in what is effectively a punitive manner after they had already realised and acknowledged an error on their part. I don't see this block as defensible.
In the second block, which was for two months based on a presumption of recidivism following the first, User:MarshalN20 was editing the football-related article Chile–Peru football rivalry. That there is a reference to the War of the Pacific in the lede, lead to a block under the broadly construed nature of the topic ban. In this case, I have difficulty seeing a block as defensible with the application of WP:COMMON, though given the poor wording in the original topic ban perhaps it is a grey area. I am encouraged my interpretation was correct as arbcom members have indicated below that they don't consider the topic ban extended to the article that led to the second block.
Two issues are being raised here.
I would suggest that rather than referring to Latin America in totality, the wording is revised to cover only those areas relevant to the arbcom case. I would suggest the topic ban should be revised to be specifically related to Argentine history prior to December 1980 or whatever date arbcom sees fit. I would also suggest this is contingent on all parties in the case restrict themselves to a 1RR restriction and find themselves a mentor as their behaviour has been far from optimal. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Common sense is useful if it is informed. The suggestion that international sports rivalry, especially in the Western World, is a priori not a history topic seems uninformed (see Greek Games) -- moreover, here in an article (the one under discussion) that prominently discusses the geopolitical background. If this committee wants a narrower ban -- it is its responsibility to make it narrower. Don't blame others. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not all that familiar with the original case, though I believe I was marginally involved in the content dispute resolution history, so what I am about to say may be wholly irrelevant. In regard to Motion 1, some care might need to be exerted in regard the term "geopolitical" in order to avoid further ambiguity. For something to be geopolitical, it generally has to have a geographic component or influence, not just be limited by geography (i.e. limited to Latin America). Just "political" might work better. You might also want to be careful of the phrase "of Latin America," especially with the "broadly construed" dropped, as this could be read to only include topics affecting all of Latin America (especially since "geopolitics" suggests an international or regional subject matter). I know that you're trying to cut the scope of this remedy down, but you don't want to go too narrow, either. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just passing through. I can see what you're trying to do with Motion #2, but it encapsulates a principle which is already an explicit part of WP:TBAN ("Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.") The language and examples at WP:TBAN are quite clear.
My concern is that you may be inviting future confusion and conflict as administrators at AE are left to try to divine your intent in not simply relying on the explicit provisions of WP:TBAN in this particular remedy (or worse, to try to guess how the absence of this specific additional emphasis and endorsement should affect the interpretation of all other topic ban remedies to which you have not – yet – added this particular language).
If the Committee is concerned that there are specific instances in which the provisions of WP:TBAN have not been properly interpreted or applied, then feel free to address that as needed—but don't go rewriting or restating extant policies as a remedy. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, if, for the purposes of this restriction, we define "history" as "an umbrella term that relates to past events", we end up concluding that almost every article on Wikipedia is covered by this topic ban; in this, I agree with Marshal: even the article about the banana has a history section. And I also agree with Thryduulf that the article in question appears to be mainly about sports, even if it contains a history section, and that reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 should not have been considered a violation of Marshal's restriction.
For these reasons, I support the proposal to tweak the wording of the restriction, so that it is more consistent with what we intended to prohibit in the first place (or, to be more precise, with what I think we wanted to prohibit when we originally imposed the topic) – and, so, pilfering Thryduulf's wording, I'd clarify that, for the purposes of this restriction, the term "history" should be interpreted as referring to a. the geopolitical, economic and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and b. any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic or military events that occurred before December 1983 (or a different date, considering we only granted the 1983 exemption wrt Argentine history).
Finally, an editor who is banned from interacting with another may not make comments, either directly or indirectly, about him anywhere, for any reason, except to report a violation of the restriction, to ask for a clarification of or to appeal the ban. Lecen's comments, therefore, are a violation of his restriction and I'm about to ask the clerks to remove them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
For reference, the relevant remedy relating to MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) is:
2) MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.
Proposed:
Proposed:
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Original Request (too long!)
|
---|
This request for the Argentine History case is primarily a clarification petition, but may end up with additional amendments to the case depending on how the solution to the problem can be achieved optimally (I will provide an amendment suggestion).
Thanks in advance for the help. Please take my proposals for solution as recommendations (not demands). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Response to Roger
|
---|
---Response to Roger--- Thanks Roger. Yes, here are the direct quotes...
Notes:
Neotarf and others get away with this kind of mudslinging by claiming that their "general idea of the topic" is correct based on the Arbitration Committee's decision. A clarification on the ruling, perhaps directly addressing this "Black Legend", would be helpful (so that any further aspersion casting can be dealt with at AN/I). Alternatively, a remedy for "casting aspersions" could be amended into the case in order for any further aspersion casting can be reviewed at the Arbitration Enforcement page (which is more focused on arbitration-related matters than AN/I). If none of my recommendations are adequate, I would also appreciate suggestions on how to handle this matter (for instance, should I simply take this directly to AN/I the next time it happens?). It's truly bothersome to keep having my reputation besmirched throughout Wikipedia. The IBAN was certainly a great help in stopping the source, but the false accusations continue being spread by users with apparent ties to the involved parties. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
Response to Astynax
|
---|
---Response to Roger---
Note: I suppose that another part of the question here is the distinction between the "evidence phase" and the "final decision". Astynax below assures that what was placed in the "evidence phase" can be used in the Arbitration Committee's voice. I find this view strange, particularly as my understanding is that the "evidence phase" is where parties (involved and peripheral) could submit their position on the subject, whereas the "final decision" is what the Arbitration Committee ultimately had to say about the matter. Some kind of clarification is clearly needed either for me, for the others, or for everyone.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 07:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC) |
Penultimate Request (also long)
|
---|
Clarification Questions:
These are all my clarification questions. Salvio was kind enough to provide his response to them ( [54]):
Astynax, all I am asking is that you (and your friends) please stop casting aspersions about me. Simply drop the stick.
Hence, I believe that the only solutions here are:
Yes, I know that this clarification request is unusual. However, I think the statements made by Astynax & The_ed17, along with my evidence from Neotarf, are good examples of the why the unusual explanation is necessary. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 06:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
Per the recommendations of Salvio and ES&L, I request that my clarification request please be withdrawn.
I apologize for the continuing drama, but you can follow the story at AN/I (
[58]). Assuming my WrestleMania example to be correct, I call dibs on Hulk Hogan.
Again, sorry everyone.
Best wishes.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk
16:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
MarshalN20 is mistaken that reliable, mainstream sources were not produced linking Nacionalismos and its apologists to Fascism during the arbitration case during the Evidence phase. The Signpost article thus seems to be on solid footing, and there are certainly other mainstream historians that could be cited in support of equating Nacionalismo and quasi-historical Nacionalismos accounts with Fascism. MarshalN20 joined Cambalachero/MBelgrano in defending edits based upon those sources. I am unsure what motivated MarshalN20 to lodge yet another request regarding this case, what this complaint has to do with his block, or what he is asking be clarified. If he has a complaint against the behavior of Neotarf, who did not participate in the arbcom case, surely this is not the place to lodge it. • Astynax talk 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
+1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I’m not sure why I am being named as a party here. I have never edited in this topic area or with this group of editors.
The Signpost Arbitration Report has included the same basic synopsis of the Argentine History case since the April 1st, 2013 issue, over nine months ago. Marshal was not named in any of these reports. The only time this user was named in an Arbitration Report with regards to this case was in the June 26, 2013 report, when the case was closed and the findings passed unanimously by the committee were quoted verbatim.
Marshal has never expressed any concerns about the reports on the talk pages, or by contacting me via my talk page or by email. He did however post a comment here after he was mentioned in connection with one of his requests regarding his Latin American history topic ban. At that time I declined to expand on the report, as I don’t consider these requests to be very interesting to a general audience, plus it's a lot of work, but I invited him to add his reflections. He did not.
Marshal has also misquoted me: e.g. when he quotes this: "They were ganging up to bully him." the actual quote is "WHO CLAIMED they were ganging up to bully him." (emphasis mine)
No one has accused Marshal of being a “fascist” (small “f”). The reference to Fascism (capital “F”) refers to sources associated with the Revisionismo movement of the 1930s. My comments at WikiProject Editor Retention were to express surprise after an editor was sanctioned by AE after posting at yet another one of Marshal’s topic ban review requests.
Query: If Marshal is topic banned, how is he posting comments at the Signpost and at Clarification Requests?
Regards, — Neotarf ( talk) 08:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This is ridiculous to be here: Marshal was advised to take others' behaviour to ANI, and that's that. Period. That said, Asyntax has spent every single one of his posts here proving Marshal to be right. Asyntax' comments are 110 degrees off of what the findings of fact were, and is ascribing very different words and meanings to ArbCom's findings. This clearly violates WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA), and refuses to remove them even when appropriately notified of their error. However, nobody on this board will block for it, and Marshal knows it. So Marshal, close this well-intentioned, but poorly thought-out filing (after all, you WERE told the right locale), and use diff's to the links as part of your proof. Someone is quite clearly trying to drive you away from specific articles and casting false aspersions. Editors are not permitted to put words in ArbCom's mouths that were not there to begin with in order to invalidate your edits ES &L 10:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 Talk at 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Hey! I'd like to take the article United States to featured status (current sandbox, with pictures and new lead section, is at User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). Over the past year I have also led two articles to featured status, the Peru national football team and Pisco Sour, and will soon have a third one with the Falkland Islands.
I was not sure if editing the US history section would be an issue, due to the topic ban that prevents me from editing Latin American history topics (non-cultural) prior to 1980. US history is tangentially related to Latin American history. David recommended me to take the question here in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
I'd like to work in this article to keep demonstrating my true value as an editor. Regards.-- MarshalN20 Talk 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as a participant in the previous discussion, opposed to MarshalN20, I think that a limited exception for the United States article is appropriate. Nearly all of the history section will not infringe on areas that caused the ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Proposed:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Cambalachero ( talk) at 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I am currently topic banned from articles that talk about Latin American history. As clarified here, the line between history and modern times in Argentina has been set in 1983 (end of the National Reorganization Process dictatorship, and restoration of democracy). The articles listed are the articles about the presidents of Argentina since 1983, and the Pope. As such, the bulk of their articles is/would be about their presidencies (or papacy), already within the allowed limits, and do not require any special exemption. However, the sections about their early lives and early careers usually need to explain the dictatorship and the dirty war, to provide the appropiate context. In other cases, the aftermath of the dirty war still sparked controversies in the national politics (see the dirty war article, sections "Truth commission, decrees revoked", "Continuing controversies" and "Repeal of Pardon Laws and renewal of prosecutions").
Have in mind that the original discussion that led to the case was about articles from the XIX century. Those small exemptions will not go anywhere near the original controversy.
In relation to modern Argentine events, I wrote the featured article 2013 Rosario gas explosion, helped to promote the articles Néstor Kirchner, Argentine legislative election, 2013 and 2012 Buenos Aires rail disaster to the "In the news" section of the main page. I also wrote new articles, featured in the DYK section, for 18A, 2012 cacerolazo in Argentina, 2012 fiscal austerity in Argentina, 2013 Buenos Aires train crash, Argentine quota law, Boudougate, Broad Front UNEN, Eduardo Arnold, Madero Center, Mario Poli, Periodismo para todos, Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, la Cámpora. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As a professional historian, I agree that it is difficult to draw a "line" between what is history and what is the present. Nonetheless, for the sake of understanding the subject, historians have (time and again) made these lines (they vary, of course, depending on the context and historian). ArbComm has also indeed drawn a line in this case.
Regardless of that, the purpose of ArbComm is to focus on user behavior. Cambalachero has conducted himself exceptionally, and has provided a series of positive contributions for the project since his topic ban (including a featured article). This positive behavior should be far more important for the committee's amendment decision than anything else.
Sincerely.-- MarshalN20 Talk 15:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Notwithstanding other restrictions on their editing, Cambalachero is permitted to edit all content on the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis; as well as their talk pages. They may also make any edits reasonably necessary for those articles to go through the good article, peer review, or featured article processes. If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made at the requests for clarification and amendment page. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs.
Enacted - S Philbrick (Talk) 15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies talk 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 at 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
A considerable amount of time has passed since the "ARBARG" case reached its conclusion. After the topic ban was placed, I asked then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare on how to proceed in order to appeal it; he suggested that I tackle a controversial article and take it to featured status (see [60]). Since then, I have taken three articles to featured status ( Peru national football team, Falkland Islands, and Pisco Sour), and I am now in the process of passing another one through the GA-FA process ( Bicycle kick) as well as conducting a GA review of an article by Kareldorado. It is worth mentioning that I worked on the controversial Falkland Islands article with Wee Curry Monster and was supervised by administrator Basalisk.
I am requesting the removal of this topic ban on the basis of the following points:
The third point, which goes against WP:HARASS, is what has prompted me to request this TBAN removal. The harassment needs to stop, and the only way to do so is by removing this unnecessary, punitive topic ban. My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves and demonstrate that I am not an editor that deserves this type of mistreatment. In fact, this experience has taught me many valuable lessons about Wikipedia and its community, including the reality that many editors also deal with this problem of harassment; in the near future, I would like to become an administrator in order to help users become productive editors while also tackling harassment issues which drive away productive editors. To achieve this goal, I will have to earn the community's trust, and this I will do by committing myself to continuing my positive behavior and contributions to this online encyclopedia. To be more precise about my near future plans, I would like to first take the Peru article through an FA re-review (since it no longer meets the standards) and next work on taking more articles to featured status (mostly those in my sandboxes).
Please let me know if you have any questions. I would kindly appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions prior to arbitrators making any final decision on this request.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand the reasons why I was topic banned back then. I know that many people does not trust me, I can't simply ask for a lift of the topic ban by just stating my good intentions. Although two years have passed, I think that I have to earn that trust, and time alone may not be enough. For that reason, I asked some months ago for exceptions for the biographies of the Argentine presidents from 1983 to modern day: if I manage to make them all featured articles, then I may have something to justify my case. Unfortunately, my limited time did not allow me to have any progress that I may show at this point (I'm just with a good article nomination, and nothing more). Because of this, I will make no special request in this case for me at this point.
On the other side, there is a request I would like to make: please do not tie Marshal20's fate with mine. His situation is not the same, and his topic ban should be lifted now. The original dispute was with the biography of Juan Manuel de Rosas; the scope was expanded to all of latin american history surely to prevent the problems with "testing the limits" if the thing was too narrow. But if you check him, you will see that before that dispute he had never took part in any discussion or made any significant number of edits to either the article of Rosas or to some other article that may be more or less related (such as those in the navbox {{ Argentine Civil War}}). In fact, he's not Argentine but Peruvian, and the national histories of Argentina and Peru had very little points of intersection. MarshalN20 simply joined the discussion when the discussion had been taken to venues to request to intervention of more users, just that. If someone deserves to be punished for that old dispute, let it be just me. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I was dismayed when the topic ban was imposed on MarshalN20 (on 23 June 2013), and I expressed my disappoinment on MarshalN20's User talk page at the time. I have interacted with MarshalN20 for some years here, and have personally always found MarshalN20 to be a helpful and constructive contributor who seems to be here to help write a good encyclopedia. I also recently encouraged MarshalN20 to request for the ban to be lifted (on 3 July 2015), which at the time I thought was one year after the topic ban was imposed, but actually I now notice that two years has passed by. I think enough time has gone by to further demonstrate that this user is a very helpful contributor to Wikipedia. The user has also expressed regret for the prior behavior that led to the ban, which further demonstrates a willingness to do better in the future. I never really thought I properly understood the prior dispute, but have always thought MarshalN20 was a generally good editor who should be allowed and encouraged to help further improve Wikipedia – in all areas – and especially for the history of Latin America, as that is a subject on which MarshalN20 appears to have considerable expertise and a commitment to try help and to try to improve accuracy and NPOV (e.g., with regard to political and nationalistic biased editing). I thus strongly support removal of this old topic ban. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The ban was imposed on 23 June 2013. Since then MarshalN20 has broken the ban a lot of times, always in an agressive manner:
{{
reply|MarshalN20}}
Spanish is not my language, posting on my talk page would violate the TBAN, mailing it to me will not.It doesn't belong to the scope of this committee, but this intervention demostrates the true intentions of MarshalN20.
A topic ban should not be punitive, but should be preventive, that is it schould protect the others editors working in Wikipedia. And the quality of MarshalN20's edits, if any, say nothing about his capacity to team work. There is al lot of "good" editors that have been blocked or are unable to work in team.
In the light of MarshalN20 breaks of the ban, can anyone guarantee that MarshalN20 will respect the Rules of Wikipedia this time?. No. He didn't respect the rules before the ban and not during the topic ban and he will not respect the rules if the ban is lifted.
I thus strongly oppose removal of this neccesary topic ban. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Proposed:
Case clerk: Hahc21 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Timotheus Canens ( Talk) & Kirill Lokshin ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Inactive:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. -- do ncr am 00:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
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 Minas Geraes-class battleship), 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)
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)
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)
There is also an issue of stalking and harassment. [1] [2] 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)
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”. [4] His second and third posts are also supportive of Cambalachero. [5] [6] 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). [7] [8] (April 2012). Then, when Cambalachero tried to rename the article MarshalN20 again supported him (and again opposed Lecen): [9]
It seems MarshalN20 first met Lecen when the latter successfully requested the move of Paraguayan War. MarshalN20 opposed it (back in October 2011). [10] 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): [11] Then he finally made a move request. [12] It was not successful. It seems that MarshalN20 and Cambalachero’s friendship began here. Cambalachero sided with MarshalN20 and opposed Lecen: [13] 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.” [14] 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]”. [15] He also said: “You cannot force another person's [Cambalachero] point of view as my point of view”. [16] 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. [17] Not surprisingly, he did that after Cambalachero also opposed the nomination just a little earlier. [18] 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 [19] (January 2012) and Farroupilha Revolution [20] (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)
A related SPI has been filed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambalachero. -- Rs chen 7754 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been working on an improvement for the Falkland Islands article (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4).
Pretty simple. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
@Lecen, could you please show a single diff where I (not Cambalachero) knowingly add a "fascist source" to any article? Otherwise, your statement breaks the "casting aspersions" principle from the Arbcomm case (see [23]) and the "proposed remedy" warning made to you (see [24]). I kindly request arbitrators to take action on this matter.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
@David, given enough rope, the Incas made pretty good bridges. [;-)]-- MarshalN20 | Talk 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
@Arbitrators, I am requesting to edit the article Falkland Islands (not Falklands War, where my only interest in it is the "secret" participation of Peru and Chile). I am requesting to edit the Falkland Islands article solely because, as a previous dispute resolution arbitrator on it (see User:MarshalN20/sandbox), I successfully managed to help opposing sides of the dispute reach a fruitful solution. I must re-emphasize that the claims accusing me of being a disruptive editor in Falklands War are a complete lie (again, please see [25]). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@AGK, you have been awfully unfair to me throughout this whole situation and continuously shown a strong favoritism towards Lecen. The comment you quote from me is a response to Lecen's aggressive declarations that included uncalled personal attacks. Not only that, but Lecen continues his relentless baiting against me (see [26], where he edits out a war name which I had previously included [27] and that he had opposed without success). I actually care about the quality of Wikipedia...and that's the only "baggage" I have ever carried around with me. You may turn a blind eye to Lecen and other truly disruptive editors, but please don't expect me to do the same.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@Arbitrators, I'll further add that this is not a request to continue interacting with Lecen. In fact, both Salvio and NuclearWarfare have proposed we keep a informal interaction ban. Moreover, as Cambalachero explains, Lecen has no significant activity on topics related to the Falkland Islands. I would understand AGK's position if I was requesting to end an interaction ban with Lecen, but that is not the case. AGK is mixing my view towards Lecen with my request to edit an article where I would not interact at all with Lecen (thereby, making AGK's argument a logical fallacy). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
@Arbitrators, thanks for trusting me. I promise to not let you down.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that in response to Marshal's proposal, I merely agreed in principle to act as the "supervisor" suggested by NuclearWarfare. I don't have anything to say on whether or not the committee should make an amendment or not. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 17:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to remind you all that neither MarshalN20 nor Cambalachero have expressed any regret for their actions. In fact, both have shown that they do not believe that they did anything wrong and that the ArbCom was unfair to them. "What bothers me the most is that you also received the punishment for no other reason than having a different point of view from the other editor. It's completely ludicrous" See User talk:Cambalachero#Re: Hello, as well as User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 6#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History closed ("Despite never being uncivil (an arbitrator even used the funny term "Civil POV-pusher" to describe me), and merely deserving of a WP:TROUT, I was topic banned from Latin American history for a year.") And most important of all, see the entire Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision.
If you're willing to allow two editors who never demonstrated any regret to edit controversial articles, or even to narrow the topic ban, be sure of what you're doing because experience tells that these kind of editors won't change their behavior. -- Lecen ( talk) 22:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Do you really expect to see two editors who used unreliable sources written by Fascists with the purpose of political propaganda to "bringing about high-quality, unbiased editing"? Even more when these editors never showed any regret nor acknowledgement of their wrong actions? -- Lecen ( talk) 23:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point that MarshalN20 has requested a controversial article because NuclearWarfare suggested him to do so. See User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 38#MarshalN20. There's no need to guess in advance if he would do a good or bad work in it: that article has been edited by 2073 different editors, and the talk page by 519 different editors. If he tries to do something wrong, or to introduce bias in either direction, he would be noticed immediately. If he has no hidden agenda, then the many editors that watch that article will be watching him and won't find anything wrong, and his edit history would proceed without problems. As for Lecen, he should drop the stick: he has never been interested in editing the articles of the Falkland Islands. If that article becomes good or featured with this trial period for MarshalN20, then it would be something positive for everybody.
Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk ( talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Lecen ( talk) at 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Extended content
|
---|
Clarification According to "proposed decision" on the Argentine History case "[t]his dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America". User MarshalN20 had "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" and was thus "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces" (emphasis added). See here, here and here. As far as I know, MarshalN20 was banned because he and Cambalachero had been using Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources. And these are regarded unreliable by mainstream historians. See here. The problem is that since then MarshalN20 has argued over and over that he has no idea why he was topic banned. In fact, he has claimed that he was topic banned because he made a move request on Paraguayan War (War of the Triple Alliance), which has no relation to Juan Manuel de Rosas nor to Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists. A few examples:
I'd like to see clarified: were MarshalN20 and Cambalachero topic banned because they used Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources? If not, why were they topic banned? |
Amendment
The proposed decision was published on 23 June 2013. Since then I had a hard time trying to move on. MarshalN20 hasn't stopped talking about Juan Manuel de Rosas and myself:
I dont believe anything will be done regarding MarshalN20' continuous topic ban violations. However, I'd like to request a formal amendment for permanent interaction ban. And, if possible, to declare that MarshalN20 cannot speak about me anywhere unless if requested by an arbitrator or administrator. The same may apply to me if the Arbcom wishes. What I want is simple: to be left alone. That's all.
I would like to note that it is the consensus of the uninvolved administrators who reviewed the arbitration enforcement request that a mutual interaction ban is necessary. There is evidently a great deal of bad blood here, and I don't see interactions between the two without some disengagement. Salvio's informal warning was unfortunately insufficient to achieve that, so I believe we need an enforceable remedy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Should the committee accept this request, and I hope they will, can I plead that they make the interaction ban wide enough so that obvious skirting of it is actionable? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to request an interaction ban with Lecen as well. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll start by writing that this whole subject has turned into a ridiculously childish situation. The last time I recall being in this position was back in grade school when me and a kid argued over watering plant seeds (science project), and even that situation was less silly than this matter between Lecen and me.
Above you can interpret from Lecen's point of view that I am as evil and manipulative as
Darth Sidious. Yet, his argumentation (premises and results) is filled with misguided assumptions and erroneous conclusions. My answer to them: The enforcement board dismissed all of his claims as unfounded or exaggerated.
Yet, it should come as no surprise that Lecen continues carrying
the stick, and continues accusing me of being a misogynist propagandist, supporter of fascism and anti-Semitism, and mastermind meatpuppeteer. He has already been told various times to stop, but he continues with these accusations.
But, this is to be expected because, in Lecen's view, he is the "good guy" who is doing nothing wrong. When his close friend
User:The ed17 files a report against me (despite Ed has no relation whatsoever to this case), it's obviously not meatpuppetry. When Lecen accuses me of being a Fascist propagandist, that obviously is not an insult. And, when I respond to any of his aggressions, I am obviously ranting. So, the "logic" here is pretty black-and-white.
Topic Ban, clarifications (Part 1)
My understanding of the ARBCOM ruling is that I was topic banned due to "tendentious editing and battleground conduct". The diffs used to justify the position all come from my edits in the article on the
Paraguayan War.
As I expressed in AGK's talk page (see
[28]), I understand what I did wrong in the move request and have repeatedly expressed regret for my actions. However, I also point out that not only did this move request take place over a year ago (February 2012), but that at the time I was also unaware of other options available to continue a reasonable intellectual discussion (including the move review board & the conflict of interest board).
Lecen, however, claims that I was topic banned for the reasons he uses to justify his insults of Fascism, anti-Semitism, etc.
This is what confuses me. I have never used Fascist sources in my entire life (although I did once read a book on Mussolini for a European history course), and the only editing action I ever took in the article "
Juan Manuel de Rosas" was to copy-edit the material that was already in the article's introduction and "early life" sections (I never added a single source to that article).
This is why I am asking for clarification on what else I did wrong (so that I may correct it), because I honestly do not understand how this February 2012 move request justifies such a broad topic ban ("Latin American history") and harsh accusations (tendentious and battleground editing).
Topic Ban, clarifications (Part 2)
Yes, I took part in the talk page discussions that erupted into the "Argentine history" ARBCOM case. However, my position was simply that of being against source-censorship (per
freedom of speech). Up to this point, I don't understand why the author's political leanings are a problem to the history of Juan Manuel de Rosas.
Rosas was not a woman (no worry for "misogynists"), he was not a Jew (no worry for "anti-Semitism"), and certainly was not a Fascist (the roots of Fascism, according to Wikipedia's article on
Fascism, do not even start until the 1880s. Rosas died in 1877). Rosas was a
caudillo (the "quintessential" one according to
John Lynch), who acted like many other Latin American caudillos of the era.
If there really was a need to distinguish "revisionists" from other authors, then that distinction could have easily been made in the article ("According to revisionist historian blah blah, [...]"). Not only that, but Cambalachero even provided a source that clearly stated that (at least in Argentina) revisionists were now regarded as reliable as the "mainstream" historians of Rosas (who were instead now being accused of purposely disfiguring Rosas).
Regardless, I again point out that at no point did I add a source to the Rosas article. It was my hope that Cambalachero and Lecen could work together...but Lecen did not want anyone with a different point of view to edit the article with him.
I have asked Lecen (countless of times) to show a single diff that demonstrates otherwise. Yet, he does not do it. Instead, he constantly associates me with Cambalachero in an attempt to confuse you (the arbitrators) into thinking we both did the same actions.
Actions post-"Argentine history" ruling
Several interesting results can now be analyzed (nearly two months have passed) from the "Argentine history" ruling.
Conclusions
Suggested solution I suggest that the arbitration committee take the following decisions for this case:
The result of these sanctions would allow me to work on articles related to Andean history (my expertise), the Falklands, and Central American history. It would also allow Cambalachero to continue providing valuable contributions to Argentine topics, avoiding those related to Rosas. And, of course, the interaction bans would prevent further problems among the three of us.
I'll add, as promised to Seraphim, that the interaction ban is strongly supported by several editors (see
[29]).
Best regards.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk
02:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
1) Cambalachero and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.
2) MarshalN20 and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Cambalachero ( talk) at 03:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
In the case Argentine history I have been topic banned from all pages related to the history of Latin America. I also edit articles on modern politics, and I want to know how much back in time can I go before politics turn into history. I asked it to NuclearWarfare ( here, he told me that the last 15 years would be acceptable, but advised as well to clarify this, to avoid misunderstandings. My idea would be to work with the presidency of Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) and the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-today), and the events that took place in them. More or less, the last decade.
I may also work with articles that are clearly not historical, but may need to mention a small detail about history. For example, when I wrote about the actor Roberto Carnaghi (which I wrote before the ban), I mentioned a historical period and something that was going on by then, without much detail, to describe his character in a telenovela. If I work with articles on heavy metal bands, I may need to point the censorship they received during the military government, or their problems during the 1989 or 2001 economic crisis. In those cases, if the description is kept short and to the point, only the basic info needed for the non-historical article, would it be acceptable?
This is a much-discussed topic in the field. However, colleagues and professors alike often consider anything starting from 1980 (or 1985) to be "contemporary history". I would suggest the arbitrators to not only clarify this but also amend the case with a statement that exempts contemporary history from the topic ban. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I am completely uninvolved with this topic area, but I agree that a clarification is needed. The history of most countries and regions is divided into conventinal eras. If there is a consensus among reliable sources on such conventional eras then the cutoff should be set at one of those. If there is not, then based solely on the present state of the History of South America and History of Argentina articles it would seem that the latest reasonable cut-off date would be 1998 (election of Hugo Chávez). Looking specifically at Argentina, 1983 (end of the military dictatorship) would seem logical and workable. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
To the arbs: If/when you decide on a date, please be clear whether that date is inclusive or exclusive of the range covered by the ban. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
There needs to be a clarification on the Latin American history topic ban. History is a very broad topic. A prior clarification request discussion showed there was plenty of troubles with the broadness of the ban and its inherent lack of precision. Please see ( [33]), where Brad writes, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." The result here was that "recent history" was excluded from the topic ban.
The topic ban's lack of precision recently caused me to get into a minor block incident over a football article (see [34]). The first block incident was caused by inaccurate interpretation of the TBAN exception's "vandalism clause".
To summarize this request into questions:
Additional relevant evidence (from my part):
In response to Sandstein, the Chile-Peru football rivalry is an ongoing event. To claim that it "is entirely about past events" is a terrible premise that dismantles the whole argument and conclusion. This is also why the unblock request was accepted by the community. Per WP:TBAN: "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not." The "history" section in Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly delimited. That the article is a badly written one also does not help the case made against me.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The last clarification request resulted in a statement from the Committee that events in or after December 1983 are not "history" for the purposes of this topic ban. So the edit that led to the block [37] - reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 to an article that is primarily about sports - was not in any way I can conceive of covered by the topic ban.
Accordingly I would suggest that the topic ban be explicitly refined to:
For example a 2010 book about the War of the Pacific would be covered by the topic ban, sections of History of Argentina about events in or after December 1983 would not be. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.
weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
This is yet another example of Marshal trying to neuter this topic ban, which was "broadly construed" to forestall these exact issues. There have been several previous enforcement and clarification requests that Marshal has chosen not to link. These show a clear pattern of skirting the topic ban, breaching it only in unclear gray areas:
“ | ... I've a long-standing belief that we need to show editors who are fucking around that we mean business. Why do people get topic banned to begin with? Because they can't check their emotions at the door and edit within some topic matter like a normal person. At this point, if MarshalN20 finds himself editing any article related to anything that happened in the past in Latin America and starts getting all hot and bothered, he should walk away. Instead, he decided to get into an edit war. Is the article peripherally related to Latin American history? Sure, it's a gray area. But why push it? You'd better believe that if I got topic banned from articles about the history of New York and I found myself edit warring in an article about a historical New York sports rivalry, I'd expect to get blocked. It amazes me that people carry on like this and then act like they didn't know they were doing anything. | ” |
And as a final side note, trying to litigate individual sections of articles Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. Any article that deals with the history of the region should be and is covered under the topic ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all, MarshalN20 is not requesting an amendment of the case, but a clarification on the actual limits of the case as it is. The previous block was caused precisely by a misunderstanding on the extension of it, so the clarification request is appropiate, and it is precisely meant to avoid further troubles. In fact, I suggested him to request this clarification, I thought that if the limits are clear for everybody then there will be less of those discussions, or no such discussions at all. And there's no big need to link all the previous clarifications, amendments or enforcements of this case, because all those are already included at the case's main page or subpages anyway; arbitrators know where to seek them.
First, the topics. I think that "history" means the topics that we can seriously expect to find in a book named "History of Argentina", "History of Peru", or similar. The main topics that such books talk about are warfare, in the periods when the country is at war, and politics, when the country is at peace. With both terms broadly construed: in this context politics would mean anything that is related to the governance of a country (including economy, international relations, social rights, etc.), and warfare would mean anything that is related to conflicts between military factions (including ships or military hardware, cancelled or proposed military operations, etc.). If it is clarified this way, then we can be more certain if an article about a football rivalry (or any other topic that may arise) is included in the ban or not.
And second, the frontier between current things and history. It was said during the block discussion (I forgot where or by whom) that the 1983 limit is only for Argentine history, and did not apply to other countries. That is correct: when that clarification was requested, I declined to clarify a year for the whole of latin america, because contemporary latin american history was not among my interests anyway. And 1983 was selected because it's a natural turning point in Argentina, as it was described by then; but it is meaningless for the other countries. I don't think there's such a meaningful event for the whole continent, so to keep it close to the limit that has already been decided for Argentina, we can set the limit in the begining of the 1980s (January 1, 1980). The turning of a decade should be a good universal turning point. Of course, that would leave some articles half-allowed and half-banned (such as the National Reorganization Process), but I would simply avoid such articles. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been notified as the administrator who made the two most recent enforcement blocks. Because I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about whether a topic ban is needed to prevent misconduct by MarshalN20, and if yes, how broad that topic ban should be. But in the cases raised in an enforcement context, as listed by The ed17, I've observed that MarshalN20 has repeatedly violated or tested the boundaries of their topic ban. It's up to the Committee to decide which if any conclusions should be drawn from this history of noncompliance.
If I were a member of the Committee, I'd be concerned that by deciding to lift the block I imposed on MarshalN20 for editing Chile-Peru football rivalry (in my view, pretty clearly an "article ...related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed" as per the terms of the topic ban), the participants in the noticeboard discussion may de facto have already modified (in the sense requested here by MarshalN20) or vacated the Committee-imposed topic ban, in violation of the principle that Arbitration Committee decisions are binding ( WP:AP). This raises the question whether the procedure documented at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions requires amendment to prevent this sort of "appeal to the community" against Committee decisions (in the context of their enforcement), which is not envisioned by the community-adopted arbitration policy. Sandstein 15:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me that too many administrators go around looking for excuses to block or ban other editors, and Sandstein is one of the worst of those. (Redacted) he ought to be banned from the arbitration enforcement cock pit nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not following this discussion closely, so perhaps I have misread things, however, if Sandstein has blocked Lecen while his block of MarshallN120 is under discussion, then that doesn't appear wise. The arbitration enforcement should have been left to someone else. DrKiernan ( talk) 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Having worked elbow-to-elbow with both MarshallN120 and Lecen, I'm happy to see someone is finally addressing Lecen, whose attitude and belligerence were quite a pain in my petusky when I was FAC delegate. I don't understand why MarshallN120 can't work on soccer articles, and my experience with Lecen indicates he's unlikely to adapt his behavior(s) with anything short of blocks. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be yet another case where Sandstein's enforcement of arbitration remedies is clearly problematic. I think the Arbs should consider that aspect of the question as well. Either bar him from enforcing arbitration remedies altogether or restrict him so that he at least cannot act unilaterally when enforcing them. He does seem to avoid some of the more egregious problems when other admins are there to rein in his excesses.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As I stated on AN/ANI, because the lead of the soccer rivalry article clearly asserts that the important of that rivalry comes from history (not sports history). In fact, one could argue that without that importance/notability statement, this article would not necessarily exist. As it was patently obvious that this article was related to Latin American history, and thus was subject to the topic ban, even though the article was primarily about soccer. ES &L 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue is clearly how broadly "broadly construed" should be construed.
I suggest the current standard of "Six Degrees of Separation" is untenable, and that therefore the term ought to be finally deprecated.
I suggest "reasonably and directly related to the case giving rise to the restriction" is a far more logical wording. Postulate a person barred from all articles relating to "American History" -- "broadly construed" would clearly apply to "The Beatles" as referring to a "British invasion" by one using the "broadly construed" standard. And those who insist that all violations should be treated in a draconian manner (as the Queen of Hearts once said "Off with their head!") are confusing the trees with the forest. Collect ( talk) 12:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Further comment: The proposed motion still retains "broadly construed" which conflicts with the wording "directly related" on the same motion. It is not logical to have conflicting criteria in the same sentence. The motion ought be better phrased as
Which would avoid the "broadly construed" potential misuse. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Referring to User:The ed17 above and the reference to the first month long block under this broadly construed topic ban. It would be informative to put this into context:
I note that in the case of the first block, the editor was blocked in what is effectively a punitive manner after they had already realised and acknowledged an error on their part. I don't see this block as defensible.
In the second block, which was for two months based on a presumption of recidivism following the first, User:MarshalN20 was editing the football-related article Chile–Peru football rivalry. That there is a reference to the War of the Pacific in the lede, lead to a block under the broadly construed nature of the topic ban. In this case, I have difficulty seeing a block as defensible with the application of WP:COMMON, though given the poor wording in the original topic ban perhaps it is a grey area. I am encouraged my interpretation was correct as arbcom members have indicated below that they don't consider the topic ban extended to the article that led to the second block.
Two issues are being raised here.
I would suggest that rather than referring to Latin America in totality, the wording is revised to cover only those areas relevant to the arbcom case. I would suggest the topic ban should be revised to be specifically related to Argentine history prior to December 1980 or whatever date arbcom sees fit. I would also suggest this is contingent on all parties in the case restrict themselves to a 1RR restriction and find themselves a mentor as their behaviour has been far from optimal. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Common sense is useful if it is informed. The suggestion that international sports rivalry, especially in the Western World, is a priori not a history topic seems uninformed (see Greek Games) -- moreover, here in an article (the one under discussion) that prominently discusses the geopolitical background. If this committee wants a narrower ban -- it is its responsibility to make it narrower. Don't blame others. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not all that familiar with the original case, though I believe I was marginally involved in the content dispute resolution history, so what I am about to say may be wholly irrelevant. In regard to Motion 1, some care might need to be exerted in regard the term "geopolitical" in order to avoid further ambiguity. For something to be geopolitical, it generally has to have a geographic component or influence, not just be limited by geography (i.e. limited to Latin America). Just "political" might work better. You might also want to be careful of the phrase "of Latin America," especially with the "broadly construed" dropped, as this could be read to only include topics affecting all of Latin America (especially since "geopolitics" suggests an international or regional subject matter). I know that you're trying to cut the scope of this remedy down, but you don't want to go too narrow, either. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just passing through. I can see what you're trying to do with Motion #2, but it encapsulates a principle which is already an explicit part of WP:TBAN ("Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.") The language and examples at WP:TBAN are quite clear.
My concern is that you may be inviting future confusion and conflict as administrators at AE are left to try to divine your intent in not simply relying on the explicit provisions of WP:TBAN in this particular remedy (or worse, to try to guess how the absence of this specific additional emphasis and endorsement should affect the interpretation of all other topic ban remedies to which you have not – yet – added this particular language).
If the Committee is concerned that there are specific instances in which the provisions of WP:TBAN have not been properly interpreted or applied, then feel free to address that as needed—but don't go rewriting or restating extant policies as a remedy. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, if, for the purposes of this restriction, we define "history" as "an umbrella term that relates to past events", we end up concluding that almost every article on Wikipedia is covered by this topic ban; in this, I agree with Marshal: even the article about the banana has a history section. And I also agree with Thryduulf that the article in question appears to be mainly about sports, even if it contains a history section, and that reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 should not have been considered a violation of Marshal's restriction.
For these reasons, I support the proposal to tweak the wording of the restriction, so that it is more consistent with what we intended to prohibit in the first place (or, to be more precise, with what I think we wanted to prohibit when we originally imposed the topic) – and, so, pilfering Thryduulf's wording, I'd clarify that, for the purposes of this restriction, the term "history" should be interpreted as referring to a. the geopolitical, economic and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and b. any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic or military events that occurred before December 1983 (or a different date, considering we only granted the 1983 exemption wrt Argentine history).
Finally, an editor who is banned from interacting with another may not make comments, either directly or indirectly, about him anywhere, for any reason, except to report a violation of the restriction, to ask for a clarification of or to appeal the ban. Lecen's comments, therefore, are a violation of his restriction and I'm about to ask the clerks to remove them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
For reference, the relevant remedy relating to MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) is:
2) MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.
Proposed:
Proposed:
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Original Request (too long!)
|
---|
This request for the Argentine History case is primarily a clarification petition, but may end up with additional amendments to the case depending on how the solution to the problem can be achieved optimally (I will provide an amendment suggestion).
Thanks in advance for the help. Please take my proposals for solution as recommendations (not demands). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Response to Roger
|
---|
---Response to Roger--- Thanks Roger. Yes, here are the direct quotes...
Notes:
Neotarf and others get away with this kind of mudslinging by claiming that their "general idea of the topic" is correct based on the Arbitration Committee's decision. A clarification on the ruling, perhaps directly addressing this "Black Legend", would be helpful (so that any further aspersion casting can be dealt with at AN/I). Alternatively, a remedy for "casting aspersions" could be amended into the case in order for any further aspersion casting can be reviewed at the Arbitration Enforcement page (which is more focused on arbitration-related matters than AN/I). If none of my recommendations are adequate, I would also appreciate suggestions on how to handle this matter (for instance, should I simply take this directly to AN/I the next time it happens?). It's truly bothersome to keep having my reputation besmirched throughout Wikipedia. The IBAN was certainly a great help in stopping the source, but the false accusations continue being spread by users with apparent ties to the involved parties. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
Response to Astynax
|
---|
---Response to Roger---
Note: I suppose that another part of the question here is the distinction between the "evidence phase" and the "final decision". Astynax below assures that what was placed in the "evidence phase" can be used in the Arbitration Committee's voice. I find this view strange, particularly as my understanding is that the "evidence phase" is where parties (involved and peripheral) could submit their position on the subject, whereas the "final decision" is what the Arbitration Committee ultimately had to say about the matter. Some kind of clarification is clearly needed either for me, for the others, or for everyone.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 07:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC) |
Penultimate Request (also long)
|
---|
Clarification Questions:
These are all my clarification questions. Salvio was kind enough to provide his response to them ( [54]):
Astynax, all I am asking is that you (and your friends) please stop casting aspersions about me. Simply drop the stick.
Hence, I believe that the only solutions here are:
Yes, I know that this clarification request is unusual. However, I think the statements made by Astynax & The_ed17, along with my evidence from Neotarf, are good examples of the why the unusual explanation is necessary. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 06:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
Per the recommendations of Salvio and ES&L, I request that my clarification request please be withdrawn.
I apologize for the continuing drama, but you can follow the story at AN/I (
[58]). Assuming my WrestleMania example to be correct, I call dibs on Hulk Hogan.
Again, sorry everyone.
Best wishes.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk
16:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
MarshalN20 is mistaken that reliable, mainstream sources were not produced linking Nacionalismos and its apologists to Fascism during the arbitration case during the Evidence phase. The Signpost article thus seems to be on solid footing, and there are certainly other mainstream historians that could be cited in support of equating Nacionalismo and quasi-historical Nacionalismos accounts with Fascism. MarshalN20 joined Cambalachero/MBelgrano in defending edits based upon those sources. I am unsure what motivated MarshalN20 to lodge yet another request regarding this case, what this complaint has to do with his block, or what he is asking be clarified. If he has a complaint against the behavior of Neotarf, who did not participate in the arbcom case, surely this is not the place to lodge it. • Astynax talk 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
+1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I’m not sure why I am being named as a party here. I have never edited in this topic area or with this group of editors.
The Signpost Arbitration Report has included the same basic synopsis of the Argentine History case since the April 1st, 2013 issue, over nine months ago. Marshal was not named in any of these reports. The only time this user was named in an Arbitration Report with regards to this case was in the June 26, 2013 report, when the case was closed and the findings passed unanimously by the committee were quoted verbatim.
Marshal has never expressed any concerns about the reports on the talk pages, or by contacting me via my talk page or by email. He did however post a comment here after he was mentioned in connection with one of his requests regarding his Latin American history topic ban. At that time I declined to expand on the report, as I don’t consider these requests to be very interesting to a general audience, plus it's a lot of work, but I invited him to add his reflections. He did not.
Marshal has also misquoted me: e.g. when he quotes this: "They were ganging up to bully him." the actual quote is "WHO CLAIMED they were ganging up to bully him." (emphasis mine)
No one has accused Marshal of being a “fascist” (small “f”). The reference to Fascism (capital “F”) refers to sources associated with the Revisionismo movement of the 1930s. My comments at WikiProject Editor Retention were to express surprise after an editor was sanctioned by AE after posting at yet another one of Marshal’s topic ban review requests.
Query: If Marshal is topic banned, how is he posting comments at the Signpost and at Clarification Requests?
Regards, — Neotarf ( talk) 08:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This is ridiculous to be here: Marshal was advised to take others' behaviour to ANI, and that's that. Period. That said, Asyntax has spent every single one of his posts here proving Marshal to be right. Asyntax' comments are 110 degrees off of what the findings of fact were, and is ascribing very different words and meanings to ArbCom's findings. This clearly violates WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA), and refuses to remove them even when appropriately notified of their error. However, nobody on this board will block for it, and Marshal knows it. So Marshal, close this well-intentioned, but poorly thought-out filing (after all, you WERE told the right locale), and use diff's to the links as part of your proof. Someone is quite clearly trying to drive you away from specific articles and casting false aspersions. Editors are not permitted to put words in ArbCom's mouths that were not there to begin with in order to invalidate your edits ES &L 10:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 Talk at 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Hey! I'd like to take the article United States to featured status (current sandbox, with pictures and new lead section, is at User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). Over the past year I have also led two articles to featured status, the Peru national football team and Pisco Sour, and will soon have a third one with the Falkland Islands.
I was not sure if editing the US history section would be an issue, due to the topic ban that prevents me from editing Latin American history topics (non-cultural) prior to 1980. US history is tangentially related to Latin American history. David recommended me to take the question here in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
I'd like to work in this article to keep demonstrating my true value as an editor. Regards.-- MarshalN20 Talk 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as a participant in the previous discussion, opposed to MarshalN20, I think that a limited exception for the United States article is appropriate. Nearly all of the history section will not infringe on areas that caused the ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Proposed:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Cambalachero ( talk) at 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I am currently topic banned from articles that talk about Latin American history. As clarified here, the line between history and modern times in Argentina has been set in 1983 (end of the National Reorganization Process dictatorship, and restoration of democracy). The articles listed are the articles about the presidents of Argentina since 1983, and the Pope. As such, the bulk of their articles is/would be about their presidencies (or papacy), already within the allowed limits, and do not require any special exemption. However, the sections about their early lives and early careers usually need to explain the dictatorship and the dirty war, to provide the appropiate context. In other cases, the aftermath of the dirty war still sparked controversies in the national politics (see the dirty war article, sections "Truth commission, decrees revoked", "Continuing controversies" and "Repeal of Pardon Laws and renewal of prosecutions").
Have in mind that the original discussion that led to the case was about articles from the XIX century. Those small exemptions will not go anywhere near the original controversy.
In relation to modern Argentine events, I wrote the featured article 2013 Rosario gas explosion, helped to promote the articles Néstor Kirchner, Argentine legislative election, 2013 and 2012 Buenos Aires rail disaster to the "In the news" section of the main page. I also wrote new articles, featured in the DYK section, for 18A, 2012 cacerolazo in Argentina, 2012 fiscal austerity in Argentina, 2013 Buenos Aires train crash, Argentine quota law, Boudougate, Broad Front UNEN, Eduardo Arnold, Madero Center, Mario Poli, Periodismo para todos, Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, la Cámpora. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As a professional historian, I agree that it is difficult to draw a "line" between what is history and what is the present. Nonetheless, for the sake of understanding the subject, historians have (time and again) made these lines (they vary, of course, depending on the context and historian). ArbComm has also indeed drawn a line in this case.
Regardless of that, the purpose of ArbComm is to focus on user behavior. Cambalachero has conducted himself exceptionally, and has provided a series of positive contributions for the project since his topic ban (including a featured article). This positive behavior should be far more important for the committee's amendment decision than anything else.
Sincerely.-- MarshalN20 Talk 15:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Notwithstanding other restrictions on their editing, Cambalachero is permitted to edit all content on the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis; as well as their talk pages. They may also make any edits reasonably necessary for those articles to go through the good article, peer review, or featured article processes. If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made at the requests for clarification and amendment page. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs.
Enacted - S Philbrick (Talk) 15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies talk 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 at 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
A considerable amount of time has passed since the "ARBARG" case reached its conclusion. After the topic ban was placed, I asked then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare on how to proceed in order to appeal it; he suggested that I tackle a controversial article and take it to featured status (see [60]). Since then, I have taken three articles to featured status ( Peru national football team, Falkland Islands, and Pisco Sour), and I am now in the process of passing another one through the GA-FA process ( Bicycle kick) as well as conducting a GA review of an article by Kareldorado. It is worth mentioning that I worked on the controversial Falkland Islands article with Wee Curry Monster and was supervised by administrator Basalisk.
I am requesting the removal of this topic ban on the basis of the following points:
The third point, which goes against WP:HARASS, is what has prompted me to request this TBAN removal. The harassment needs to stop, and the only way to do so is by removing this unnecessary, punitive topic ban. My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves and demonstrate that I am not an editor that deserves this type of mistreatment. In fact, this experience has taught me many valuable lessons about Wikipedia and its community, including the reality that many editors also deal with this problem of harassment; in the near future, I would like to become an administrator in order to help users become productive editors while also tackling harassment issues which drive away productive editors. To achieve this goal, I will have to earn the community's trust, and this I will do by committing myself to continuing my positive behavior and contributions to this online encyclopedia. To be more precise about my near future plans, I would like to first take the Peru article through an FA re-review (since it no longer meets the standards) and next work on taking more articles to featured status (mostly those in my sandboxes).
Please let me know if you have any questions. I would kindly appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions prior to arbitrators making any final decision on this request.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand the reasons why I was topic banned back then. I know that many people does not trust me, I can't simply ask for a lift of the topic ban by just stating my good intentions. Although two years have passed, I think that I have to earn that trust, and time alone may not be enough. For that reason, I asked some months ago for exceptions for the biographies of the Argentine presidents from 1983 to modern day: if I manage to make them all featured articles, then I may have something to justify my case. Unfortunately, my limited time did not allow me to have any progress that I may show at this point (I'm just with a good article nomination, and nothing more). Because of this, I will make no special request in this case for me at this point.
On the other side, there is a request I would like to make: please do not tie Marshal20's fate with mine. His situation is not the same, and his topic ban should be lifted now. The original dispute was with the biography of Juan Manuel de Rosas; the scope was expanded to all of latin american history surely to prevent the problems with "testing the limits" if the thing was too narrow. But if you check him, you will see that before that dispute he had never took part in any discussion or made any significant number of edits to either the article of Rosas or to some other article that may be more or less related (such as those in the navbox {{ Argentine Civil War}}). In fact, he's not Argentine but Peruvian, and the national histories of Argentina and Peru had very little points of intersection. MarshalN20 simply joined the discussion when the discussion had been taken to venues to request to intervention of more users, just that. If someone deserves to be punished for that old dispute, let it be just me. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I was dismayed when the topic ban was imposed on MarshalN20 (on 23 June 2013), and I expressed my disappoinment on MarshalN20's User talk page at the time. I have interacted with MarshalN20 for some years here, and have personally always found MarshalN20 to be a helpful and constructive contributor who seems to be here to help write a good encyclopedia. I also recently encouraged MarshalN20 to request for the ban to be lifted (on 3 July 2015), which at the time I thought was one year after the topic ban was imposed, but actually I now notice that two years has passed by. I think enough time has gone by to further demonstrate that this user is a very helpful contributor to Wikipedia. The user has also expressed regret for the prior behavior that led to the ban, which further demonstrates a willingness to do better in the future. I never really thought I properly understood the prior dispute, but have always thought MarshalN20 was a generally good editor who should be allowed and encouraged to help further improve Wikipedia – in all areas – and especially for the history of Latin America, as that is a subject on which MarshalN20 appears to have considerable expertise and a commitment to try help and to try to improve accuracy and NPOV (e.g., with regard to political and nationalistic biased editing). I thus strongly support removal of this old topic ban. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The ban was imposed on 23 June 2013. Since then MarshalN20 has broken the ban a lot of times, always in an agressive manner:
{{
reply|MarshalN20}}
Spanish is not my language, posting on my talk page would violate the TBAN, mailing it to me will not.It doesn't belong to the scope of this committee, but this intervention demostrates the true intentions of MarshalN20.
A topic ban should not be punitive, but should be preventive, that is it schould protect the others editors working in Wikipedia. And the quality of MarshalN20's edits, if any, say nothing about his capacity to team work. There is al lot of "good" editors that have been blocked or are unable to work in team.
In the light of MarshalN20 breaks of the ban, can anyone guarantee that MarshalN20 will respect the Rules of Wikipedia this time?. No. He didn't respect the rules before the ban and not during the topic ban and he will not respect the rules if the ban is lifted.
I thus strongly oppose removal of this neccesary topic ban. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Proposed: