The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
1) Temporary block for Lecen due to his constant personal insults against me. Despite Kirill mentioned to Lecen that his assertions were nothing more than that (i.e., not facts, see [1]), Lecen has continued to accuse me of promoting anti-Semitism and fascism (see [2] and [3]) in places outside the ArbComm case. It should also be noted that I previously expressed my concern to both Lecen and Astynax (see [4]), but they did not listen. Since talking to Lecen apparently does not work, a temporary block would help him understand that insults and disrespect do not go unnoticed and go against the WP:PILLARS (specifically, Wikipedia:Civility). If the administrators consider that Lecen should be indefinitely blocked due to his personal attacks (including those listed in the evidence page), at this point I would neither support nor oppose such a decision by the committee.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All articles must be built collaboratively by all the users willing to work with them, and the different approaches should be decided by consensus or compromises. No single editor will have a higher voice or a special status over the others, a higher number of edits to an article or a number of recognized content written do not confer such right. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Citizendium.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
English sources are preferrable but not neccesarily better
Considering that Juan Manuel de Rosas is largely a topic of local Argentine interest, all related archives are located in Argentina and the only noteworthy academic peer reviews about Rosas took place in Argentina, it is natural that the best books available about Rosas will be Argentine books written in Spanish. It is good to complement the Spanish sources with English sources, but not to set an artificial barrier between both, or to reject sources in Spanish merely because of their language.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Lecen refuses to build consensus
As detailed in the evidence section, Lecen has rejected all compromise proposals raised since he began discussing the Rosas article on last december. The discussion is deadlocked, but because of those constant refusals. Discussion on specific and down-to-earth issues have never lasted for more than a couple of replies, and he left them to discuss abstract generalist issues. He began the discussion requesting article ownership and refused to let others edit his work, preferring to revert it all.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Canvassing accusations
Lecen has frequently accused me of canvassing other users into the discussions. The last one is here, with this very arbitration still running. None of those accusations could actually prove anything.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Revisionism is not an ACTUAL problem
The whole discussion about revisionism is actually a generalist forum-type discussion, rather than a discussion of an actual problem in wikipedia articles. The article on Rosas cites a single revisionist author for a non-controversial section (infancy), which is hardly worth all of this discussion; there's hardly a point in discussing authors that are not being cited anyway. He talks about the subtle promotion of fascism and antisemitism, but did not provide a single example of wikipedia articles being used in that manner. The only accusation of a historical falsehood referenced in revisionist sources, the one of the blood tables, has been refuted here ("academic acceptance" section), as a severe misquotation of Lynch's work (who agrees with revisionist authors on that specific issue)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
The article is placed under Wikipedia:discretionary sanctions. Any mass rewriting or potentially controversial change to the article should seek consensus first at the talk page, and the discussion at the talk page must follow the appropiate policies and guidelines. Failure to do so would lead to sanctions at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, such as article protection, user blocks or user bans.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Historical views
In topics of facts (as in "X did Y and said Z"), historians that cite or discuss a primary source will take priority over historians making bold statements without the appropiate evidence. This requirement would be in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, which require sources that check facts before publishing them.
Unsupported revisionist claims will be specifically described as such, and not mentioned as facts without the proper context. To prevent abuses, "unsupported revisionist claims" will be those that a non-revisionist source specifically adresses and describes as unsupported.
In topics of analysis and opinions (as in "X event was justified / unjustified" or "X was a hero / criminal"), those held by the authors will not be included in the biographical or historical sections. Such opinions will be described and contextualized in sections and articles that described the legacy aspects of Rosas. Opinions of contemporaries of the events may be included in the biographical or historical sections, if they are the causes of events. In either case, the article must not be read as if Wikipedia was endorsing a particular opinion as correct.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Nazi historians
Historians who have reportedly embraced nazism may be treated as unreliable sources. This issue must be discussed on a case-by-case basis, and must not be based on rumors or generalizations. Special care will be taken if talking about living people.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I still don't agree with the idea that any source should be censored due to the political partisanship of the authors. All authors, regardless of their beliefs, should be examined for the quality of their argument.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Labeling Rosas
Rosas should be described as both a dictator and Argentine national hero in the lead, with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV style. Passing-by descriptions at other articles should describe him as a governor.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I agree. The encyclopedia's voices should only be used to describe Rosas for what he actually was (governor, military officer, estanciero, etc.) during his lifetime. Any exceptional claims, even from Rosas himself, should be appropriately attributed to the individuals making them.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) For the past four years both Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have been intransigent in opposing changes based upon reliable sources, and have pushed viewpoints based upon sources regarded as unreliable by mainstream historiography. They have repeatedly and insistently attempted to push the community to accept their sources as legitimate, when they are not. This has caused productive editors to bow out, rather than continue through drawn-out discussions and gradual editorial reverts. Their sources are deemed by mainstream scholars as having been penned by anti-Semitic, racist and fascist authors who wrote biased works that mirrored a political agenda (with the purpose of providing rationales for a dictatorship in their home country). I request the ArbCom to place a topic ban on both Cambalachero and MarshalN20 on any article related to politics and history.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I have not been intransigent, I accepted several compromises and solutions proposed by other discussions along the discussion. If we are still here, it's because you have rejected them all, as pointed in the evidence section. Even if revisionism is removed entirely, I can still work with other sources, as I already do: I do not work exclusively with revisionist sources, but with all the types of sources I can get. I would like to know which productive editors had to bow out, you never mentioned anything of the like. And I don't know how do we jump from the biography of a single man (the whole discussion being discussed before the ArbCom) to "history" as a whole, and much less to "politics"; I don't remember you discussing with me about any other article wich is not directly related to Rosas. I do edit articles about politics, and you never pointed any edit by me that could be labeled as antisemitic or racist (and neither you did in the history field). You may even have a hard time trying to find edits by me that may be interpreted as a support to the Kirchner's administration. Cambalachero (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Interaction ban
2) I also request interaction ban regarding Cambalachero, MarshalN20 and myself. The reasons are well known.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I disagree. An interaction ban is not going to solve anything. Part of the problem here is that you do not want to interact with editors who have an opposing view from yours, and this interaction ban would further serve your intentions.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Enrolling Lecen into WP:Mentorship
1) There might still be a chance to help Lecen by giving him a mentor (from Wikipedia:Mentorship). The mentor is really going to have to keep a close look on this editor's interaction with other Wikipedians. I further propose that the mentor place a sign on Lecen's userpage and talkpage for anyone who has had a bad experience with Lecen to contact the mentor directly (thereby, avoiding any furthering of the bad situation). I think this arrangement should be made for a minimal two years; however, at the discretion of the mentor, the arrangement can be ended prematurely.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Apologies
2) I request an apology from Lecen for all of the bad things he wrote about Cambalachero and me (including: anti-Semitism, fascism, canvassing, misogyny, etc.). I would like for the apologies to be made on our talk pages as wikilove messages. Since Lecen has taken much time and effort insulting me in various places across Wikipedia, it would be of much help (for record) to have an apology from him.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Block
1) If the mentorship fails (or Lecen refuses to abide to it), the enforcement should probably be a block. The length of the block should be determined by the mentor, or be set at increasing rates for every refusal.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
