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:
I really do not think it is appropriate to let Lecen exceed the word limit. He is not above the rules.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 19:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of stuff added by Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that are plain misquotations or simply untrue to the facts. This is a fine example. Cambalachero said: "Note that Lecen misquotes sources. 'How is Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?' describes the 1960s, not 2013, things changed since then as described." I'm very clear on my statement: "Writing in 1930..." and "Thirty and one years later, in 1961, Rosas’ image had..." Nowhere the year "2013" is mentioned. The only place that the year 2013 is mentioned is in another section called "How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians (1987–2013)?"
He also said: "The 'Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists...' paragraph is written as if talking about modern day, but cites a reference that talks about the 1930s". The book described the history of the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism up to 2011. The piece of text I quoted is talking about the Neo-revisionists, who only appeared in the 1960s, not in the 1930s. Are editors allowed to fabricate whatever they want in here? -- Lecen ( talk) 15:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It's just a grammar issue. The question 'How is Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?' has the verb "is", which is in present tense. The 1960s is the past, and if a question in present tense is replied with a past event, it is implied that things did not change since then. As for the other, yes, it was a mistake, but the main point stands: 1930s or 1960s, that's not the present. Yes, the book does get up to 2011, I cited those last chapters at the end, where they say that revisionism is now the official history. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion on the scope and acceptance of this case is currently archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. I provided a summary of the Argentine historiography, even if that's article content rather than user behaviour, simply because I was instructed to do so. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to ask both Cambalachero and MarshalN20 not to reply. If I wanted their opinion, I would have had asked directly to them. This is for the arbitrators, as all my other messages were.
Misquotations
Cambalachero wrote on his statement: "Note as well that in the English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there". And to "prove" his point he showed a quote taken from John Lynch's "Juan Manuel de Rosas: Argentine Caudillo": "In the English speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten". [5] Here is what Lynch actually said (my emphasis added): "Scholars and specialists are familiar with the world of Rosas because it reveals the growth of great states, the expansion of the frontiers, the role of patron and client, the roots of dictatorship, and the use of state terrorism. Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition [of Lynch's book] competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo. In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britain supported him, traded with him and finally rescued him." [6]
Lynch was talking about the average Argentine and the average British, not about scholars. As usual Cambalachero misquotes sources as he pleases. This is unacceptable. I have been warning the ArbCom of his and MarshalN20's behavior and so far no one has bothered to reply. There is a limit to what an Wikipedian can do and both have crossed the line a long time ago. The biography written by John Lynch is the best available work about Rosas that has been published so far, either in Argentina or abroad. But Cambalachero has never took it seriously. He said that the "historiography of Rosas is a topic in itself, with books about that specific topic, and none of them considered Lynch even worth a single mention." [7] He single handedly dismissed Lynch’s work and regarded it (based solely on his personal opinion) as "faulty", [8] full of "contradictions", [9] the opinions given as "mere political analysis" [10] and accused it of "plagiarism" [11] and that "Lynch merely repeats misconceptions he read somewhere else, instead of investigating them himself (as any serious historian, not a mere divulgator, would do)". [12] According to Cambalachero, Lynch, the most respected English-speaking expert in 19th century Argentina is a "mere divulgator", not a "serious historian".
In fact, Cambalachero considered Lynch's book "outdated" and for that reason it should be ignored, according to him. [13] He's talking about a book that was published in 2001 and widely regarded as the best available source about Rosas. Every time I tried to add anything according to what Lynch said Cambalachero removed: "Unlike Smith, Lynch does not mention his source for this bold claim" (Smith is yet another of Cambalachero's Fascist authors) [14]; "analysis". [15] When Lynch is useful to Cambalachero then he becomes a reliable source. And even when that occurs Cambalachero has no qualms in misquoting what Lynch said.
On section "Evidence presented by Cambalachero (sources)" Cambalachero used historian Michael Goebel as his only source. Of course he misquoted what Goebel said, even more because Goebel is the same one who said "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff". And more: Goebel is not an Argentine, his book was not published in Argentina nor is written in Spanish. It's a book written in English. Suddenly English-speaking authors have become reliable to Cambalachero? But again he misquoted them.
Cambalachero also said: "There is a difference between divulgative historians and real historians: real historians confirm each thing they say in primary sources, or share their doubts about the source's reliability with the reader; divulgative historians simply state 'things happened this way because I say so', without such investigation." On a discussion on Commons Cambalachero called Pacho O'Donnell a "divulgator whose mistakes I can realize myself" whose book "does not use footnotes or documents". [16] That's the very same author whom he as been using as source since 2009 when writing articles [17] [18] [19] and when defending his point of view. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] O'Donnell is an awful author when Cambalachero needs to make a point on Commons but at the same time he is a great one on Wikipedia in English. What?!
What I said and what I did not say
Cambalachero went as far as to call me a liar when I pointed out that O'Donnell should not be taken serious. In fact, Cambalachero has mentioned that he called me a liar [26] [27] and has called me yet again a liar in here.("I have spotted him lying at least two times") [28]("I proved Lecen lying") [29] Because I did not take serious that O'Donnell (who is not a historian, but a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright) is a "director of the department of history" of an university and "secretary of culture of Buenos Aires", both politically appointed offices (thanks to his ties with the present-Argentine government who wants to boost its claims to the Falklands Islands), I'm called a liar? Are Diffs showing Cambalachero calling me a liar enough to prove that?
Cambalachero also said: "Despite [Lecen] his proclaimed rejection of revisionism, he's not coherent with it. In fact, he promotes many revisionist views himself". What?! I never used a single Argentine Fascist as source in any of my articles. To "prove" that I am promoting "many revisionist views" myself he showed this diff: [30] When I expanded Juan Manuel de Rosas I did not use O'Donnell even once: [31] But since the Argentine Fascist/Nationalism/Revisionist is a real political movement I had to use O'Donnel on a Legacy section to show the Revisionists' PoV, of course.
Thus I ask: Is Cambalachero allowed to say whatever he wants even if it has no relation at all with reality? If yes, what's the point of having an arbitration? Lastly, I won't even waste my time mentioning MarshalN20. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
More:
Cambalachero wrote that in the "English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there". Here is just a few:
There it is. A quick look revealed that in the past 20 years (1993-2013) at least one book in English that dealt directly with Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism was published every couple of years. I wonder how many "historiographic" wings from non-English speaking countries could claim the same attention. All of the books above say the exact same thing: Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism was and still is a political movement. As Noleander once said, Cambalachero and MarshalN20, " when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)". That is painfully clear when we take a look at Cambalachero and MarshalN20's statements: no sources (except for Goebel, who actually says the opposite of what Cambalachero claims) but long and boring babblings. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Lastly: the Nationalism/Revisionism is also xenophobic (see David Rock on my statement). This is what Paulista01 said about MarshalN20 on February 2012: "Stop it, your attitude here is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You never assume good faith and you are always spreading misinformation in order to win arguments. You are not only constantly offending Brazilians but all good editors, remember, in the last vote, see the top of the page, only one editor was Brazilian, the vast majority had nothing to do with Brazil. It amazes me that no administrator told you to stop this form of argumentation, ad hominem attacks are for the weak and their weak ideas. You claim to be an historian, I seriously doubt it since you seem to ignore sources and cherry pick what you want." And more: " Again, you just made my point: not assuming good faith, spreading misinformation and trying to pass as the victim after being the one that made this personal."
Oh, another explanation turned into a WP:TLDR. Lecen, I will keep this short. I said that there is no established body of historians studying Rosas in the English-speaking world, and you don't agree. Better than mere google hits, name at least 5 full and specific biographies of Rosas (besides Lynch's), at least a pair of institutions, historical societies or similar devoted to the study of Rosas or a topic that is very close, and some book detailing in at least a full chapter how has Rosas been seen and studied outside of Argentina. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Lecen continues insulting me. The latest (
[40]): "You and your friend Cambalachero have been caught pushing the political views of Anti-Semitic Fascists across several articles and now the Arbitrators will decide what to do with both of you." The evidence provided by Lecen here barely mentions me, and (although I have attempted to take the Nazi, Anti-Semitic, Fascist, etc. in a light manner) by this point his accusations are nothing more than personal attacks.
It is also worth noting that I have already tried to talk about this with Lecen (
[41]), but he continues to ignore the point.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 00:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see that the only way some editors can present their evidence is to use headings citing essays that have little or no validity as guides to editor behavior and are obscene, sexist and degrading.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone that the extension of the evidence limits to allow an additional 2000-word submission on reliability of sources was granted on three conditions:
(a) The additional statement may only discuss the historiography of the topic, the sources used (or not used) in articles about it on Wikipedia, and whether those sources represent majority, minority, or fringe views of the topic (cf. WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE).
(b) The additional statement must not discuss, reference, or mention any editor or their actions.
(c) The additional statement must be submitted in its own, distinct section on the evidence page.
A number of the statements currently on the page violate condition (b); this is not acceptable. If there is any reference to any specific editor within the additional section, it will be considered to fall under the original 1000-word limit (and will likely be removed as a consequence). Please ensure that, if you're taking advantage of the extension, you do not reference other editors in your additional statement. Kirill [talk] 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Cambalachero, MarshalN20 and their friends made more than just a few pretty serious accusations toward me. Since I'm not aware if I'll be allowed to respond later, I decided to do it now.
1) "He also holds a grudge against me because I rejected his GAN 4 years ago, and he never dropped the stick" and "Here he opposed a FAC I had begun for the accuracy of a sentence about a passing-by comment about Brazil... that he had proposed himself at an earlier FAC..."
Quite incorrect. The GAN was on February 2010. The article was Platine War and Cambalachero opposed it (without giving me the chance to respond) because it called Rosas a dictator (I mentioned this affair on my statement). Despite the headache Cambalachero had given me over this one article, I still thought that he may have been a well-intentioned, though misguided, editor. At that time, I was not aware that he had been pushing fringe views across several articles. In July 2011, Cambalachero was trying a second time to get May Revolution through FA candidacy. Although I saw some fairly serious issues in the article, I suggested improvements rather than opposing outright. I also went to his talk page and said "I was really trying to help and I even asked other editors to copy-edit your article to improve its prose" I also wished him good luck, [42] and I sent another message soon wishing him again good luck and providing a few more suggestions. [43]
In April 2012 (almost a year later) he was trying a FAC nomination for the fourth time and I opposed it (because he doesn't use sources in English and because he is not faithful to what mainstream historiography says). [44] He tried another three times (for a total of seven) and I didn't say a word.
For reasons unknown to me, Cambalachero seems to have held a grudge against me. He began appearing on move requests to stand on the other side of whatever I was supporting or opposing, even though those were articles where he had never contributed before, nor had ever commented on their talk pages. This may be where he encountered MarshalN20 and began to seemingly tag-team in opposing my statements. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] The most recent example would be my FAC for Uruguayan War this March. The article has existed since May 2009, but neither has ever edited it or engaged on its talk page. However (and to me, not surprisingly), they appeared on the FAC and opposed it. [53] [54] They claimed they had seen it in the WP Military History project. Why had they never previously bothered to review other FACs? Why would they choose to review one from an editor with whom they have had a troubled relationship?
At times, I have been provoked to the point of outrage by Cambalachero and Marshaln20's intransigent behavior, and have expressed such on their talk pages at times. My words may not have been constructive, but accurately reflect the extreme frustration that their unremitting behavior produced in me, and likely in other editors. [55] [56] At different points over the years, I attempted to work past our conflict and tried to assist, but each time he has responded by exhibiting the same PoV-pushing and vendetta-like behavior.
Now ask him when did he attempt to help me. He never tried.
2) "Lecen accuses me and MarshalN20 of tag teaming, but without other proof than just some shared opinions."
See above.
3) "Despite his proclaimed rejection of revisionism, he's not coherent with it. In fact, he promotes many revisionist views himself."
None of the Featured Articles I wrote had Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist books among the many sources cited. They are either books in English or in Portuguese.
4) "He keeps telling us that Odonnell isn't reliable, but then he should explain this and this."
When I tried to rewrite Juan Manuel de Rosas article I didn't use O'Donnell as source. Not even a single time. [57] I planned to use it, and merely to portray the Nationalist/Revisionists' view regarding Rosas, in the Legacy section. I never had the chance because Cambalachero and MarshalN20 reverted my edits.
On the Evidence talk page Cambalachero tried to explain why he used O'Donnell when he said that he wasn't reliable: "As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work. That's why I used him as a source 4 years ago, but not anymore since a very long time." On 9 January 2013 and on 18 February 2013, less than two months ago and after Cambalachero called O'Donnell a "mere divulgator" on Commons, he cited the author as source.
5) "...he requested article ownership here and here..."
That's not what the links provided show.
6) "...he wants to write the article alone and without needing to find consensus for edits that he knows will be controversial."
Without consensus? Did I ever say that? None of the diffs provided by Cambalachero shows that. I can't understand why writing an article based on books written by mainstream historians would be regarded "controversial".
7) "Here and here he tries to describe me as an antisemite or nazi sympathizer."
None of the diffs provided show that.
8) "Lecen rejected all proposals and compromises... that were not a flat-out support to his proposal as originally conceived"
I won't accept any proposal that has Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist books included as reliable sources. Of course, if the ArbCom says that they are okay, I won't be able to oppose.
9) "He had an edit war with MarshalN20..."
MarshalN20 insisted on editing my comment, something well-known by everyone that is not allowed.
10) "He resorted to tag bombing here, here and here, and later here. This led to full article protection here"
The administrator didn't protect the article because of "tag bombing". It was I who asked him to keep an eye on the article.
11) "...another edit war ensued (I did not take part in it), and the article was protected again here"
Again, it was I who asked to administrator (the same from above) to do it. [58]
12) "Lecen claims the existence of a certain academic consensus..."
I don't. English-speaking authors who said that. It's all in my statement.
13) "I proved Lecen speaking falsely here, here and here"
Calling me a liar doesn't mean that Cambalachero "proved" that I was "speaking falsely". What I did was not to mention that Pacho O'Donnell is not the "director of the department of history" of an university as well as "secretary of culture of Buenos Aires", both politically appointed offices.
Cambalachero doesn't misrepresent facts and diffs. He does the same with sources.
1) "Note as well that in the English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there. Most of them, of the divulgative type. John Lynch said it himself: 'In the English speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten'."
This is not what Lynch meant. Here is what Lynch actually said (my emphasis added): "Scholars and specialists are familiar with the world of Rosas because it reveals the growth of great states, the expansion of the frontiers, the role of patron and client, the roots of dictatorship, and the use of state terrorism. Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition [of Lynch's book] competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo. In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britain supported him, traded with him and finally rescued him." [59] In the piece of text Cambalachero took out of context Lynch was talking about the average Argentine and the average British, not about scholars.
Misrepresenting sources is unacceptable.
2) "Is revisionism reliable? It depends on the author, not the school"
What is the main (and practically only) source Cambalachero used on his statement? Michael Goebel. The same one who said (see the e-mail I sent to all arbitrators): "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff".
Yet again has Cambalachero misrepresented sources.
3) Rosas is accepted as a national hero, with a national day, his face in currency banknotes, a monument, etc.
Is it? On the article about Juan Manuel de Rosas on Wikipedia in Spanish it's written (see es:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Segundo gobierno): "Gran parte de la historiografía argentina sigue considerando a Rosas un dictador o un tirano, mientras que la corriente revisionista le niega tal carácter, considerándolo un defensor de la soberanía nacional." ("Great part of the Argentine historiography still regards Rosas a dictator or a tyrant, while the Revisionist wing denies that, regarding him the defender of national sovereignty"). In other words: Mainstream historiography in Argentina regards Rosas a dictator or a tyrant, but the Nationalists/Revisionists do not agree. The English-speaking authors and Wikipedia in Spanish have both a similar view, but one completely different from the view supported by Cambalachero. Who is correct?
1) "Lecen's behavior and Hispanophobia"
MarshalN20 presented some diffs taken out of context. During a move request in an article he kept accusing me and others of "Brazilian PoV" and "Brazilianism" (I'm Brazilian), even though we were using as sources books written only in English. [60] [61] [62] [63]
As can be seen, given the context, my ironic remarks make far more sense.
MarshalN20's accusations were not taken in such a light mood by others. One editor complained to MarshalN20: "Stop it, your attitude here is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You never assume good faith and you are always spreading misinformation in order to win arguments. You are not only constantly offending Brazilians but all good editors, remember, in the last vote, see the top of the page, only one editor was Brazilian, the vast majority had nothing to do with Brazil. It amazes me that no administrator told you to stop this form of argumentation, ad hominem attacks are for the weak and their weak ideas. You claim to be an historian, I seriously doubt it since you seem to ignore sources and cherry pick what you want." [64]
2) "Lecen's behavior and Group tactics to push POV"
He was talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Empire of Brazil task force. Unfortunately, it can be regarded a failure, since the editors were never able to work together to review and improve articles related to Brazilian imperial history. The task force was even less useful for the purpose of using "Group tactics to push POV" (I'm being ironic). Try looking for the name of the users who are part of the task force in any of the discussions (I believe Limongi made a single comment once). You won't find them. In the diffs presented by MarshalN20 you will see my name as well as Astynax's (the two editors who wrote the article where the discussion was going on).
1) "Evidence presented by MarshalN20 (sources)"
No sources were shown in here so there is nothing to comment about.
I won't reply to the Cambalachero and MarshalN20's friends' statements because they were written after the time limit. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
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:
I really do not think it is appropriate to let Lecen exceed the word limit. He is not above the rules.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 19:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of stuff added by Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that are plain misquotations or simply untrue to the facts. This is a fine example. Cambalachero said: "Note that Lecen misquotes sources. 'How is Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?' describes the 1960s, not 2013, things changed since then as described." I'm very clear on my statement: "Writing in 1930..." and "Thirty and one years later, in 1961, Rosas’ image had..." Nowhere the year "2013" is mentioned. The only place that the year 2013 is mentioned is in another section called "How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians (1987–2013)?"
He also said: "The 'Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists...' paragraph is written as if talking about modern day, but cites a reference that talks about the 1930s". The book described the history of the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism up to 2011. The piece of text I quoted is talking about the Neo-revisionists, who only appeared in the 1960s, not in the 1930s. Are editors allowed to fabricate whatever they want in here? -- Lecen ( talk) 15:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It's just a grammar issue. The question 'How is Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?' has the verb "is", which is in present tense. The 1960s is the past, and if a question in present tense is replied with a past event, it is implied that things did not change since then. As for the other, yes, it was a mistake, but the main point stands: 1930s or 1960s, that's not the present. Yes, the book does get up to 2011, I cited those last chapters at the end, where they say that revisionism is now the official history. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion on the scope and acceptance of this case is currently archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. I provided a summary of the Argentine historiography, even if that's article content rather than user behaviour, simply because I was instructed to do so. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to ask both Cambalachero and MarshalN20 not to reply. If I wanted their opinion, I would have had asked directly to them. This is for the arbitrators, as all my other messages were.
Misquotations
Cambalachero wrote on his statement: "Note as well that in the English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there". And to "prove" his point he showed a quote taken from John Lynch's "Juan Manuel de Rosas: Argentine Caudillo": "In the English speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten". [5] Here is what Lynch actually said (my emphasis added): "Scholars and specialists are familiar with the world of Rosas because it reveals the growth of great states, the expansion of the frontiers, the role of patron and client, the roots of dictatorship, and the use of state terrorism. Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition [of Lynch's book] competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo. In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britain supported him, traded with him and finally rescued him." [6]
Lynch was talking about the average Argentine and the average British, not about scholars. As usual Cambalachero misquotes sources as he pleases. This is unacceptable. I have been warning the ArbCom of his and MarshalN20's behavior and so far no one has bothered to reply. There is a limit to what an Wikipedian can do and both have crossed the line a long time ago. The biography written by John Lynch is the best available work about Rosas that has been published so far, either in Argentina or abroad. But Cambalachero has never took it seriously. He said that the "historiography of Rosas is a topic in itself, with books about that specific topic, and none of them considered Lynch even worth a single mention." [7] He single handedly dismissed Lynch’s work and regarded it (based solely on his personal opinion) as "faulty", [8] full of "contradictions", [9] the opinions given as "mere political analysis" [10] and accused it of "plagiarism" [11] and that "Lynch merely repeats misconceptions he read somewhere else, instead of investigating them himself (as any serious historian, not a mere divulgator, would do)". [12] According to Cambalachero, Lynch, the most respected English-speaking expert in 19th century Argentina is a "mere divulgator", not a "serious historian".
In fact, Cambalachero considered Lynch's book "outdated" and for that reason it should be ignored, according to him. [13] He's talking about a book that was published in 2001 and widely regarded as the best available source about Rosas. Every time I tried to add anything according to what Lynch said Cambalachero removed: "Unlike Smith, Lynch does not mention his source for this bold claim" (Smith is yet another of Cambalachero's Fascist authors) [14]; "analysis". [15] When Lynch is useful to Cambalachero then he becomes a reliable source. And even when that occurs Cambalachero has no qualms in misquoting what Lynch said.
On section "Evidence presented by Cambalachero (sources)" Cambalachero used historian Michael Goebel as his only source. Of course he misquoted what Goebel said, even more because Goebel is the same one who said "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff". And more: Goebel is not an Argentine, his book was not published in Argentina nor is written in Spanish. It's a book written in English. Suddenly English-speaking authors have become reliable to Cambalachero? But again he misquoted them.
Cambalachero also said: "There is a difference between divulgative historians and real historians: real historians confirm each thing they say in primary sources, or share their doubts about the source's reliability with the reader; divulgative historians simply state 'things happened this way because I say so', without such investigation." On a discussion on Commons Cambalachero called Pacho O'Donnell a "divulgator whose mistakes I can realize myself" whose book "does not use footnotes or documents". [16] That's the very same author whom he as been using as source since 2009 when writing articles [17] [18] [19] and when defending his point of view. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] O'Donnell is an awful author when Cambalachero needs to make a point on Commons but at the same time he is a great one on Wikipedia in English. What?!
What I said and what I did not say
Cambalachero went as far as to call me a liar when I pointed out that O'Donnell should not be taken serious. In fact, Cambalachero has mentioned that he called me a liar [26] [27] and has called me yet again a liar in here.("I have spotted him lying at least two times") [28]("I proved Lecen lying") [29] Because I did not take serious that O'Donnell (who is not a historian, but a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright) is a "director of the department of history" of an university and "secretary of culture of Buenos Aires", both politically appointed offices (thanks to his ties with the present-Argentine government who wants to boost its claims to the Falklands Islands), I'm called a liar? Are Diffs showing Cambalachero calling me a liar enough to prove that?
Cambalachero also said: "Despite [Lecen] his proclaimed rejection of revisionism, he's not coherent with it. In fact, he promotes many revisionist views himself". What?! I never used a single Argentine Fascist as source in any of my articles. To "prove" that I am promoting "many revisionist views" myself he showed this diff: [30] When I expanded Juan Manuel de Rosas I did not use O'Donnell even once: [31] But since the Argentine Fascist/Nationalism/Revisionist is a real political movement I had to use O'Donnel on a Legacy section to show the Revisionists' PoV, of course.
Thus I ask: Is Cambalachero allowed to say whatever he wants even if it has no relation at all with reality? If yes, what's the point of having an arbitration? Lastly, I won't even waste my time mentioning MarshalN20. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
More:
Cambalachero wrote that in the "English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there". Here is just a few:
There it is. A quick look revealed that in the past 20 years (1993-2013) at least one book in English that dealt directly with Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism was published every couple of years. I wonder how many "historiographic" wings from non-English speaking countries could claim the same attention. All of the books above say the exact same thing: Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism was and still is a political movement. As Noleander once said, Cambalachero and MarshalN20, " when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)". That is painfully clear when we take a look at Cambalachero and MarshalN20's statements: no sources (except for Goebel, who actually says the opposite of what Cambalachero claims) but long and boring babblings. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Lastly: the Nationalism/Revisionism is also xenophobic (see David Rock on my statement). This is what Paulista01 said about MarshalN20 on February 2012: "Stop it, your attitude here is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You never assume good faith and you are always spreading misinformation in order to win arguments. You are not only constantly offending Brazilians but all good editors, remember, in the last vote, see the top of the page, only one editor was Brazilian, the vast majority had nothing to do with Brazil. It amazes me that no administrator told you to stop this form of argumentation, ad hominem attacks are for the weak and their weak ideas. You claim to be an historian, I seriously doubt it since you seem to ignore sources and cherry pick what you want." And more: " Again, you just made my point: not assuming good faith, spreading misinformation and trying to pass as the victim after being the one that made this personal."
Oh, another explanation turned into a WP:TLDR. Lecen, I will keep this short. I said that there is no established body of historians studying Rosas in the English-speaking world, and you don't agree. Better than mere google hits, name at least 5 full and specific biographies of Rosas (besides Lynch's), at least a pair of institutions, historical societies or similar devoted to the study of Rosas or a topic that is very close, and some book detailing in at least a full chapter how has Rosas been seen and studied outside of Argentina. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Lecen continues insulting me. The latest (
[40]): "You and your friend Cambalachero have been caught pushing the political views of Anti-Semitic Fascists across several articles and now the Arbitrators will decide what to do with both of you." The evidence provided by Lecen here barely mentions me, and (although I have attempted to take the Nazi, Anti-Semitic, Fascist, etc. in a light manner) by this point his accusations are nothing more than personal attacks.
It is also worth noting that I have already tried to talk about this with Lecen (
[41]), but he continues to ignore the point.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 00:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see that the only way some editors can present their evidence is to use headings citing essays that have little or no validity as guides to editor behavior and are obscene, sexist and degrading.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone that the extension of the evidence limits to allow an additional 2000-word submission on reliability of sources was granted on three conditions:
(a) The additional statement may only discuss the historiography of the topic, the sources used (or not used) in articles about it on Wikipedia, and whether those sources represent majority, minority, or fringe views of the topic (cf. WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE).
(b) The additional statement must not discuss, reference, or mention any editor or their actions.
(c) The additional statement must be submitted in its own, distinct section on the evidence page.
A number of the statements currently on the page violate condition (b); this is not acceptable. If there is any reference to any specific editor within the additional section, it will be considered to fall under the original 1000-word limit (and will likely be removed as a consequence). Please ensure that, if you're taking advantage of the extension, you do not reference other editors in your additional statement. Kirill [talk] 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Cambalachero, MarshalN20 and their friends made more than just a few pretty serious accusations toward me. Since I'm not aware if I'll be allowed to respond later, I decided to do it now.
1) "He also holds a grudge against me because I rejected his GAN 4 years ago, and he never dropped the stick" and "Here he opposed a FAC I had begun for the accuracy of a sentence about a passing-by comment about Brazil... that he had proposed himself at an earlier FAC..."
Quite incorrect. The GAN was on February 2010. The article was Platine War and Cambalachero opposed it (without giving me the chance to respond) because it called Rosas a dictator (I mentioned this affair on my statement). Despite the headache Cambalachero had given me over this one article, I still thought that he may have been a well-intentioned, though misguided, editor. At that time, I was not aware that he had been pushing fringe views across several articles. In July 2011, Cambalachero was trying a second time to get May Revolution through FA candidacy. Although I saw some fairly serious issues in the article, I suggested improvements rather than opposing outright. I also went to his talk page and said "I was really trying to help and I even asked other editors to copy-edit your article to improve its prose" I also wished him good luck, [42] and I sent another message soon wishing him again good luck and providing a few more suggestions. [43]
In April 2012 (almost a year later) he was trying a FAC nomination for the fourth time and I opposed it (because he doesn't use sources in English and because he is not faithful to what mainstream historiography says). [44] He tried another three times (for a total of seven) and I didn't say a word.
For reasons unknown to me, Cambalachero seems to have held a grudge against me. He began appearing on move requests to stand on the other side of whatever I was supporting or opposing, even though those were articles where he had never contributed before, nor had ever commented on their talk pages. This may be where he encountered MarshalN20 and began to seemingly tag-team in opposing my statements. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] The most recent example would be my FAC for Uruguayan War this March. The article has existed since May 2009, but neither has ever edited it or engaged on its talk page. However (and to me, not surprisingly), they appeared on the FAC and opposed it. [53] [54] They claimed they had seen it in the WP Military History project. Why had they never previously bothered to review other FACs? Why would they choose to review one from an editor with whom they have had a troubled relationship?
At times, I have been provoked to the point of outrage by Cambalachero and Marshaln20's intransigent behavior, and have expressed such on their talk pages at times. My words may not have been constructive, but accurately reflect the extreme frustration that their unremitting behavior produced in me, and likely in other editors. [55] [56] At different points over the years, I attempted to work past our conflict and tried to assist, but each time he has responded by exhibiting the same PoV-pushing and vendetta-like behavior.
Now ask him when did he attempt to help me. He never tried.
2) "Lecen accuses me and MarshalN20 of tag teaming, but without other proof than just some shared opinions."
See above.
3) "Despite his proclaimed rejection of revisionism, he's not coherent with it. In fact, he promotes many revisionist views himself."
None of the Featured Articles I wrote had Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist books among the many sources cited. They are either books in English or in Portuguese.
4) "He keeps telling us that Odonnell isn't reliable, but then he should explain this and this."
When I tried to rewrite Juan Manuel de Rosas article I didn't use O'Donnell as source. Not even a single time. [57] I planned to use it, and merely to portray the Nationalist/Revisionists' view regarding Rosas, in the Legacy section. I never had the chance because Cambalachero and MarshalN20 reverted my edits.
On the Evidence talk page Cambalachero tried to explain why he used O'Donnell when he said that he wasn't reliable: "As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work. That's why I used him as a source 4 years ago, but not anymore since a very long time." On 9 January 2013 and on 18 February 2013, less than two months ago and after Cambalachero called O'Donnell a "mere divulgator" on Commons, he cited the author as source.
5) "...he requested article ownership here and here..."
That's not what the links provided show.
6) "...he wants to write the article alone and without needing to find consensus for edits that he knows will be controversial."
Without consensus? Did I ever say that? None of the diffs provided by Cambalachero shows that. I can't understand why writing an article based on books written by mainstream historians would be regarded "controversial".
7) "Here and here he tries to describe me as an antisemite or nazi sympathizer."
None of the diffs provided show that.
8) "Lecen rejected all proposals and compromises... that were not a flat-out support to his proposal as originally conceived"
I won't accept any proposal that has Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist books included as reliable sources. Of course, if the ArbCom says that they are okay, I won't be able to oppose.
9) "He had an edit war with MarshalN20..."
MarshalN20 insisted on editing my comment, something well-known by everyone that is not allowed.
10) "He resorted to tag bombing here, here and here, and later here. This led to full article protection here"
The administrator didn't protect the article because of "tag bombing". It was I who asked him to keep an eye on the article.
11) "...another edit war ensued (I did not take part in it), and the article was protected again here"
Again, it was I who asked to administrator (the same from above) to do it. [58]
12) "Lecen claims the existence of a certain academic consensus..."
I don't. English-speaking authors who said that. It's all in my statement.
13) "I proved Lecen speaking falsely here, here and here"
Calling me a liar doesn't mean that Cambalachero "proved" that I was "speaking falsely". What I did was not to mention that Pacho O'Donnell is not the "director of the department of history" of an university as well as "secretary of culture of Buenos Aires", both politically appointed offices.
Cambalachero doesn't misrepresent facts and diffs. He does the same with sources.
1) "Note as well that in the English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there. Most of them, of the divulgative type. John Lynch said it himself: 'In the English speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten'."
This is not what Lynch meant. Here is what Lynch actually said (my emphasis added): "Scholars and specialists are familiar with the world of Rosas because it reveals the growth of great states, the expansion of the frontiers, the role of patron and client, the roots of dictatorship, and the use of state terrorism. Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition [of Lynch's book] competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo. In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britain supported him, traded with him and finally rescued him." [59] In the piece of text Cambalachero took out of context Lynch was talking about the average Argentine and the average British, not about scholars.
Misrepresenting sources is unacceptable.
2) "Is revisionism reliable? It depends on the author, not the school"
What is the main (and practically only) source Cambalachero used on his statement? Michael Goebel. The same one who said (see the e-mail I sent to all arbitrators): "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff".
Yet again has Cambalachero misrepresented sources.
3) Rosas is accepted as a national hero, with a national day, his face in currency banknotes, a monument, etc.
Is it? On the article about Juan Manuel de Rosas on Wikipedia in Spanish it's written (see es:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Segundo gobierno): "Gran parte de la historiografía argentina sigue considerando a Rosas un dictador o un tirano, mientras que la corriente revisionista le niega tal carácter, considerándolo un defensor de la soberanía nacional." ("Great part of the Argentine historiography still regards Rosas a dictator or a tyrant, while the Revisionist wing denies that, regarding him the defender of national sovereignty"). In other words: Mainstream historiography in Argentina regards Rosas a dictator or a tyrant, but the Nationalists/Revisionists do not agree. The English-speaking authors and Wikipedia in Spanish have both a similar view, but one completely different from the view supported by Cambalachero. Who is correct?
1) "Lecen's behavior and Hispanophobia"
MarshalN20 presented some diffs taken out of context. During a move request in an article he kept accusing me and others of "Brazilian PoV" and "Brazilianism" (I'm Brazilian), even though we were using as sources books written only in English. [60] [61] [62] [63]
As can be seen, given the context, my ironic remarks make far more sense.
MarshalN20's accusations were not taken in such a light mood by others. One editor complained to MarshalN20: "Stop it, your attitude here is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You never assume good faith and you are always spreading misinformation in order to win arguments. You are not only constantly offending Brazilians but all good editors, remember, in the last vote, see the top of the page, only one editor was Brazilian, the vast majority had nothing to do with Brazil. It amazes me that no administrator told you to stop this form of argumentation, ad hominem attacks are for the weak and their weak ideas. You claim to be an historian, I seriously doubt it since you seem to ignore sources and cherry pick what you want." [64]
2) "Lecen's behavior and Group tactics to push POV"
He was talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Empire of Brazil task force. Unfortunately, it can be regarded a failure, since the editors were never able to work together to review and improve articles related to Brazilian imperial history. The task force was even less useful for the purpose of using "Group tactics to push POV" (I'm being ironic). Try looking for the name of the users who are part of the task force in any of the discussions (I believe Limongi made a single comment once). You won't find them. In the diffs presented by MarshalN20 you will see my name as well as Astynax's (the two editors who wrote the article where the discussion was going on).
1) "Evidence presented by MarshalN20 (sources)"
No sources were shown in here so there is nothing to comment about.
I won't reply to the Cambalachero and MarshalN20's friends' statements because they were written after the time limit. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)