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:
Little evidence has been provided to even justify a proposal for a topic ban against me for "content related to the history of Latin America." Please explain what justifies this proposal (please respond, Tim Canens).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Tim Canens' view that the "locus of dispute" solely concerns the article Juan Manuel de Rosas. For example, Lecen continues to exhibit unconstructive behavior in other articles such as Maximilian I of Mexico, where (after being denied support for changing the article title) he angrily backlashes by writing "Let's leave the article as it is... which isn't good" (see this edit of May 15, 2013, at [2]). I simply cannot understand how Lecen's long (continuing & constant) history of misbehavior can be overlooked ( [3]).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make here is that the "locus of the dispute" is not simply over articles related to Latin American history, which is a view mainly favorable to Lecen's position, but rather that this matter concerns topics such as:
These are topics concerning the nature of editing in Wikipedia and not simply history disputes. I have provided substantial evidence in this regard that should be used to find a solution to these many issues. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that there was a discussion going on at the Arbitration request's talkpage, which is relevant to the current case (see
[4]). Here again Lecen begins to talk trash about me, without even notifying me of the discussion. He accuses me of "harassment" on the basis that I had never edited
Uruguayan War (which is a lie, see
[5]). I had also provided input on its first FAC (see
[6]) and had the article on watchlist (which is how I learned about its second FAC).
I genuinely hope that this false "in need of help" demand of Lecen is not what has spurred the current openly one-sided position of some arbitrators. Impartiality is also not based on what you have seen before (which may be worse, as an arbitrator has noted), but on the current facts of this case, where user Lecen has continuously shown an erratic behavior contrary to the standards of Wikipedia. Best regards.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Another strange point unaddressed by the current case is the reason why the proposed topic bans are focused on the history of Latin America (approximately 21 countries). If topic banned, I would be prevented from editing articles related to Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru (their histories being my area of expertise). Cambalachero would be prevented from content related to Argentina, of which he continues to be a reliable contributor (see
[7]). Again, nothing justifies this kind of broad ban on Cambalachero or me.
Lecen's main problem is with us collaborating on articles related to the history of Brazil. If the pro-Lecen arbitrators want to reward him with that, such can be accomplished by a topic ban on Brazilian history rather than a ban on Latin American history.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 05:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Tendentious editing" is another point against me that has little to no foundation. The page on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, has the following statement: "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole." The diffs used to justify this claim come from the article now-titled Paraguayan War. How in the world can I be accused of "biased or skewed" views if the true common name of the article is "War of the Triple Alliance"? On April of this year, the subject was again mentioned in a discussion at AN/I, and again two uninvolved users with a notable editing background wrote the following:
Also important to note is that this little incident also demonstrates that the editor who is stalking & behaving tendentiously is
User:Lecen. Why? This aforementioned discussion involved users Astynax, Wee Curry Monster, and myself. Lecen was not a part of the discussion. Yet, out of nowhere, he stalks me into the talk page of Rklear and again continues to tendentiously push his view. Rklear writes in response (see
[10]): "My talk page is not the place to argue about this, and I really don't know why you think you're going to persuade me with a selective bibliography. Please take it somewhere else."
Based on these points, I request that the claim of tendentious editing against me be removed unless any further evidence can be presented in that regard.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 14:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Which is the need for proposing such radical options, as an indefinite topic ban? There are less dramatic options in the table, such as placing the article under discretionary sanctions, or placing conditions on the sources to use or how to describe this or that controversy in the article (as I proposed in the workshop). I should remind people here of the systemic bias problem: steady contributors in this topics are very few. If you expulse me out of wikipedia, you will not get a better coverage on the articles about Argentine history: you will get a Brazilian editor to rewrite the article on Juan Manuel de Rosas, perhaps one or two others, and that's it. All the others will be completely abandoned: there are no other active Argentine users, and Lecen's interest in Rosas is merely because Rosas intersects Brazilian history at a point. That's why I did not propose to block Lecen as a remedy, even after all the things he has done: without him, Brazilian articles would be equally abandoned. I told several times in the whole discussion that I'm open to negotiate with Lecen and find compromises or middle ground options, it always falled in deaf ears, but I will make this offering again.
You said that "...it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle such good-faith content disputes among editors", but have in mind that if you decide to ban all the users of one side of a dispute and leave the other side as it is, then you're actually settling a content dispute to the later side.
As for the Pacho O'Donnell book of the cherry-picked evidence, let me clarify the context again. I used that book as a reference several years ago, because by then I thought that being a best-seller made him an acceptable reliable source. I improved my understanding of the issue in time (the difference between an essay about history and a book that cites, checks and analyzes the available info about a historical period; the second being the better), and I don't cite O'Donnell as a source nowadays. Still, when we were discussing the significance of a viewpoint, Lecen cited Pacho O'Donnell, but editing the quote to make it seems as if it said the opposite thing of what it was actually saying. Then I cited the author in the discussion, to clarify what did he actually said and on which side he actually was. Besides, he may not be fully reliable, but he's still a best-seller author: if we are discussing the weight of viewpoints, that's something we have to take in consideration. Some policy somewhere said that I do not have to agree with an author to report "X author says Y". The 4° link is to point the newcomers to the discussion that the revisionist opinions are not so out of the ordinary anyway, as a user who is not Argentine and only knows the dispute for what he was reading, arrived by himself into the same idea that revisionists propose. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
When I opened this thread, I was not talking to Lecen, but to the arbitrators. I will gladly ignore Lecen's comments, if he first ignore those of mine Cambalachero ( talk) 12:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me expand one of the concepts I mentioned earlier. Lecen gave a report about Argentine historians, and how some of them were fascists, but that has little meaning in here. Check the bibliography being used right now in Juan Manuel de Rosas: Leslie Bethell, Fernando Devoto, Michael Goebel, Robert Graham, Lyman Johnson, Marcelo Lascano, Félix Luna, John Lynch, Mónica Rein, Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, Carlos Smith and Horacio Gonzalez. Pepe Rosa does not count, as I merely cited a quotation of a man of the time contained in Rosa's book. There is also a book that compiles the opinions of several historians as well, but if you refine the check, you will notice that I only cited Felix Luna from that book. Lecen has not included any of those historians in his report of fascist authors. Even more: the whole discussion began in december 2012, check the state of the article right before the discussion here: again, no fascist authors to be found. Yes, there is a section that talks about the whole revisionist movement, but as described by other later historians. Specifically, historians who were not working on the history itself, but historians who were working on the historiography (the history of how historians studied a certain topic). All that is said in that article section can be checked at the cited books. Specifically, Pacho O'Donnell, the author that I had once cited and which is pointed in the finding, was already long gone from the article when the discussion began.
That's what I said in the opening of my Evidence section: revisionism is not an actual problem in the article, but just a clever deception to manipulate the other users who did not have a clue on the whole thing before checking the discussion. Were there fascist historians in Argentina? Yes, there were. Is all my work in Wikipedia referenced solely by books of those fascist historians? No, not by a long shot. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Based on AGK's and Roger's comments on this talk page (see
[14] an
[15]), it seems to me that what the arbitrators ultimately want is for us
Three Amigos to stop our discussions. It also seems apparent that Lecen often uses my commentary to ignore Cambalachero's more content-based points. The mixture of these problems are what prevent the development of articles such as
Juan Manuel de Rosas.
I am willing to compromise not interacting with Lecen for a year, in exchange for the end of this uncomfortable process and for both Cambalachero & Lecen to resolve their dispute on their own. I further promise not to repeat the pushy behavior that I took during the move process of
War of the Triple Alliance to Paraguayan War (my behavior history since then, for over a year has demonstrated a heavy improvement). My hope is that the other party stops its insults and arrogant behavior, which denigrates the value of contributions to Wikipedia, and ends its usage of a selective bibliography to POV-push material; however, I can only promise things for myself.
If I were to break my promise during that year, I would accept an immediate block on my account.
Best regards.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 13:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As requested by Salvio giuliano, I'll share my thoughts about MarshalN20 and Cambalachero's proposal for a "compromise". I've responded in sections, to allow easier reading:
For the reasons given above, I believe that Cambalachero and MarshalN20 may both be far beyond redemption. Had they been amenable to change, surely they would have exhibited some sign of reform over the past four years. This seems yet another attempt "to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)". -- Lecen ( talk) 16:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The language of this is unfortunate, as it is not clearly linked to incivility, and makes it sound like simple assertions are never acceptable. Surely there are circumstances where comments on character are expected, and without formal diffs, like perhaps RfA. It is unfortunate that such a statement can be used by someone who is disruptive to avoid scrutiny of their actions, or to keep notices of RFCU's away from the editors who would be most interested in commenting on them, or even used by admins to block out of hand. Intention is hard to gauge as well ("in an attempt to besmirch"--was that their real motivation?), especially without stepping over the line of AGF. NYB's proposed copyedit is an improvement, but correct me if I'm wrong -- aren't there situations where the evidence is not necessary? The preliminary phase of an arbcom request comes to mind; the diffs come later if the case is accepted, yes? 203.81.67.122 ( talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
To the 203... IP's original post: the principle doesn't relate to accusations on the requests for arbitration page (though a request for arbitration needs to be backed up with some evidence to be accepted), but elsewhere, such as on article talk or usertalk pages or on noticeboards. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there are a few of doubts I have:
1) Topic ban on "content related to the history of Latin America". Does this include, for example, articles about countries? Could they edit Argentina, Brazil and others? Or are they prohibited from editing the articles' history section only? What about their talk pages?
2) What should I do in case editors who have close and obvious links to both users start appearing on articles I'm editing and presenting the same arguments or showing the same behavior as MarshalN20 and Cambalachero? I mean, editors who had never edited the articles, or at least, had never shown any real interest on them before?
3) The Arbitrators apparently believe that there is no need for an interaction ban between us. What am I supposed to do in case I find myself having the same problems I had before with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 (they showing up in my FACs, standing against my views on articles they never edited before, meddling in talk pages discussions they were not invited, etc...)?
I believe this is all the points which I need a little bit more of clarification. -- Lecen ( talk) 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Could someone among the Arbitrators answer? -- Lecen ( talk) 23:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Lecen:
1) It's a case by case basis. In general, for an article like Argentina, the Name and Etymology, History, and Government sections at minimum should probably be avoided. But it's highly situation dependent. If MarshalN20 wants to update the government section with the results of the most recent election that's OK, but if they want to talk about the development of the governmental structure over time, that's likely out.
2) If something like that comes up, please contact me if you suspect a violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. I don't anticipate that this will be an issue for this case, but if it does become one, we can handle it in the future.
3) While a formal interaction ban may not have been considered by the Arbitrators, try to treat your approach to Wikipedia as if it does exist. If things continue to be an issue, you (or MarshalN20 or Cambalachero) can request an amendment to the case at WP:A/R/A. All of you, try not to do so for at least a month if you can? NW ( Talk) 16:42, 23 June 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:
Little evidence has been provided to even justify a proposal for a topic ban against me for "content related to the history of Latin America." Please explain what justifies this proposal (please respond, Tim Canens).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Tim Canens' view that the "locus of dispute" solely concerns the article Juan Manuel de Rosas. For example, Lecen continues to exhibit unconstructive behavior in other articles such as Maximilian I of Mexico, where (after being denied support for changing the article title) he angrily backlashes by writing "Let's leave the article as it is... which isn't good" (see this edit of May 15, 2013, at [2]). I simply cannot understand how Lecen's long (continuing & constant) history of misbehavior can be overlooked ( [3]).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make here is that the "locus of the dispute" is not simply over articles related to Latin American history, which is a view mainly favorable to Lecen's position, but rather that this matter concerns topics such as:
These are topics concerning the nature of editing in Wikipedia and not simply history disputes. I have provided substantial evidence in this regard that should be used to find a solution to these many issues. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that there was a discussion going on at the Arbitration request's talkpage, which is relevant to the current case (see
[4]). Here again Lecen begins to talk trash about me, without even notifying me of the discussion. He accuses me of "harassment" on the basis that I had never edited
Uruguayan War (which is a lie, see
[5]). I had also provided input on its first FAC (see
[6]) and had the article on watchlist (which is how I learned about its second FAC).
I genuinely hope that this false "in need of help" demand of Lecen is not what has spurred the current openly one-sided position of some arbitrators. Impartiality is also not based on what you have seen before (which may be worse, as an arbitrator has noted), but on the current facts of this case, where user Lecen has continuously shown an erratic behavior contrary to the standards of Wikipedia. Best regards.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Another strange point unaddressed by the current case is the reason why the proposed topic bans are focused on the history of Latin America (approximately 21 countries). If topic banned, I would be prevented from editing articles related to Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru (their histories being my area of expertise). Cambalachero would be prevented from content related to Argentina, of which he continues to be a reliable contributor (see
[7]). Again, nothing justifies this kind of broad ban on Cambalachero or me.
Lecen's main problem is with us collaborating on articles related to the history of Brazil. If the pro-Lecen arbitrators want to reward him with that, such can be accomplished by a topic ban on Brazilian history rather than a ban on Latin American history.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 05:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Tendentious editing" is another point against me that has little to no foundation. The page on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, has the following statement: "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole." The diffs used to justify this claim come from the article now-titled Paraguayan War. How in the world can I be accused of "biased or skewed" views if the true common name of the article is "War of the Triple Alliance"? On April of this year, the subject was again mentioned in a discussion at AN/I, and again two uninvolved users with a notable editing background wrote the following:
Also important to note is that this little incident also demonstrates that the editor who is stalking & behaving tendentiously is
User:Lecen. Why? This aforementioned discussion involved users Astynax, Wee Curry Monster, and myself. Lecen was not a part of the discussion. Yet, out of nowhere, he stalks me into the talk page of Rklear and again continues to tendentiously push his view. Rklear writes in response (see
[10]): "My talk page is not the place to argue about this, and I really don't know why you think you're going to persuade me with a selective bibliography. Please take it somewhere else."
Based on these points, I request that the claim of tendentious editing against me be removed unless any further evidence can be presented in that regard.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 14:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Which is the need for proposing such radical options, as an indefinite topic ban? There are less dramatic options in the table, such as placing the article under discretionary sanctions, or placing conditions on the sources to use or how to describe this or that controversy in the article (as I proposed in the workshop). I should remind people here of the systemic bias problem: steady contributors in this topics are very few. If you expulse me out of wikipedia, you will not get a better coverage on the articles about Argentine history: you will get a Brazilian editor to rewrite the article on Juan Manuel de Rosas, perhaps one or two others, and that's it. All the others will be completely abandoned: there are no other active Argentine users, and Lecen's interest in Rosas is merely because Rosas intersects Brazilian history at a point. That's why I did not propose to block Lecen as a remedy, even after all the things he has done: without him, Brazilian articles would be equally abandoned. I told several times in the whole discussion that I'm open to negotiate with Lecen and find compromises or middle ground options, it always falled in deaf ears, but I will make this offering again.
You said that "...it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle such good-faith content disputes among editors", but have in mind that if you decide to ban all the users of one side of a dispute and leave the other side as it is, then you're actually settling a content dispute to the later side.
As for the Pacho O'Donnell book of the cherry-picked evidence, let me clarify the context again. I used that book as a reference several years ago, because by then I thought that being a best-seller made him an acceptable reliable source. I improved my understanding of the issue in time (the difference between an essay about history and a book that cites, checks and analyzes the available info about a historical period; the second being the better), and I don't cite O'Donnell as a source nowadays. Still, when we were discussing the significance of a viewpoint, Lecen cited Pacho O'Donnell, but editing the quote to make it seems as if it said the opposite thing of what it was actually saying. Then I cited the author in the discussion, to clarify what did he actually said and on which side he actually was. Besides, he may not be fully reliable, but he's still a best-seller author: if we are discussing the weight of viewpoints, that's something we have to take in consideration. Some policy somewhere said that I do not have to agree with an author to report "X author says Y". The 4° link is to point the newcomers to the discussion that the revisionist opinions are not so out of the ordinary anyway, as a user who is not Argentine and only knows the dispute for what he was reading, arrived by himself into the same idea that revisionists propose. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
When I opened this thread, I was not talking to Lecen, but to the arbitrators. I will gladly ignore Lecen's comments, if he first ignore those of mine Cambalachero ( talk) 12:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me expand one of the concepts I mentioned earlier. Lecen gave a report about Argentine historians, and how some of them were fascists, but that has little meaning in here. Check the bibliography being used right now in Juan Manuel de Rosas: Leslie Bethell, Fernando Devoto, Michael Goebel, Robert Graham, Lyman Johnson, Marcelo Lascano, Félix Luna, John Lynch, Mónica Rein, Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, Carlos Smith and Horacio Gonzalez. Pepe Rosa does not count, as I merely cited a quotation of a man of the time contained in Rosa's book. There is also a book that compiles the opinions of several historians as well, but if you refine the check, you will notice that I only cited Felix Luna from that book. Lecen has not included any of those historians in his report of fascist authors. Even more: the whole discussion began in december 2012, check the state of the article right before the discussion here: again, no fascist authors to be found. Yes, there is a section that talks about the whole revisionist movement, but as described by other later historians. Specifically, historians who were not working on the history itself, but historians who were working on the historiography (the history of how historians studied a certain topic). All that is said in that article section can be checked at the cited books. Specifically, Pacho O'Donnell, the author that I had once cited and which is pointed in the finding, was already long gone from the article when the discussion began.
That's what I said in the opening of my Evidence section: revisionism is not an actual problem in the article, but just a clever deception to manipulate the other users who did not have a clue on the whole thing before checking the discussion. Were there fascist historians in Argentina? Yes, there were. Is all my work in Wikipedia referenced solely by books of those fascist historians? No, not by a long shot. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Based on AGK's and Roger's comments on this talk page (see
[14] an
[15]), it seems to me that what the arbitrators ultimately want is for us
Three Amigos to stop our discussions. It also seems apparent that Lecen often uses my commentary to ignore Cambalachero's more content-based points. The mixture of these problems are what prevent the development of articles such as
Juan Manuel de Rosas.
I am willing to compromise not interacting with Lecen for a year, in exchange for the end of this uncomfortable process and for both Cambalachero & Lecen to resolve their dispute on their own. I further promise not to repeat the pushy behavior that I took during the move process of
War of the Triple Alliance to Paraguayan War (my behavior history since then, for over a year has demonstrated a heavy improvement). My hope is that the other party stops its insults and arrogant behavior, which denigrates the value of contributions to Wikipedia, and ends its usage of a selective bibliography to POV-push material; however, I can only promise things for myself.
If I were to break my promise during that year, I would accept an immediate block on my account.
Best regards.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 13:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As requested by Salvio giuliano, I'll share my thoughts about MarshalN20 and Cambalachero's proposal for a "compromise". I've responded in sections, to allow easier reading:
For the reasons given above, I believe that Cambalachero and MarshalN20 may both be far beyond redemption. Had they been amenable to change, surely they would have exhibited some sign of reform over the past four years. This seems yet another attempt "to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)". -- Lecen ( talk) 16:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The language of this is unfortunate, as it is not clearly linked to incivility, and makes it sound like simple assertions are never acceptable. Surely there are circumstances where comments on character are expected, and without formal diffs, like perhaps RfA. It is unfortunate that such a statement can be used by someone who is disruptive to avoid scrutiny of their actions, or to keep notices of RFCU's away from the editors who would be most interested in commenting on them, or even used by admins to block out of hand. Intention is hard to gauge as well ("in an attempt to besmirch"--was that their real motivation?), especially without stepping over the line of AGF. NYB's proposed copyedit is an improvement, but correct me if I'm wrong -- aren't there situations where the evidence is not necessary? The preliminary phase of an arbcom request comes to mind; the diffs come later if the case is accepted, yes? 203.81.67.122 ( talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
To the 203... IP's original post: the principle doesn't relate to accusations on the requests for arbitration page (though a request for arbitration needs to be backed up with some evidence to be accepted), but elsewhere, such as on article talk or usertalk pages or on noticeboards. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there are a few of doubts I have:
1) Topic ban on "content related to the history of Latin America". Does this include, for example, articles about countries? Could they edit Argentina, Brazil and others? Or are they prohibited from editing the articles' history section only? What about their talk pages?
2) What should I do in case editors who have close and obvious links to both users start appearing on articles I'm editing and presenting the same arguments or showing the same behavior as MarshalN20 and Cambalachero? I mean, editors who had never edited the articles, or at least, had never shown any real interest on them before?
3) The Arbitrators apparently believe that there is no need for an interaction ban between us. What am I supposed to do in case I find myself having the same problems I had before with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 (they showing up in my FACs, standing against my views on articles they never edited before, meddling in talk pages discussions they were not invited, etc...)?
I believe this is all the points which I need a little bit more of clarification. -- Lecen ( talk) 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Could someone among the Arbitrators answer? -- Lecen ( talk) 23:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Lecen:
1) It's a case by case basis. In general, for an article like Argentina, the Name and Etymology, History, and Government sections at minimum should probably be avoided. But it's highly situation dependent. If MarshalN20 wants to update the government section with the results of the most recent election that's OK, but if they want to talk about the development of the governmental structure over time, that's likely out.
2) If something like that comes up, please contact me if you suspect a violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. I don't anticipate that this will be an issue for this case, but if it does become one, we can handle it in the future.
3) While a formal interaction ban may not have been considered by the Arbitrators, try to treat your approach to Wikipedia as if it does exist. If things continue to be an issue, you (or MarshalN20 or Cambalachero) can request an amendment to the case at WP:A/R/A. All of you, try not to do so for at least a month if you can? NW ( Talk) 16:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)