Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

Statement by Doncram

If this case is accepted, I strongly believe it should be not given name "Cambalachero" suggested by editor Lecen, but rather should be given a neutral name, rather than one suggested by the first combatant to get to Arbitration. A natural candidate would be "Lecen vs. Cambalachero", I suppose, or perhaps something neutral and topical about "Negotiations between 2 editors" or some other description.

I submit that it is 100% absurd to believe that an arbitration proceeding is not affected by its name. Obviously persons having grudges against a named person will be more likely to show up and introduce evidence, is just one way that the naming has an effect.

I have no familiarity with either of these parties and am 100% uninvolved. --doncram 00:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from The ed17

This arbitration request stems from a long-term dispute between two prolific editors. At its heart, I believe it revolves around Lecen's assertions that Cambalachero is misrepresenting or omitting sources that have negative views of the leaders of Argentina. That would mean that this could be narrowly accepted as a user conduct case, though it will be extremely difficult to separate user conduct from content, as you will have to decide whether Cambalachero's content misrepresents the mainstream historiographic views of individuals like

@Lecen, Roger Davies. While I think Lecen knows that these sources aren't allowed on the English Wikipedia except under very limited circumstances (e.g.

[majestic titan] 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

@declining arbs. Please note that Lecen just attempted to begin a second round of mediation, but it was quickly declined by one of the parties.

[majestic titan] 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

@Roger Davies. "... can easily be handled by one of the usual noticeboards." Really? You think something this complex can be handled at ANI?

[majestic titan] 16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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

There is also an issue of stalking and harassment. [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)[reply]

I'll add that this dispute has been spreading like kudzu to multiple pages. My very own talk page was blemished with Nazi innuendos, which were removed[3] by a passing editor. Jehochman ^Talk 11:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cristiano Tomás

About MarshalN20 and Cambalachero: MarshalN20 said in here: “My attempt was to serve as a mediator to both parties, but (along the way) drifted towards Cambalachero's position.” This is not what happened. In his very first post on Rosas’ talk page regarding the present dispute he clearly took Cambalachero’s side arguing that the article should not use the term “dictator”.[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

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

Statement by Rschen7754

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

Initiated by MarshalN20 | ^Talk at 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
  )

• Basalisk

Information about amendment request

• You should this yourselves...([21])
• Allow me to work on Falkland Islands history-related sections under the supervision of Basalisk (administrator, Falklands contributor).

Statement by your MarshalN20

I have been working on an improvement for the Falkland Islands article (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4).

1. I asked User:NuclearWarfare about what steps to take in order to clean my name. He told me to pick a controversial article, so I went with the Falkland Islands article.
2. During this month, I have managed to improve and re-structure the article to a high quality. I only need to work on the history sections (I consider the "sovereignty dispute" section also as history-related).
3. Now I would like to have an amendment that allows me to work on history-related sections on the Falklands article.

Pretty simple. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brad, although I wholeheartedly appreciate the consideration, I am saddened that you are still seeing the perspective of a blatantly vengeful editor (Lecen) whose edit history exemplifies his own statement ("these kind of editors won't change their behavior").

For example, what purpose does Lecen's statement have other than to prevent me from demonstrating (through actions) that I am not the devil he painted me out to be in the Arbcomm case?

Also, how can my appeal reflect an understanding of the "arbitrators' concerns" if the only arbitrator who was kind enough to sincerely communicate with me was User:NuclearWarfare? And even NuclearWarfare was concerned about saying too much because he did not want his statements to reflect what the rest of you thought (which remains a complete mystery to me).

What I understood from NuclearWarfare is that, believing Lecen's assertions, you concluded that I was a POV-editor with an agenda. I assume that the topic ban was broad ("Latin American history") because you believed his assertions that I somehow have been a nuisance at articles such as

War of the Triple Alliance (where I really only edited the talk page), and Juan Manuel de Rosas

(despite I only copy-edited the article; I never edited a single source into that article).

If that is the case, then the "arbitrators' concerns" are all based on falsehoods. I only regret that all of you keep refusing to see the facts and, instead, continue believing what is stated by Lecen.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@David, given enough rope, the Incas made pretty good bridges. [;-)]--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Arbitrators, thanks for trusting me. I promise to not let you down.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Basalisk

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.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Cambalachero

I would like to point that MarshalN20 has requested a controversial article because NuclearWarfare suggested him to do so. See

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When we voted on the original case, my personal view (not shared by most of my colleagues) was that the topic-ban might be a bit overbroad. The point here is to channel MarshallN20's contributions away from the areas in which he had difficulty in the past, in areas where he will use high-quality sources and avoid any form of tendentious editing. It is my experience that geographical areas of disputed sovereignty (Falkland Islands/Malvinas, Gibraltar, Liancourt Rocks, etc.) bring out the worst rather than the best in some editors, and so it might not be the first area to which I would point someone looking for a non-contentious piece of Latin American history to edit about. But given that the topic-area is circumscribed, the request bears consideration. Awaiting any further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand Lecen's point, but at the end of the day, our focus is on bringing about high-quality, unbiased editing, not on editors' internal assent to the merits of our decisions. It would have been better if these appeals had reflected some understanding of the concerns that led to our decision, but I do not consider it indispensable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to support such an amendment, with the understanding that the supervisor may reimpose the full topic ban, without having to seize ArbCom. We have two possible outcomes here: either MarshallN20 behaves and so the encyclopaedia is improved, or he doesn't, in which case blocks (and restrictions) are cheap. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• My sentiments mirror Salvio's almost exactly. The expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" seems a bit harsh, but I think when applied to Wikipedia it generally encourages people to assume good faith and give people a chance to prove themselves, rather than hoping they will fail. Also agree with the point that a reblock will not require arbs to intervene. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1: MarshalN20

Not withstanding the sanction imposed on

Enacted Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Proposed. NW (Talk) 13:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Fixed War --> Islands. NW (Talk) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Noting that editing in this contentious area (by all editors) should live up to high standards under applicable policies and guidelines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. With reservations, given the extreme recency of the case. Whether the lesson has taken is easier judged in the work, than in force-feeding MarshalN20 lines to say here, so let us see. Courcelles 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 11:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] 11:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I accept how reasonably Marshal has put forward his case here. However,
   [•] 15:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. T. Canens (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments

Initiated by Lecen (talk) at 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Lecen (initiator)
• MarshalN20

Statement by Lecen

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:

• On 25 June 2013 MarshalN20 published a long rant against me on NuclearWarfare's talk page, where he also dealt with Rosas' article. Although it was a blatant violation of the topic ban, nothing happened to MarshalN20.
• On 28 June 2013 I went to the Request for Enforcement page to complain that MarshalN20 was trying to continue meddling on Juan Manuel de Rosas' article through indirect ways. Nothing was done of it.
• On 30 June 2013 MarshalN20 published another long rant against me, now on Cambalachero's talk page, where he called me a "troll".
• On 10 July 2013 User The ed17 went to the Request for Enforcement page to complain that MarshalN20 was trying to continue meddling on Juan Manuel de Rosas' article through indirect ways. Nothing happened.
• On 23 July 2013 MarshalN20 requested an amendment to Argentine History. I made one statement asking the Arbitrators to think carefully before accepting his request.
• On 31 July 2013 MarshalN20 said that "Lecen continues to cast aspersions about me (accusing me of using Fascist sources & sponsoring political proganda". The link he provided was my statement to his request for amendment. I patiently replied, explaining that he had been topic banned because he had used Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists (who were anti-semitic fascists and whose books were pieces of political propaganda) as sources. He said he was not topic banned forever (which he was) and that it had nothing to do with the use of Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists (which, as far as I know, it had). Nowhere during the entire conversation I was rude, aggressive or ironic. In the end, User:Salvio giuliano said that, for all purposes, we were both banned from interacting with each other. I gladly accepted. See here for the entire discussion.
• On 12 August 2013 MarshalN20 replied to
  User:AGK. He wrote one long rant against me and again dealt with Juan Manuel de Rosas. Nowhere in AGK's message to MarshalN20 did he mention my name or Rosas article. Why would MarshalN20 mention both on his reply? Again MarshalN20 violated the topic ban but nothing happened to him. There is no excuse to attack me knowing that I could never reply due to the interaction ban. Even less when he did that to an Arbitrator. Regardless, many hours later MarshalN20 removed the piece of text that deal with Rosas article, although he left the part where he asked AGK to continue the conversation through e-mail. MarshalN20 also excused the rant against me saying that there was no "formal" interaction ban
  ("Salvio suggested that if the 'informal' (ie, suggestion) he provided did not work, then he would file a request for a formal interaction ban"). Actually, Salvio giuliano was pretty much clear: "please consider yourselves informally banned from interacting with each other".

And MarshalN20's long post clearly shows that he is unnable to forget Juan Manuel de Rosas' article and that he wants to maintain the arbcom case alive. --Lecen (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I would like to note that it is the consensus of the uninvolved administrators who reviewed the

Statement by The ed17

Should the committee accept this request, and I hope they will, can I plead that they make the interaction ban wide enough so that

@Marshall, a few points and a major question:

1. Close friend is a severe overstatement. I've followed this case because it interests me.
2. I'll ask you to retract your completely unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry.
3. I believe Lecen was accusing you of using fascist sources in your articles, not calling you fascist yourself. It's a fine line, yes, but there's a major difference in the two. See also "Nationalism/Revisionism" on the evidence page.

Are you trying to re-argue the Argentine history case? That's how it reads to me, but I could be wrong.

[majestic titan] 03:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

1. @Marshall, sure, posts from 2011 and 2012. Cool.
2. and 3) I'm not engaging on these further, as they are off-topic.
3. Ah, I see. You should make a separate amendment request. This is for an interaction ban.
   [majestic titan] 05:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

I would like to request an interaction ban with Lecen as well. Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarshalN20

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

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.

1. Cambalachero has diligently focused on silently editing topics, mainly did you knows and Argentine current events.
2. Lecen and I have been butting heads like goats, to the dismay and disapproval of many editors.
3. I have turned my attention to the Falkland Islands article and have done massive improvements to it.
4. The article in dispute, Juan Manuel de Rosas, is now largely "complete" (only two sections remain). However, what is particularly interesting here is:
   1. The lack of sources in Spanish. Lecen claims to know the language, but also has (at various times) expressed the view that "English sources are preferred over Spanish sources". (strangely enough, he does not seem to have followed the same "rule" when editing Brazilian history topics).
   2. This has led to a situation where, out of the 76 citations used in the article, 63 belong to John Lynch. This is not even counting "repetitions" of sources (most, again, being from John Lynch). My calculations show that, currently, at least 82.89% of the article is based on the point of view of John Lynch.
   3. Lecen claims that John Lynch is the best source available...but in the preface to his book Argentine Caudillo, John Lynch writes "Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo."

Conclusions

• The current topic bans have not solved the problems of "Argentine history". All they have allowed is for a single user to take ownership of an article and practically fill it with the POV of his preferred author.
• As I wrote to AGK on his talk page, much of this can be explained by the traditional rivalry between Brazil and Argentina. Having a Brazilian editor get involved with Argentine topics should always raise red flags (and vice-versa), much in the same way red flags should be raised when a Palestinian editor gets involved with Israeli topics (and vice-versa). Of course, the rivalry is not on the same level of intensity, but it is on the same lines. I think that the ARBCOM did not properly asses this rivalry when making their original decision.
• The accusations of "tendentious editing and battleground conduct" were excessive. I have had the pleasure to interact more closely with many of you (AGK, NuclearWarfare, Salvio), and hope to have shown that I am not a "baddie" and have no evil intentions. In fact, even AGK initially branded me with the title of "Civil POV-pusher" (ignoring the "POV-pusher" part, lol). The point is that I am not a "battleground" editor and most certainly have not willingly engaged in "tendentious editing" (I admit that this could be assumed based on my behavior at the 2012 move request, but I have explained that my actions were a result of ignorance rather than ill-intentioned).

Suggested solution I suggest that the arbitration committee take the following decisions for this case:

1. Place a one-year (or indefinite) interaction ban between Lecen and MarshalN20.
2. Place a one-year (or indefinite) interaction ban between Lecen and Cambalachero.
3. Retrospectively assume good faith for my actions in the February 2012 Paraguayan War move request, blame them on ignorance (if you want), and diminish the claims as excessive and only requiring of a strong warning.
4. Narrow my topic ban solely to the article "Juan Manuel de Rosas".
5. Narrow Cambalachero's topic ban to all subjects directly related to Juan Manuel de Rosas.

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)[reply]

@Ed. I'll answer your points through the same number format:

1. Close friend is not an overstatement. See Lecen's talk page history search results for "The ed17" and "Ed" ([30] and [31]). Why would you lie about your friendship???
2. I haven't accused you of meatpuppetry. Please read the phrase under the full context.
3. Lecen has crossed the "fine line" several times. I have never used a single Fascist source on any of the articles I have written or contributed to in or outside Wikipedia.
4. No, this is not a "re-argument" of the case. I am requesting a narrowing of my topic ban, not its elimination. The current topic ban on "Latin American history" is excessive and unfairly punitive. While I indeed accept making mistakes in the February 2012 Paraguayan War move request, none of them were ill-intentioned but rather the result of my ignorance of more appropriate venues for discussion. I suggest a narrowed topic ban solely for the article "Juan Manuel de Rosas" because that is the true "apple of discord"; and, coupled with an interaction ban with Lecen, will surely put an end to this problem once and for all.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The requests for mutual interaction bans appear reasonable, particularly in the context of the ongoing acrimony between the parties; I will propose the applicable motions below. Kirill ^[talk] 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• When I drafted the PD in this case, I considered including interaction bans; I decided against that because I thought the topic bans may well be sufficient to separate the parties and prevent the acrimonious interactions. Unfortunately, the continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary. T. Canens (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Motion: Cambalachero-Lecen interaction ban

1) Cambalachero and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from

Support

1. Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. With minor modifications; feel free to revert if disagree. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. NW (Talk) 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Added an enforcement provision, per below.
   [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Courcelles 18:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• Do we need to include an enforcement provision in these motions?
  [•] 13:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would think that the standard enforcement provision would apply here, but even if it didn't, we can trust enforcing administrators to apply common sense. NW (Talk) 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, I've added an adapted version of the standardised enforcement provision, so that the enforcing administrator cannot doubt he has the right to act. Revert if you disagree.
  [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I disagree, but not enough that I'm going to revert. The motion is adding a remedy to a pre-existing case; that case already has the block provision in the Enforcement section. But both you and I have enough real work to do; this is a minor point and I will let it drop. NW (Talk) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, of course. I had forgotten we were proposing to adopt these motions on top of our decision in Argentine history, rather than as stand-alone motions. I won't remove the paragraphs I added because lots of people have already voted, but I'll bear this situation in mind next time. Thanks,
  [•] 21:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Support

1. Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. With minor modifications; feel free to revert if disagree. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Added an enforcement provision, per above.
   [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 18:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. NW (Talk) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Initiated by Cambalachero (talk) at 03:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Cambalachero

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?

By the way, contrary to the misplaced comments of another user, I'm not requesting any amendment to the ban, just a clarification on the actual extension of the current ban. Cambalachero (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for dates, the usual turning points in contemporary Argentine history are 1983 (end of military regime and return of democracy), 1989 (hyperinflation, fall of Alfonsín, and begin of Menemism) and 2001 (new economic and political crisis, fall of De la Rúa); sometimes 2001 is mentioned in conjuction with 2003 (begin of Kirchnerism). Those are the natural turning points, easier to work with than if we set a random date from out of the blue. I once organized Argentine history by periods and used the 1983-present period as the last one (see {{ARGhistperiodFooter}} and Category:History of Argentina by period), nobody ever complained about it.

I rarely work with the modern politics of other South American countries, only when there's some event in the current news that is so important that it becomes eligible for the "in the news" section of the main page (such as the death of Hugo Chávez, or the impeachment of Fernando Lugo), and my interest goes away once the news become yesterday's news. If the limit is set simply on the bilateral relations of Argentina at whatever administrations are acceptable to work with, that would be fine for me. Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Raúl Alfonsín began his mandate as president on December 10, 1983. That day the National Reorganization Process ended. When we say "1983" in this discussion, we are saying that date, December 10 of 1983. I hope this precision helps. Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarshalN20

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)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

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)[reply]

Questions for Cambalachero

1. Do you have any date(s) in mind (to any degree of specificity)?
2. I can see two possible opions, a cut-off date that is the same across the continent even that might not be logical in a given country or individual dates for each country that would be more complex to remember and administer. Do you have a preference? If so how strong (i.e. you wouldn't accept your non-preferred choice for $reason)?
3. 1983 for Argentina, and no later than 1998 for the entire continent were my initial thoughts (see immediately above). Do you have comments on those dates?
4. Do you see dates specified just as years (implied as 1 January that year) as working, or do you think an actual date needs noting?

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)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• 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. Awaiting any further statements containing reasoned suggestions as to when that would be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the statements above, a ≥1983 stipulation seems workable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. As far as Argentina goes, everything after 1983 (with 1983 being included) should be fair game. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a little specialised for me, so I will abstain and defer to my colleagues on how to dispose of this request.
  [•] 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The December date as suggested by Cambalachero seems fine. Just try to skirt away from that as much as you can and I don't anticipate any significant issues. The problems observed by the Committee were quite distant from the Kirchner presidencies, so I wouldn't anticipate any problem working on those articles. NW (Talk) 23:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by MarshalN20 | ^Talk at 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Cambalachero is aware of this request (or should soon be due to [32])

Statement by MarshalN20

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:

1. Was the topic ban on "Latin American history" one meant for diplomatic & military history (the classical definition of "history")?
2. Can Cambalachero and I edit articles that only peripherally deal with history (i.e., culture articles such as sports, music, economics, society, food, modern politics, etc.)?

Additional relevant evidence (from my part):

• I wrote the FA article on
  Pisco Sour
  (Latin American culture) after the arbitration committee decision.
• I helped promote the GA article on Falkland Islands, after being allowed to do so by arbitration committee (see [35]). I'll add that the expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" shows how much faith the lot of you had in me. But, hey, it did turn out better than you expected; right?
• I've also extensively edited the article on the Peru national football team article (Latin American culture & sports article).

Everything written by The_ed17 below is really beside the point and, IMO, seems very

battleground-ish

.

He mentions "several previous enforcement and clarification requests", but provides a list of enforcement issues (some of which, unsurprisingly, have been dealt with him) that resulted in warnings.

Lastly, my decision to edit (or not edit) Latin American topics is a personal one. At this time, I prefer to avoid the topic. However, my interests may change later, and I am requesting this clarification specifically to avoid further problems in the future.

Ultimately, the purpose of the topic ban is not to punish. The arbitration case focused on my actions in Juan Manuel de Rosas and Paraguayan War. Yet, ArbComm branded Cambalachero and me with an imprecise history ban over a huge region (Latin America). A clarification is needed not to "neuter" my ban, but to tie overtly lose ends (and prevent further headaches on this matter).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that Laser brain's "brilliant" comment reflects a narrow perspective on the situation. All articles on Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) have some peripheral relation to history (even the

WP:TBAN mentions this and provides specific exceptions on the matter (which is the reason why my block was overturned by the community). In fact, the recent AN discussion only supports the idea that there needs to be a clarification on the matter.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

1980 is actually a pretty good standard time for "recent history" in Latin America. For example, in 1980 is when the Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces in Peru ends and "democratic" administrations return to the country.

My only disagreement with Cambalachero would be in the inclusion of economics/economic history into the topic ban. Thryduulf's clarification proposal is, I think, good in the level of detail for the type of history ("geopolitical and military history of Latin America").

I honestly doubt any of the arbitrators had "football" or any other culture topic in mind when setting the topic ban. In fact, I had no enforcement issues when taking

Pisco Sour to FA status or improving Peru national football team

. The problems only began when users began to scrutinize my edits and used any excuse to take me to the guillotine. IMO, this reflects an abuse of the system by those users more than anything else.

Thus, this clarification request is, in part, also a plea for protection to the arbitrators. I won't point fingers, but it should be clear (by this point) that there is a group of editors bent on seeing me eternally blocked from Wikipedia.

Happy Thanksgiving.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 07:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Sandstein, the

Wow. Not even I expected that the

WP:STICK

is far from dropped.

Nonetheless, I do appreciate the history on the_Ed17's behavior towards me. Looking at the list, it seems the more abusive.

Happy holidays, I guess.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Something that has bothered me since the start of this arbitration issue is the view that I used unreliable (or "Fascist") sources in my editing of Latin American history articles in Wikipedia. I haven't. Nobody has ever provided any evidence that I have ever done it. In fact, I never added a single source to the articles in question (Paraguayan War & Juan Manuel de Rosas), and merely interacted in their talk pages or copy-edited the articles. Having learned more about "battleground" and "tendentious" editing, I can admit to having done that and regret my actions in Paraguayan War (and I have apologized for those actions even prior to the establishment of the topic ban). Just, please, don't accuse me of something I have never done in my entire life because that severely tarnishes both my reputation here and IRL. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sandstein, I'm inclined to think that he acted in good faith in this case. He's a strict administrator and perhaps not too creative when interpreting the reason for AE sanctions, but is he really at fault for that?

I disagree with both of the blocks he gave me, the first because it was a stale matter (and I had already marked out my edits & disengaged from the topic two weeks prior to the block) and the second because its rationality was wrong (although it varies by view, it seems).

However, I can't say his actions were without any justification. As WC Monster & Cambalachero have told me, I really need to learn how to edit smarter and stop giving ammunition to those who want to see me blocked.

But this is just my opinion of Sandstein as it concerns this case. Nothing more and nothing less.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• AGK's proposal is in the right direction. I don't really understand why economics (and economic history) is getting included into the topic ban. Perhaps it could be stated that lead sections, in topics where the settled range and definition of history is not a primary topic, are not subject to restrictions. Alternatively, the topic ban could simply be specified to Argentine history (following the title of the case) and that would truly do away with most of the problem. There was absolutely no evidence ever presented to justify such a broad regional topic ban in the first place. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

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:

• The geopolitical and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983.
• Other aspects of the history of Latin America that are directly related to geopolitical and/or military events that occurred before December 1983.

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)[reply]

@EatsShootsAndLeaves: Everything comes from history, but that does not make every article a history topic. If the article was so clearly within the scope of the topic ban then no reasonable uninvolved editor would object to the sanction. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@

AGK: My understanding is that topic bans are dealt with on a per-section basis for articles whose primary focus is not within the scope of a topic ban but include some material that is. In this instance MarshalN20 would be in violation of his ban for editing the lead section of the Chile–Peru football rivalry article as it is directly related to military and geopolitcal events prior to December 1983. As the other sections of the article are not directly related to those events (they're about sport and sporting history) he would not, in my view, be breaching his topic ban unless he introduced material that was relevant to the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Several people have commented about narrowing the scope from Latin American history to Argentine history. I have no objection to that at all, but think that the clarification of what specifically is meant by "history" would be warranted in either case. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@

AGK: per Collect and Sandstein, the coda "This restriction is to be broadly construed across all namespaces" contradicts the "directly related to" part of the restriction, this is a very Bad Thing. Better to replace the last sentence with "This restriction applies to all namespaces" or simply delete it all together (as application to all namespaces is the default anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

@Courcelles: The restriction itself details how this is meant to be construed - "directly related to X". "Related to X, broadly construed" is just an alternative way of saying "broadly related to X". Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@

AGK: Motion 2 is at best unnecessary, because the wording at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban

specifically says:

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 fourth bullet for the example used (a ban on the topic "weather") explains this to mean'

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;

I say "at best unnecessary" because by adopting it in this case it muddies the waters about whether this clause applies to topic bans where it is not specified or not. You really do not want to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

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:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#MarshalN20
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20 – "MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions"
• Amendment allowing Marshal to edit the Falkland Islands article
• Amendment adding a formal interaction ban,
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138#MarshalN20
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#MarshalN20 – one month block
• Unblock discussion earlier this month – "Based on these statements, and the expectation that you will stay well clear of everything related to Latin American history in the future, ... I am lifting the block". Is this "well clear"?
• AN block review that led to this. I'm going to quote Laser brain's brilliant comments here as well, as they cut right to the heart of this situation:

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.

Also tangentially related is the Wikilove Marshal has sent out to everyone who participated in the AN discussion, ex. [38] [39] [40]. But why does someone who states that he will not be editing Latin American topics until after his topic ban expires need to change that ban to allow him to edit Latin American topics?

[majestic titan] 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, Marshal, for reminding me that I forgot to add links to the clarification requests.

[majestic titan] 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

@

[majestic titan] 04:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

@

[majestic titan] 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Sandstein says that the article on the Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly related to the history of Latin America. Actually, it's not so clear: most other users did not think that the article is historical, which led to the unblock (and, if the article is not historical, then it was never included in the topic ban, the noticeboard never modified the extension of the ban, etc). Rather than focus in the process, it may be helpful for this discussion if Sandstein further elaborates why does he consider a football rivalry to be a history topic; and in fact proposes a scope of what is included in the realm of history and what is not. Cambalachero (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that the motion is acceptable, and I have no problems with it. As for the concern of user EatsShootsAndLeaves, the key words in the proposed motion is "directly related". Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGK: When a text says "X user is

banned from Y topic", it is implied that the ban has all the restrictions, exceptions and circumstances described at the policy page page, unless specifically noted otherwise. The 4º item in the topic ban subsection already explains what you mentioned, there's no need to explain it in the actual ban. As for the case that began all this problem, it may be discussed if the Chile-Peru football rivalry is part of the "history of Latin America", depending on the use of a liberal or specialized definition of history (as seen), but it's very clear and beyond interpretations that it's not included in "the geopolitical, economic, and military history of Latin America". So, I think that there shouldn't be any more problems with this. Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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

In response to Cambalechero, my reasoning was the following: The topic ban concerns "articles ... related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed".

WP:TBAN, the relevant policy, "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". It follows that MarshalN20 violated their topic ban by editing any part of this history-related article.  Sandstein  17:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A comment to arbitrators: As an administrator working in arbitration enforcement, I'm of the view that it's your responsibility to phrase the scope of any sanction such that it reflects what you have in mind. I can only act on what you write in the remedy, not on anything else you might have had in mind. If you enact sanctions using the broadest imaginable wording (in this case, "history ... broadly construed"), then I have to assume that a very wide-ranging application is what you desired. If it isn't, then I suggest that you consider a more exact wording. If you are of the view that only certain types of edits should be prohibited (for example, edits similar to misconduct identified in the case, or limited to certain aspects of South American history), or that administrators should exercise particular discretion with respect to some aspects of the case, then you should say so, too.  Sandstein  17:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the motion, since I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about the scope the topic ban should have. But from an enforcement perspective, echoing Collect, it's not clear to me what the phrase "broadly construed" is supposed to refer to.  Sandstein  17:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TenOfAllTrades that the second motion is superfluous because it repeats what

WP:TBAN states as policy.  Sandstein  16:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Inappropriate comment redacted.

[•] 20:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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)[reply]

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

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)[reply]

• I'm not sure the proposed motion helps all that much. Let's say this passes, and Marshal goes back to the Soccer Rivalry article that led to his block and modifies the lede. Because that lede introduces the topic as related to history, will he be blocked, or is permitted because the article is about soccer? ES&L 11:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @AGK: it's still early in the morning, and I've only had 1 coffee, but I'm looking at something like this in my mind:

"...indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to 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. This ban also applies to individual sections of articles where although the article itself may not be about Latin American history, the section of the article edited discusses or includes such history."

• The intent is to permit the editing of sports-related (or other) articles, EXCEPT the sections of an article that distinctly refer to the areas encompassed by the topic ban ES&L 12:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

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)[reply]

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

the geopolitical, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to 1984, or directly related thereto, across all namespaces.

Which would avoid the "broadly construed" potential misuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

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:

• User:MarshalN20 is contacted by User:Cloudaoc that User:Keysanger is reprising a dead issue at War of the Pacific [41]
• User:MarshalN20 mistakenly believes a comment is allowed under the vandalism exemption [42] and makes a comment in talk [diff]
• User:MarshalN20 is reminded by User:Wee Curry Monster of his topic ban [43],[44]
• User:MarshalN20 ceases and desists, strikes out his comments and withdraws [45]
• Nearly two weeks later
  WP:AE complaint [46]
• User:Sandstein blocks User:MarshalN20 almost immediately, with little or no discussion [47]

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,

Two issues are being raised here.

1. Blocks by
   WP:AE
   is excessive. I took the trouble to review his block enforcement log and I have to say that in the main I don't believe this is the case. I would, however, suggest to him in this particular case his use of the tool was inappropriate. The first block after the event was not defensible and the second was based on an overly broad interpretation of the topic ban. My personal suggestion is that unless it is clear that there is an ongoing issue with an editors behaviour he should seek wider community input before blocking.
2. Topic Ban Wording The wording in the current topic ban is imprecise, in particular the topic is so broad (Latin American history) and caveat broadly construed is open to being interpreted rather liberally. Per
   WP:COMMON, I don't consider this would apply to Chile–Peru football rivalry
   but several admins have acted on the basis they genuinely consider it does. There is a gulf between the intentions in imposing the topic ban and the way it is being applied. Improving the wording would be beneficial to all concerned.