Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History

Arbitrators active on this case
Inactive:
 * AGK
 * 1) Courcelles
 * 2) David Fuchs
 * 3) Kirill Lokshin
 * 4) Newyorkbrad
 * 5) NuclearWarfare
 * 6) Roger Davies
 * 7) Salvio giuliano
 * 8) Timotheus Canens
 * 9) Worm That Turned
 * 1) Carcharoth
 * 2) Risker
 * 3) SilkTork

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. -- do ncr  am  00:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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 Juan Manuel de Rosas. If so, that is actionable through a topic ban or mentor. If not, the case will probably require some sort of interaction ban. Both outcomes are within the committee's remit and would solve the dispute at hand, but the committee will need to decide whether this is too close to its content borderline. Please note that I have collaborated with Lecen on two Brazil-related articles (South American dreadnought race and Minas Geraes-class battleship), but have had almost no part in this dispute. With regards to NYB's comment, while I have done some work in Latin American history, I wouldn't consider myself a subject matter expert on its nineteenth century. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @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. Historiography in the Soviet Union), I think it is a roundabout way of looking for reassurance that the committee will take the time to read through the entirety of the evidence, as it will be complex and possibly lengthy. Historiography—which is essentially what Lecen will have to do to prove his claims—tends to be like that. As an aside to Lecen, it may be helpful to define what "fascist literature" is, given the plethora of meanings the word can have today. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @declining arbs. Please note that Lecen just attempted to begin a second round of mediation, but it was quickly [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FArgentine_history_on_Wikipedia&diff=547059475&oldid=547050203 declined] by one of the parties. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Roger Davies. "... can easily be handled by one of the usual noticeboards." Really? You think something this complex can be handled at ANI? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Astynax
Although Lecen has focused on a specific article in the case above, it is a mistake to be distracted into seeing this as a content dispute. The removal of material that reflects the mainstream view of reliable sources, and substituting a fringy or minority viewpoint supported by fringy or minority sources (if the change is even cited or correctly summarizes the sources at all), has occurred on multiple occasions in multiple articles. Other editors of other and less familiar subjects (politics, religion, science, etc.) regularly do the same: an exasperating situation in which dispute resolution too often seems unable or unwilling to resolve except when a disruptive editor slips up and commits a 3RR. What I believe Lecen is reporting is not a content dispute. Although MarshalN20 seemingly sees Lecen's attempted to edit the poorly and inadequately sourced Rosas article (and others) as some sort of vindictive reversion, what actually happened was a purge of Lecen's attempt to introduce better sources and more accurate reporting of what reliable sources actually say. Nor does demanding editor consensus before improvements are made trump policy's insistence that articles reflect mainstream reliable sources in a way that reflects due weight, nor does it prevent removal of unsourced or badly sourced material in favor of material supported by mainstream sources. Ignoring policy and refusing to get the point is not a matter of content, it is disruptive behavior (I have seen constructive contributors drop out when this same behavior goes on very long). I think the illustration comparing a hypothetical neo-Nazi editor who doggedly insists upon using skinhead sources to edit an article to cast Hitler in a more favorable light and to remove any edits that conflict with that view is both germane and the heart of Lecen's complaint. &bull; Astynax talk 10:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Jehochman
Accept per NuclearWarfare. When reliable editors request help with a purported behavioral problem affecting content, ArbCom should be ready to help. Sometimes it can be nearly impossible on a thinly trafficked article to get sufficient opinions by the uninvolved to counteract a persistent POV pusher. If the content problem are obscure or the POV pusher is skillful, the denizens of WP:ANI won't spot the problem with a quick look. We need the more thoughtful and deliberate approach of ArbCom to sort out the problem. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @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)

There is also an issue of stalking and harassment. 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)


 * 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 by a passing editor. Jehochman Talk 11:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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”. His second and third posts are also supportive of Cambalachero. 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). (April 2012). Then, when Cambalachero tried to rename the article MarshalN20 again supported him (and again opposed Lecen): It seems MarshalN20 first met Lecen when the latter successfully requested the move of Paraguayan War. MarshalN20 opposed it (back in October 2011). 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): Then he finally made a move request. It was not successful. It seems that MarshalN20 and Cambalachero’s friendship began here. Cambalachero sided with MarshalN20 and opposed Lecen: 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.” 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]”. He also said: “You cannot force another person's [Cambalachero] point of view as my point of view”. 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. Not surprisingly, he did that after Cambalachero also opposed the nomination just a little earlier. Cambalachero had never edited the article nor its talk page. Cambalachero’s sudden appearance on articles closely related to Lecen (Platine War, Paraguayan War and Uruguayan War) which he had never edited before is not new and they aren’t the only ones. On John VI of Portugal (January 2012) and Farroupilha Revolution (September 2012) Cambalachero supported move requests that Lecen opposed. Notice that on both cases there were discussions occurring where Lecen opposed a name proposed. Cambalachero then simply made the move requests even though he had never edited these articles nor their talk pages before (and was not taking part on the aforementioned discussions).

Are there sudden appearances over the years by both Cambalachero and MarshalN20 on articles which neither had ever edited before (nor demonstrated any interest) always to cause complications to Lecen considered “okay”? Why they began after Lecen realized that there was something very wrong about how Cambalachero edited the articles related to Argentine history? For all I showed above the Administrators should really think again about whether or not they should accept the request for Arbitration. We are not talking in here merely about content dispute. We are talking about two users (Cambalachero and MarshalN20) with (at least) a problematic behavior. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for amendment (July 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568317518#Amendment_request:_Argentine_History Original discussion]

Initiated by  MarshalN20  | T al k at 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 2


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Basalisk


 * Information about amendment request


 * You should this yourselves...
 * 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). Pretty simple. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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 Falklands War (where you can't even find me on the first page of contributors: ), War of the Pacific (which I haven't bothered to focus on in months), 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 | T al k 23:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Lecen, could you please show a single diff where I (not Cambalachero) knowingly add a "fascist source" to any article? Otherwise, your statement breaks the "casting aspersions" principle from the Arbcomm case (see ) and the "proposed remedy" warning made to you (see ). I kindly request arbitrators to take action on this matter.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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

@Arbitrators, I am requesting to edit the article Falkland Islands (not Falklands War, where my only interest in it is the "secret" participation of Peru and Chile). I am requesting to edit the Falkland Islands article solely because, as a previous dispute resolution arbitrator on it (see User:MarshalN20/sandbox), I successfully managed to help opposing sides of the dispute reach a fruitful solution. I must re-emphasize that the claims accusing me of being a disruptive editor in Falklands War are a complete lie (again, please see ). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@AGK, you have been awfully unfair to me throughout this whole situation and continuously shown a strong favoritism towards Lecen. The comment you quote from me is a response to Lecen's aggressive declarations that included uncalled personal attacks. Not only that, but Lecen continues his relentless baiting against me (see, where he edits out a war name which I had previously included 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 | T al k 16:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@Arbitrators, I'll further add that this is not a request to continue interacting with Lecen. In fact, both Salvio and NuclearWarfare have proposed we keep a informal interaction ban. Moreover, as Cambalachero explains, Lecen has no significant activity on topics related to the Falkland Islands. I would understand AGK's position if I was requesting to end an interaction ban with Lecen, but that is not the case. AGK is mixing my view towards Lecen with my request to edit an article where I would not interact at all with Lecen (thereby, making AGK's argument a logical fallacy). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@Arbitrators, thanks for trusting me. I promise to not let you down.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Lecen
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, as well as User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 6 ("Despite never being uncivil (an arbitrator even used the funny term "Civil POV-pusher" to describe me), and merely deserving of a WP:TROUT, I was topic banned from Latin American history for a year.") And most important of all, see the entire Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision.

If you're willing to allow two editors who never demonstrated any regret to edit controversial articles, or even to narrow the topic ban, be sure of what you're doing because experience tells that these kind of editors won't change their behavior. --Lecen (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Do you really expect to see two editors who used unreliable sources written by Fascists with the purpose of political propaganda to "bringing about high-quality, unbiased editing"? Even more when these editors never showed any regret nor acknowledgement of their wrong actions? --Lecen (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero
I would like to point that MarshalN20 has requested a controversial article because NuclearWarfare suggested him to do so. See User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 38. There's no need to guess in advance if he would do a good or bad work in it: that article has been edited by 2073 different editors, and the talk page by 519 different editors. If he tries to do something wrong, or to introduce bias in either direction, he would be noticed immediately. If he has no hidden agenda, then the many editors that watch that article will be watching him and won't find anything wrong, and his edit history would proceed without problems. As for Lecen, he should drop the stick: he has never been interested in editing the articles of the Falkland Islands. If that article becomes good or featured with this trial period for MarshalN20, then it would be something positive for everybody.

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Motion 1: MarshalN20
Not withstanding the sanction imposed on in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.


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


 * Support
 * Proposed. NW ( Talk ) 13:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Fixed War --> Islands. NW ( Talk ) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 11:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] 11:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I accept how reasonably Marshal has put forward his case here. However, Falklands War is a contentious article with a subject that is currently (albeit slowly) developing. Also, I am unimpressed by Marshal's comment, "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?". From it we can infer, in my view, that Marshal is still carrying an awful lot of baggage from the original arbitration case (though so too is Lecen, as his statement similarly demonstrates). I therefore do not consider this motion to be a worthwhile risk. AGK  [•] 15:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Request for clarification and amendment (August 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568855646#Clarification_and_amendment_request:_Argentine_history Original discussion]

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

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * Lecen (initiator)
 * MarshalN20

Statement by Lecen
Clarification

According to "proposed decision" on the Argentine History case "[t]his dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America". User MarshalN20 had "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" and was thus "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces" (emphasis added). See here, here and here.

As far as I know, MarshalN20 was banned because he and Cambalachero had been using Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources. And these are regarded unreliable by mainstream historians. See here.

The problem is that since then MarshalN20 has argued over and over that he has no idea why he was topic banned. In fact, he has claimed that he was topic banned because he made a move request on Paraguayan War (War of the Triple Alliance), which has no relation to Juan Manuel de Rosas nor to Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists. A few examples:


 * "Why is it that I have been stamped with 'tendentious editing' and 'battleground editing' supported by admittedly weak diffs? What made these accusations, and the attached topic bans, better than a simple WP:TROUT (warning)?" (see here)
 * "I would wholeheartedly appreciate knowing what it is that you think I did wrong and should not do again. All I ever hear back from arbitrators is a sense of 'you know what you did wrong'...but I honestly don't know what (other than my behavior in the move request) else I did that should not be done again" (see here)
 * " But, you were there, and know that the move request was filled with Brazilian/Portuguese editors... 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 here)

I'd like to see clarified: were MarshalN20 and Cambalachero topic banned because they used Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources? If not, why were they topic banned?

Amendment

The proposed decision was published on 23 June 2013. Since then I had a hard time trying to move on. MarshalN20 hasn't stopped talking about Juan Manuel de Rosas and myself:
 * 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".

I dont believe anything will be done regarding MarshalN20' continuous topic ban violations. However, I'd like to request a formal amendment for permanent interaction ban. And, if possible, to declare that MarshalN20 cannot speak about me anywhere unless if requested by an arbitrator or administrator. The same may apply to me if the Arbcom wishes. What I want is simple: to be left alone. That's all.


 * @The ed17: I never called MarshalN20 a "misogynist propagandist, supporter of fascism and anti-Semitism". Never. All I said was that he and Cambalachero used Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists as sources. This is a fact. They never denied using them as sources. In fact, in the evidence page in the arbcom case both users argued in favor of Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists. What I also did say was that Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists were Fascists. Their books were written with the primary purpose of serving as political propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s. This is also a fact. Historians agree on that. I even sent two e-mails to Arbitrators written by the foremost English-speaking specialists on Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists.


 * 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)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I would like to note that it is the consensus of the uninvolved administrators who reviewed the arbitration enforcement request that a mutual interaction ban is necessary. There is evidently a great deal of bad blood here, and I don't see interactions between the two without some disengagement. Salvio's informal warning was unfortunately insufficient to achieve that, so I believe we need an enforceable remedy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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 obvious skirting of it is actionable? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Marshall, a few points and a major question:
 * Close friend is a severe overstatement. I've followed this case because it interests me.
 * I'll ask you to retract your completely unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry.
 * 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. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Marshall, sure, posts from 2011 and 2012. Cool.
 * and 3) I'm not engaging on these further, as they are off-topic.
 * Ah, I see. You should make a separate amendment request. This is for an interaction ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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 Darth Sidious. Yet, his argumentation (premises and results) is filled with misguided assumptions and erroneous conclusions. My answer to them: The enforcement board dismissed all of his claims as unfounded or exaggerated. Yet, it should come as no surprise that Lecen continues carrying the stick, and continues accusing me of being a misogynist propagandist, supporter of fascism and anti-Semitism, and mastermind meatpuppeteer. He has already been told various times to stop, but he continues with these accusations. But, this is to be expected because, in Lecen's view, he is the "good guy" who is doing nothing wrong. When his close friend User:The ed17 files a report against me (despite Ed has no relation whatsoever to this case), it's obviously not meatpuppetry. When Lecen accuses me of being a Fascist propagandist, that obviously is not an insult. And, when I respond to any of his aggressions, I am obviously ranting. So, the "logic" here is pretty black-and-white.

Topic Ban, clarifications (Part 1) My understanding of the ARBCOM ruling is that I was topic banned due to "tendentious editing and battleground conduct". The diffs used to justify the position all come from my edits in the article on the Paraguayan War. As I expressed in AGK's talk page (see ), 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:
 * 5) 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).
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) 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 ). Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * @Ed. I'll answer your points through the same number format:
 * Close friend is not an overstatement. See Lecen's talk page history search results for "The ed17" and "Ed" ( and ). Why would you lie about your friendship???
 * I haven't accused you of meatpuppetry. Please read the phrase under the full context.
 * 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.
 * 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 | T al k 04:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Motion: Cambalachero-Lecen interaction ban
1) Cambalachero and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.


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


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Do we need to include an enforcement provision in these motions? AGK  [•] 13:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. AGK  [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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, AGK  [•] 21:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Motion: MarshalN20-Lecen interaction ban
2) MarshalN20 and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.


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


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Request for clarification (August 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568855646#Clarification_request:_Argentine_history Original discussion]

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

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


 * 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)


 * 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)

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 | T al k 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
 * Based on the statements above, a ≥1983 stipulation seems workable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * This is a little specialised for me, so I will abstain and defer to my colleagues on how to dispose of this request. AGK  [•] 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Request for amendment (December 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=588278718#Clarification_request:_Argentine_History Original discussion]

Initiated by  MarshalN20  | T al k at 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision
 * Link to relevant decision

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


 * Cambalachero is aware of this request (or should soon be due to )

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, 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 ). 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 ). 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 | T al k 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 Banana article has a history section!). 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 | T al k 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 | T al k 07:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to Sandstein, the Chile-Peru football rivalry is an ongoing event. To claim that it "is entirely about past events" is a terrible premise that dismantles the whole argument and conclusion. This is also why the unblock request was accepted by the community. Per WP:TBAN: "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not." The "history" section in Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly delimited. That the article is a badly written one also does not help the case made against me.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. Not even I expected that the WP:IBAN would be so blatantly broken . The comments made below clearly break the point: "editor X is not permitted to make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly." I mean, the comment doesn't even concern the clarification request...it's just a bunch of trash commentary demonstrating 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 | T al k 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 | T al k 16:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 | T al k 21:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 | T al k 12:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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 - 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Motion 2 is at best unnecessary, because the wording at Banning policy 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)

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:


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137 – "MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions"
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568317518#Motion_1:_MarshalN20 Amendment] allowing Marshal to edit the Falkland Islands article
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568855646#Motions Amendment] adding a formal interaction ban,
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141 – one month block
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarshalN20&oldid=580357389#November_2013 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"?
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=582406822#Request_Block_Review_of_User:MarshalN20 AN block review] that led to this. I'm going to quote 's brilliant [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=582245412 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. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also tangentially related is the Wikilove Marshal has sent out to everyone who participated in the AN discussion, ex. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjakkalle&diff=prev&oldid=582376244] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DESiegel&diff=prev&oldid=582376469] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=prev&oldid=582376699]. But why does someone who [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Someone_not_using_his_real_name&diff=prev&oldid=582377720 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? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Marshal, for reminding me that I forgot to add links to the clarification requests. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When you say "", can I ask on what you base that assumption? Marshall has a history of trying to skirt his topic bans. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, trying to litigate individual sections of articles that Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. And the weeks after that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero
First of all, MarshalN20 is not requesting an amendment of the case, but a clarification on the actual limits of the case as it is. The previous block was caused precisely by a misunderstanding on the extension of it, so the clarification request is appropiate, and it is precisely meant to avoid further troubles. In fact, I suggested him to request this clarification, I thought that if the limits are clear for everybody then there will be less of those discussions, or no such discussions at all. And there's no big need to link all the previous clarifications, amendments or enforcements of this case, because all those are already included at the case's main page or subpages anyway; arbitrators know where to seek them.

First, the topics. I think that "history" means the topics that we can seriously expect to find in a book named "History of Argentina", "History of Peru", or similar. The main topics that such books talk about are warfare, in the periods when the country is at war, and politics, when the country is at peace. With both terms broadly construed: in this context politics would mean anything that is related to the governance of a country (including economy, international relations, social rights, etc.), and warfare would mean anything that is related to conflicts between military factions (including ships or military hardware, cancelled or proposed military operations, etc.). If it is clarified this way, then we can be more certain if an article about a football rivalry (or any other topic that may arise) is included in the ban or not.

And second, the frontier between current things and history. It was said during the block discussion (I forgot where or by whom) that the 1983 limit is only for Argentine history, and did not apply to other countries. That is correct: when that clarification was requested, I declined to clarify a year for the whole of latin america, because contemporary latin american history was not among my interests anyway. And 1983 was selected because it's a natural turning point in Argentina, as it was described by then; but it is meaningless for the other countries. I don't think there's such a meaningful event for the whole continent, so to keep it close to the limit that has already been decided for Argentina, we can set the limit in the begining of the 1980s (January 1, 1980). The turning of a decade should be a good universal turning point. Of course, that would leave some articles half-allowed and half-banned (such as the National Reorganization Process), but I would simply avoid such articles. Cambalachero (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Statement by Sandstein
I've been notified as the administrator who made the two most recent enforcement blocks. Because I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about whether a topic ban is needed to prevent misconduct by MarshalN20, and if yes, how broad that topic ban should be. But in the cases raised in an enforcement context, as listed by The ed17, I've observed that MarshalN20 has repeatedly violated or tested the boundaries of their topic ban. It's up to the Committee to decide which if any conclusions should be drawn from this history of noncompliance.

If I were a member of the Committee, I'd be concerned that by deciding to lift the block I imposed on MarshalN20 for editing Chile-Peru football rivalry (in my view, pretty clearly an "article ...related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed" as per the terms of the topic ban), the participants in the noticeboard discussion may de facto have already modified (in the sense requested here by MarshalN20) or vacated the Committee-imposed topic ban, in violation of the principle that Arbitration Committee decisions are binding (WP:AP). This raises the question whether the procedure documented at Arbitration Committee/Procedures requires amendment to prevent this sort of "appeal to the community" against Committee decisions (in the context of their enforcement), which is not envisioned by the community-adopted arbitration policy.  Sandstein  15:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to Cambalechero, my reasoning was the following: The topic ban concerns "articles ... related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed". History is, according to our article, "an umbrella term that relates to past events" or the study of such. The article Chile-Peru football rivalry is entirely about past events in two countries in Latin America, including events in the more distant past such as the 19th-century wars mentioned prominently in the lead (even in the article's earliest version created by MarshalN20 in 2007). Consequently, the entire article is related to (and, indeed, about) the history of Latin America (more specifically, about the cultural history of part of Latin America). Per 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Statement by Eric Corbett
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)


 * Inappropriate comment redacted. AGK  [•] 20:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DrKiernan
I'm not following this discussion closely, so perhaps I have misread things, however, if Sandstein has blocked Lecen while his block of MarshallN120 is under discussion, then that doesn't appear wise. The arbitration enforcement should have been left to someone else. DrKiernan (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia
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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 &#38;L  19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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  &#38;L  11:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @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  &#38;L  12:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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
 * User:MarshalN20 mistakenly believes a comment is allowed under the vandalism exemption and makes a comment in talk [diff]
 * User:MarshalN20 is reminded by User:Wee Curry Monster of his topic ban ,
 * User:MarshalN20 ceases and desists, strikes out his comments and withdraws
 * Nearly two weeks later User:Keysanger makes a WP:AE complaint
 * User:Sandstein blocks User:MarshalN20 almost immediately, with little or no discussion

I note that in the case of the first block, the editor was blocked in what is effectively a punitive manner after they had already realised and acknowledged an error on their part. I don't see this block as defensible.

In the second block, which was for two months based on a presumption of recidivism following the first, User:MarshalN20 was editing the football-related article Chile–Peru football rivalry. That there is a reference to the War of the Pacific in the lede, lead to a block under the broadly construed nature of the topic ban. In this case, I have difficulty seeing a block as defensible with the application of WP:COMMON, though given the poor wording in the original topic ban perhaps it is a grey area. I am encouraged my interpretation was correct as arbcom members have indicated below that they don't consider the topic ban extended to the article that led to the second block.

Two issues are being raised here.


 * 1) Blocks by User:Sandstein  Several users have commented that the use of the block tool by User:Sandstein in 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.

I would suggest that rather than referring to Latin America in totality, the wording is revised to cover only those areas relevant to the arbcom case. I would suggest the topic ban should be revised to be specifically related to Argentine history prior to December 1980 or whatever date arbcom sees fit. I would also suggest this is contingent on all parties in the case restrict themselves to a 1RR restriction and find themselves a mentor as their behaviour has been far from optimal. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to see that a clarification has been offered. If possible I would suggest that the topic is less broad, given that MarshalN20 took the Falklands to FA status, he has demonstrated his ability to produce good content.  If he would agree to having a mentor to improve on his interaction with other editors it would give confidence in relaxing the topic ban to simply refer to Argentine history. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker
Common sense is useful if it is informed. The suggestion that international sports rivalry, especially in the Western World, is a priori not a history topic seems uninformed (see Greek Games) -- moreover, here in an article (the one under discussion) that prominently discusses the geopolitical background. If this committee wants a narrower ban -- it is its responsibility to make it narrower. Don't blame others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TransporterMan
I'm not all that familiar with the original case, though I believe I was marginally involved in the content dispute resolution history, so what I am about to say may be wholly irrelevant. In regard to Motion 1, some care might need to be exerted in regard the term "geopolitical" in order to avoid further ambiguity. For something to be geopolitical, it generally has to have a geographic component or influence, not just be limited by geography (i.e. limited to Latin America). Just "political" might work better. You might also want to be careful of the phrase "of Latin America," especially with the "broadly construed" dropped, as this could be read to only include topics affecting all of Latin America (especially since "geopolitics" suggests an international or regional subject matter). I know that you're trying to cut the scope of this remedy down, but you don't want to go too narrow, either. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TenOfAllTrades
Just passing through. I can see what you're trying to do with Motion #2, but it encapsulates a principle which is already an explicit part of WP:TBAN ("Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.") The language and examples at WP:TBAN are quite clear.

My concern is that you may be inviting future confusion and conflict as administrators at AE are left to try to divine your intent in not simply relying on the explicit provisions of WP:TBAN in this particular remedy (or worse, to try to guess how the absence of this specific additional emphasis and endorsement should affect the interpretation of all other topic ban remedies to which you have not – yet – added this particular language).

If the Committee is concerned that there are specific instances in which the provisions of WP:TBAN have not been properly interpreted or applied, then feel free to address that as needed&mdash;but don't go rewriting or restating extant policies as a remedy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Noting here that clerk action was taken to remove one of the statements as a violation of an interaction ban. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting any further statements before commenting. (Also in terms of timing, please note that this is a long holiday weekend for many in the US.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still thinking through whether and how we want to clarify the scope of this particular topic-ban, but as a general statement, the scope of a topic-ban (or of a topic in general, such as in the DS context) needs to be evaluated in light of the purpose for which the topic-ban was imposed. With respect to this particular topic ban, oversimplified slightly, the concern from the original case was that MarshalN20 was assertedly using unreliable and non-mainstream sources in articles on Latin American history.
 * It is impossible even in principle for our decisions to define topic scopes in a manner that avoids all possible ambiguity (for discussion of why this is so, please see this post by me, which I urge those interested in arbitration and AE issues to read). Thus, while bright lines are desirable when possible, there are many times when relevant background needs to be taken into account.
 * On a related matter, I note that Lecen, who was the filing party in the original arbitration case, has been blocked at AE for one month for posting a statement on this clarification request, followed by a statement at the subsequent AE request. Arguably, Lecen's posting of his statement on the clarification request violated the interaction ban between himself and MarshalN20, even though Lecen understandably had an interest in a proposed modification to the outcome of that case. However, it bears emphasis that Lecen began his statement by stating, "I asked for an interaction ban regarding Marshal and Cambalachero, but since this has direct relation to the ArbCom which we were part of I believe I'm allowed to comment. If not, let me know." Lecen has no prior AE blocks. The closing admin's rationale in the AE discussion cites Lecen's suggestion there that he be blocked for 30 days, but in context that is an expression of exasperation (warranted or otherwise) by Lecen, not a confession or a policy proposal. If Lecen were to appeal this block to us, I would give very serious consideration to such appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviewing situation (and withholding comment on the original issue for now), but I would quite like to know why Lecen has commented here in contravention of the current interaction ban in effect against . AGK  [•] 00:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad: Lecen did violate his interaction ban, so I cannot understand why you think the ban should not have been enforced in this case. AGK  [•] 20:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally, my first thought is that Sandstein's block was a bad idea and that it was a good thing the community lifted it; granted, such a block was probably defensible, but nonetheless, I personally think it should not have been imposed: I have frequently said that ArbCom's decisions should be interpreted and enforced using commonsense (although I know there are people who disagree) and not in a mechanical fashion... Anyway, if, for the purposes of this restriction, we define "history" as "an umbrella term that relates to past events", we end up concluding that almost every article on Wikipedia is covered by this topic ban; in this, I agree with Marshal: even the article about the banana has a history section. And I also agree with Thryduulf that the article in question appears to be mainly about sports, even if it contains a history section, and that reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 should not have been considered a violation of Marshal's restriction. For these reasons, I support the proposal to tweak the wording of the restriction, so that it is more consistent with what we intended to prohibit in the first place (or, to be more precise, with what I think we wanted to prohibit when we originally imposed the topic) and, so, pilfering Thryduulf's wording, I'd clarify that, for the purposes of this restriction, the term "history" should be interpreted as referring to a. the geopolitical, economic and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and b. any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic or military events that occurred before December 1983 (or a different date, considering we only granted the 1983 exemption wrt Argentine history). Finally, an editor who is banned from interacting with another may not make comments, either directly or indirectly, about him anywhere, for any reason, except to report a violation of the restriction, to ask for a clarification of or to appeal the ban. Lecen's comments, therefore, are a violation of his restriction and I'm about to ask the clerks to remove them.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * not all violations require a block; this is what I meant when I said that our decision should not be enforced in a mechanical fashion. In this case, for instance, a softer, more nuanced approach might have been to remove Lecen's statement, letting him know that he was not allowed to comment on Marshal, blocking him only in the event of a revert... Alternatively, even a short block could have been ok, but a month is overkill, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Motions: Argentine History (MarshalN20)


For reference, the relevant remedy relating to is:

Motion 1 (scope refined)
Proposed:


 * In remedy 2 of Argentine History, the following text:
 * "the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces"
 * Is replaced by:
 * "(A) the political, 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 restriction applies across all namespaces."
 * Enacted — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 00:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Proposed in order to implement Salvio giuliano's suggestion (itself taken from Thryduulf's idea). AGK  [•] 11:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dropped "broadly construed" as it conflicts with the preceding limits of the ban. Revert if you object, Salvio and WTT. AGK  [•] 23:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy with this change. Worm TT( talk ) 12:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This clarification is acceptable. I expect it to be interpreted by all concerned in a reasonable fashion. (I might add that I am still displeased by the situation involving Lecen.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] 03:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Without more guidance as to how to construe this (absent the broad language) I think this leads to more hair splitting and problems than it solves. Courcelles 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 *  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I was inactive on the underlying case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I'm not sure how else to loosen the restriction without just scrapping it. Would something like "all articles with (A) the geopolitical, economic [etc.] and (B) any other aspect [etc.] as its primary subject" work? AGK  [•] 12:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Colleagues: How can we let Marshall edit the remainder of affected articles while restricting him from affected individual sections of that article? I am struggling to think of clear language that would grant the original request. The motion as worded now narrows the restriction, but doesn't answer the original request. Wording suggestions welcome. AGK  [•] 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion 2 (peripheral articles)
Proposed:


 * In Remedy 2 of Argentine History, after the replacement sentences adopted in, the following is added: "On articles where the subject is not within the topic ban scope but one section of the article is within the scope, he is banned from editing that section but not the remainder of the article."
 * Not enacted — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 00:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Proposed per comments section of first motion. This, obviously, is in conjunction with and addition to Motion 1. I'm proposing it as a separate motion only because it does something slightly different from Motion 1, and is a little too significant to propose as a copyedit. AGK  [•] 12:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Withdrawing, per below. This is completely unnecessary, as it duplicates what is already at WP:TBAN.  AGK  [•] 09:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sensible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Superfluous. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Salvio: How so? AGK  [•] 11:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mainly per TOAT and Sandstein. This is something which is already covered in WP:TBAN and, so, whenever we impose a topic ban, it applies unless we decide to explicitly exclude it. Finding it necessary to say it in this case only may lead to confusion at AE later: when, in future, we impose a topic ban on a different editor, without including a clause along these lines, AE admins may reasonably be at a loss whether we wanted this provision applied or not. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was unaware TBAN contained provision for such exclusion. Thanks. I now wonder why this amendment request was brought in the first place. AGK  [•] 09:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * I don't see the benefit in this clause, as it is covered in WP:TBAN. However, I'm also not seeing the great harm, so won't oppose for now. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 09:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I came to this page just now to propose that we address the concern this is duplicative and could be confusing with a copyedit, adding "Consistent with the standard policy," or the like. But I see the proposal is withdrawn, so I guess we are done here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification (January 2014)
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=592220666#Clarification_request:_Argentine_History Original discussion]

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  MarshalN20  | T al k at 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Casting Aspersions
 * MarshalN20 editing behavior
 * Cambalachero editing behavior
 * Cambalachero editing behavior

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notified)
 * (notified)

Statement by MarshalN20
This request for the Argentine History case is primarily a clarification petition, but may end up with additional amendments to the case depending on how the solution to the problem can be achieved optimally (I will provide an amendment suggestion). This situation is unacceptable. It is particularly harmful to my editing in Wikipedia, specially related to my nomination of featured articles (such as the recent Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive4). Therefore, I again return to the arbitration committee in search of protection from harm. Thanks in advance for the help. Please take my proposals for solution as recommendations (not demands). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Background: The findings of the Argentine History case placed my editing behavior as having exhibited "tendentious editing and battleground conduct." Due to this, I was topic banned indefinitely with the possibility of appeal after one year.
 * The Problem: The convoluted nature of the case permitted the escape of an inappropriate story that continuously accuses me of having added "fascist sources" to Latin American articles. This was never proven, and the findings do not mention anything about it. Thus, this "Black Legend" goes contrary to the "casting aspersions" principle mentioned in the case's resolution.
 * Neotarf: Several users have been spreading this story around (the usual suspects), but the most vociferous one has been User:Neotarf.
 * On December 5, Neotarf accuses me of being a fascist (see ).
 * On January 1, Neotarf uses The Signpost to again repeat his accusations . As it stands, it is a direct personal attack accusing me of bullying and adding fascist sources.
 * Previously, on December 4, Neotarf had commented on The Signpost about the case, and basically noted that the information he presented was a "general idea of the topic" (see ). In other words, Neotarf is spreading around an opinion of the case, purposefully casting aspersions on me as an editor.
 * The Request:
 * 1) A clarification is needed that (A) emphasizes the Committee's ruling is related to dispute among editors and not about article content per se and (B) addresses the aspersions of the aforementioned "Black Legend" as it relates to MarshalN20. I would appreciate a mention that no evidence was ever provided to justify claims that MarshalN20 ever included sources in articles, and that MarshalN20's disruptions occurred in article talk pages.
 * 2) Neotarf's 1 January 2014 writing  in The Signpost, as concerning the Argentine History case, needs to be either reworded or deleted.
 * 3) An amendment is needed that provides a more stern remedy for "casting aspersions" (as related to unwanted accusations of political affiliation). The current "casting aspersions" principle does not adequately address the problem because it cannot be properly enforced.


 * Note: I haven't directly mentioned Cambalachero in my post because I don't know his opinion of this matter as it concerns him.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 ---Response to Roger--- 

Thanks Roger. Yes, here are the direct quotes...
 * From 5 December 2013 :
 * "After 3 years of conflict over the insertion of non-mainstream sources written by Fascists into Argentine history topics"
 * "It would not seem reasonable that someone who is being hounded by POV pushers, to the point where they have had to request an interaction ban, should be excluded from meta-discussions about their restrictions."
 * From 1 January 2014 :
 * "The case asserted that Argentine history articles were being systematically skewed by the use of sources sympathetic to 'Nacionalismos'."
 * "The case ended with topic bans for the individuals adding this material."
 * "They were ganging up to bully him."

Notes:
 * 1) The "Fascist sources" accusation is neither supported in the "principles" nor "findings of fact" in the Argentine History case. The case's resolution only commented on the reliability of a single source and the importance of "consensus building". Therefore, the "Fascist sources" accusation is casting aspersions.
 * 2) Hounding and bullying accusations are false, and spreading those accusations again cast aspersions. The IBAN was placed due to "ongoing acrimony between the parties" (per Kirill). T. Cannens also wrote, "continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary."
 * 3) I didn't add sources. In War of the Triple Alliance, I misbehaved during a move request (on the talk page). In Juan Manuel de Rosas, my only major article contribution was the writing of the lead (or "lede" as some like to call it); again, most of my actions there were on the article's talk page. Hence, any other statement made about my actions is false.
 * 4) I haven't "systematically skewed" anything. Such an accusation is absolutely terrible (falling into academic dishonesty).

Neotarf and others get away with this kind of mudslinging by claiming that their "general idea of the topic" is correct based on the Arbitration Committee's decision. A clarification on the ruling, perhaps directly addressing this "Black Legend", would be helpful (so that any further aspersion casting can be dealt with at AN/I). Alternatively, a remedy for "casting aspersions" could be amended into the case in order for any further aspersion casting can be reviewed at the Arbitration Enforcement page (which is more focused on arbitration-related matters than AN/I).

If none of my recommendations are adequate, I would also appreciate suggestions on how to handle this matter (for instance, should I simply take this directly to AN/I the next time it happens?). It's truly bothersome to keep having my reputation besmirched throughout Wikipedia. The IBAN was certainly a great help in stopping the source, but the false accusations continue being spread by users with apparent ties to the involved parties.

Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 ---Response to Roger--- 
 * Thanks, Astynax, for another good example of the "Black Legend".
 * Regardless of what was argued in the case's evidence phase, and whatever it is that the arbitrators ultimately believed, the case's resolution at no point makes mention to "fascist sources". This is because the Arbitration Committee does not rule over article content (In fact, one of the case's principles encourages "consensus building" as the way to resolve content disputes).
 * The problem is that users such as Astynax and Neotarf go around the encyclopedia claiming that the Arbitration Committee ruled on content. In fact, Neotarf explicitly claims this on the 1 January 2014 post at The Singpost: "The case asserted that Argentine history articles were being systematically skewed [...]".
 * In the Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page, I remember very clearly that my arguments were in favor of maintaining the WP:NPOV and against relying solely on author John Lynch for such a controversial subject. But, please, let's not go back into that matter.
 * My request here is not against Neotarf as a user (I am not requesting a punishment), but rather about the "Black Legend" being spread around by users such as Neotarf and Astynax. I want to know if any further accusations made by these or other users should be taken directly to AN/I or if the Arbitration Committee would like to clarify matters (or make amendments) that can provide more light on how to resolve this matter.
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I suppose that another part of the question here is the distinction between the "evidence phase" and the "final decision". Astynax below assures that what was placed in the "evidence phase" can be used in the Arbitration Committee's voice. I find this view strange, particularly as my understanding is that the "evidence phase" is where parties (involved and peripheral) could submit their position on the subject, whereas the "final decision" is what the Arbitration Committee ultimately had to say about the matter. Some kind of clarification is clearly needed either for me, for the others, or for everyone.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 07:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Questions: These are all my clarification questions. Salvio was kind enough to provide his response to them :
 * 1) Is the Arbitration Committee's voice in the "evidence phase" or in the "final decision"?
 * 2) Should "casting aspersions" problems, related to this case, be taken to AN/I or Arbitration Enforcement?
 * "Our findings of fact are contained in the final decision and that's the only thing that it can be said to have been officially stated by arbcom. And if you think another person has been hurling groundless accusations at you, the best approach would be to talk to the other party and, failing that, to start an ANI thread."
 * I would like to know if the other arbitrators fully agree with Salvio, or if there might be a discrepancy of opinion?
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Astynax, according to the "final decision" presented by the Arbitration Committee, I was found to have engaged in "tendentious editing and battleground conduct". Nothing less, nothing more.
 * Your accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content" are aspersions. I am tired of your (and your friends') constant attacks.
 * Please consider this a final warning.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The diffs used as examples of my behavior problems, do not justify your accusations, Astynax.
 * I have understood these diffs as my errors, particularly my pestering of voters in move request discussions (as shown in the second and third diffs), and apologized for them in various prior occasions.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, all I am asking is that you (and your friends) please stop casting aspersions about me. Simply drop the stick. But, no, that just doesn't happen. The insults simply continue. What's worse, I'm in a lose-lose situation. If I report Astynax at AN/I (at this point), it will only increase the drama to this repulsive soap opera that should have been cancelled many seasons ago: Hence, I believe that the only solutions here are: Yes, I know that this clarification request is unusual. However, I think the statements made by Astynax & The_ed17, along with my evidence from Neotarf, are good examples of the why the unusual explanation is necessary. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 06:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If Astynax gets blocked, that will add to the list of martyrs to this problem. The editor will cease to edit for a while, maybe "retire", and then miraculously return after a funeral procession (carried out to the tune of "Baby Come Back" ). In the meantime, the grudge will increase to levels only comparable with WrestleMania.
 * If Astynax doesn't get blocked, that will encourage the aspersions to continue and become even more vociferous than The Signpost. This may even spill into the real world, which would severely hurt my career.
 * 1) The Arbitration Committee needs to make a stern statement on the matter. Maybe I am right, or maybe I am wrong and the "evidence phase" can be considered as part of the Arbitration Committee's final ruling voice/statement. Either way, this needs to get formally cleared up.
 * 2) Regardless of the decision made here, my detractors (Astynax, Neotarf, The_ed17, etc.) really need to move on and take their roles in Wikipedia more professionally (again, please read WP:REAL). The mistakes I made have already been punished; no need exists for vigilante editing or continuing stabs on old wounds. If that's not enough to convince you, perhaps simply consider that all of you are wasting your time on someone you disregard in importance.

Per the recommendations of Salvio and ES&L, I request that my clarification request please be withdrawn. I apologize for the continuing drama, but you can follow the story at AN/I. Assuming my WrestleMania example to be correct, I call dibs on Hulk Hogan. Again, sorry everyone. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to ES&L, yes, I knew from the start that there would be no blocks placed here. I am not interested in seeing any of the aforementioned users (Neotarf, The_ed17, or Astynax) blocked. This is partially out of a personal desire to avoid further conflict, but also because I wanted to avoid the creation of any more martyrs.
 * I would have preferred for the arbitrators to make a stern statement that would either (A) stop the aspersions and/or (B) allow for swift AN/I reports and closures.
 * I would be pleasantly surprised if matters do get quickly resolved at AN/I. However, in all likelihood, this ship will not go down without flying flares, ringing its bells, and blasting its horns (and throwing everyone & everything overboard).
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Astynax
MarshalN20 is mistaken that reliable, mainstream sources were not produced linking Nacionalismos and its apologists to Fascism during the arbitration case during the Evidence phase. The Signpost article thus seems to be on solid footing, and there are certainly other mainstream historians that could be cited in support of equating Nacionalismo and quasi-historical Nacionalismos accounts with Fascism. MarshalN20 joined Cambalachero/MBelgrano in defending edits based upon those sources. I am unsure what motivated MarshalN20 to lodge yet another request regarding this case, what this complaint has to do with his block, or what he is asking be clarified. If he has a complaint against the behavior of Neotarf, who did not participate in the arbcom case, surely this is not the place to lodge it. &bull; Astynax talk 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to MarshalN20: You were sanctioned for specific behavior, which involved intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content. There is no requirement that such material be inserted into articles based upon demands for "consensus building". The case was accurately reported in the Signpost article, though you obviously still do not accept that you participated in such behavior or understand the reasoning behind your block. I personally find your charges of spreading a "Black Legend" to be a highly offensive and baseless breach of civility, but should you believe that I have been doing so, you were already very well-aware of where to report that sort of behavior, and that it is not here. So I am still left wondering what is the point of this request, even after your amendments? &bull; Astynax talk 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to MarshalN20: Yes, you were sanctioned for that behavior, which basis arose specifically from intransigently pushing fringe, PoV content. I am certain that you are familiar with tendentious editing for which you were blocked, and that it encompasses the PoV-pushing of fringe content behavior which was part of the complaint against you. Again, this is not the proper place to lodge complaints against me and others, nor to re-air your position or attempt to circumvent. I'll bow out now, as it seems clear that you haven't accepted the reasons behind your block. &bull; Astynax talk 19:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
+1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Neotarf
I’m not sure why I am being named as a party here. I have never edited in this topic area or with this group of editors.

The Signpost Arbitration Report has included the same basic synopsis of the Argentine History case since the April 1st, 2013 issue, over nine months ago. Marshal was not named in any of these reports. The only time this user was named in an Arbitration Report with regards to this case was in the June 26, 2013 report, when the case was closed and the findings passed unanimously by the committee were quoted verbatim.

Marshal has never expressed any concerns about the reports on the talk pages, or by contacting me via my talk page or by email. He did however post a comment here after he was mentioned in connection with one of his requests regarding his Latin American history topic ban. At that time I declined to expand on the report, as I don’t consider these requests to be very interesting to a general audience, plus it's a lot of work, but I invited him to add his reflections. He did not.

Marshal has also misquoted me: e.g. when he quotes this: "They were ganging up to bully him." the actual quote is "WHO CLAIMED they were ganging up to bully him." (emphasis mine)

No one has accused Marshal of being a “fascist” (small “f”). The reference to Fascism (capital “F”) refers to sources associated with the Revisionismo movement of the 1930s. My comments at WikiProject Editor Retention were to express surprise after an editor was sanctioned by AE after posting at yet another one of Marshal’s topic ban review requests.

Query: If Marshal is topic banned, how is he posting comments at the Signpost and at Clarification Requests?

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves
This is ridiculous to be here: Marshal was advised to take others' behaviour to ANI, and that's that. Period. That said, Asyntax has spent every single one of his posts here proving Marshal to be right. Asyntax' comments are 110 degrees off of what the findings of fact were, and is ascribing very different words and meanings to ArbCom's findings. This clearly violates WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA), and refuses to remove them even when appropriately notified of their error. However, nobody on this board will block for it, and Marshal knows it. So Marshal, close this well-intentioned, but poorly thought-out filing (after all, you WERE told the right locale), and use diff's to the links as part of your proof. Someone is quite clearly trying to drive you away from specific articles and casting false aspersions. Editors are not permitted to put words in ArbCom's mouths that were not there to begin with in order to invalidate your edits ES  &#38;L  10:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * @ Please quote in your statement the actual words used that you are concerned about.  Roger Davies  talk 08:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for amendment (July 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  MarshalN20  T al k at 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Topic Ban
 * Topic Ban

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

Statement by MarshalN20
Hey! I'd like to take the article United States to featured status (current sandbox, with pictures and new lead section, is at User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). Over the past year I have also led two articles to featured status, the Peru national football team and Pisco Sour, and will soon have a third one with the Falkland Islands.

I was not sure if editing the US history section would be an issue, due to the topic ban that prevents me from editing Latin American history topics (non-cultural) prior to 1980. US history is tangentially related to Latin American history. David recommended me to take the question here in order to avoid any misunderstandings.

I'd like to work in this article to keep demonstrating my true value as an editor. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's worth clarifying that I will use the WP:SUMMARY rule when writing the history section. The only two major topics that I can currently think about (related to Latin America that I will certainly mention, in one or two sentences) are the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War. The Monroe Doctrine (and its related practices) and Cuban Missile Crisis will probably only be part of a larger sentence, the former related to hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and the latter to the Cold War. There certainly are more, but I currently cannot imagine going into detail into any of it.-- MarshalN20 T al k 02:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
Speaking as a participant in the previous discussion, opposed to MarshalN20, I think that a limited exception for the United States article is appropriate. Nearly all of the history section will not infringe on areas that caused the ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It would be impossible to put together a complete history of the United States without touching multiple times on its interactions with Latin America. Many of those historical interactions would be before 1983, so those portions of the article would be encompassed by the ban. However, I would be willing to consider a limited exception for that particular article similar to the previous Falklands exemption, to be revoked in the event of misconduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade and would support an exemption to MarshalN20's topic ban in this case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Me three. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion: MarshalN20 topic ban exemption


Proposed:


 * Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
 * Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't this kind of thing used to be decided without having to have an actual motion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems pretty low risk to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With the expectation that the issues that led to the original decision will not recur on this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per brad. NativeForeigner Talk 00:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay,  Roger Davies  talk 07:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * Floq-we make clarifications without motions, but this actually alters a previous decision from last year, hence the vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Argentine History February 2015

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Cambalachero (talk) at 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Exemptions for the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis

Statement by Cambalachero
I am currently topic banned from articles that talk about Latin American history. As clarified here, the line between history and modern times in Argentina has been set in 1983 (end of the National Reorganization Process dictatorship, and restoration of democracy). The articles listed are the articles about the presidents of Argentina since 1983, and the Pope. As such, the bulk of their articles is/would be about their presidencies (or papacy), already within the allowed limits, and do not require any special exemption. However, the sections about their early lives and early careers usually need to explain the dictatorship and the dirty war, to provide the appropiate context. In other cases, the aftermath of the dirty war still sparked controversies in the national politics (see the dirty war article, sections "Truth commission, decrees revoked", "Continuing controversies" and "Repeal of Pardon Laws and renewal of prosecutions").

Have in mind that the original discussion that led to the case was about articles from the XIX century. Those small exemptions will not go anywhere near the original controversy.

In relation to modern Argentine events, I wrote the featured article 2013 Rosario gas explosion, helped to promote the articles Néstor Kirchner, Argentine legislative election, 2013 and 2012 Buenos Aires rail disaster to the "In the news" section of the main page. I also wrote new articles, featured in the DYK section, for 18A, 2012 cacerolazo in Argentina, 2012 fiscal austerity in Argentina, 2013 Buenos Aires train crash, Argentine quota law, Boudougate, Broad Front UNEN, Eduardo Arnold, Madero Center, Mario Poli, Periodismo para todos, Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, la Cámpora. Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If an article about a modern controversy includes information about an unrelated historical one, I would consider it a coatrack article, needing to be fixed. An article must stay focused on its own topic. As for the limit, it's a limit established by the arbcom, to set which articles and topics are covered by the topic ban and which ones are not. Also this phenomenon you talk about is usually about issues that stay unresolved from one administration to the next, and so the media talks about both ones in relation to it. The phenomenon, however, only goes back for a limited time to the past. The media may talk about Bush when talking about issues of the Obama administration that started back then, but if some issue goes back up to Washington, Lincoln or other old historical times, its historical aspect is usually treated as trivia and dismissed from the news headlines, focusing instead on the most recent events related to said issue. Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Add MarshalN20, the other user included in this topic ban, requested a precise clarification on the limits of the ban, which articles are included and which ones are not. It is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History, and it was agreed again by the Arbcom to set the time limit at December 1983. True, it was MarshalN20 who requested the amendment and it was only applied to him, but it's the same topic ban and it would be the same discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be less philosophical and focus more on tangible things. The article on Barack Obama is a featured one, and mentions George Bush, but does not mention George Washington or Abraham Lincoln anywhere. For similar reasons, a featured article of Cristina Kirchner would mention previous presidents but would not need to mention Manuel Belgrano or José de San Martín at all. There is a historical background for the gun control controversy, but there is no need to mention it in Obama's article, only the things related to gun control under his administration. Cambalachero (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The internet archives of online newspapers only go back up to a certain point, and the articles of current leaders (Pope Francis and Cristina Kirchner) are the most checked ones by casual readers, and thus the ones that should have priority in being as perfect as possible. I would follow the list mentioned in a backwards line, from Francis and Kirchner first to Alfonsín last. Incidentally, the list in said order would also go from the least involved with the dirty war to the most involved ones (the Kirchners were just mere students that left a city, and Francis did not hold any noteworthy religious rank; Alfonsín and Menem were active politicians at the time). Still, it may be easier and less time consuming to ask for this whole group a single time, rather than coming here several times to make similar requests for each new case. Cambalachero (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarshalN20
As a professional historian, I agree that it is difficult to draw a "line" between what is history and what is the present. Nonetheless, for the sake of understanding the subject, historians have (time and again) made these lines (they vary, of course, depending on the context and historian). ArbComm has also indeed drawn a line in this case.

Regardless of that, the purpose of ArbComm is to focus on user behavior. Cambalachero has conducted himself exceptionally, and has provided a series of positive contributions for the project since his topic ban (including a featured article). This positive behavior should be far more important for the committee's amendment decision than anything else.

Sincerely.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Argentine History: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As a purely preliminary comment, I am not sure that for any nation whatsoever, there is a clear separate between historical and current controversies. Current disputes tend to include  the interpretation of historical examples.  DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * to use the US as an example, debates on current politics often refer back to the principles of US government as established in the 18th century; and much work on the writers of the Constitution is motivated by their implications for current events. See, for example, our article on Gun control. That's not coatrack, but , in the US, one of the possible and much-debated  principles underlying constitutional interpretation. Nor, I think, has   Europe forgotten World War II, or the third world the period of European imperialism.  DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I think this is reasonable enough. That said, I would be slightly more inclined to grant an exemption for those people more tangentially connected to the dictatorship... is there a subset of the articles you'd like to work on first? Courcelles 20:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems a reasonable request. I would be inclined toward granting the standard exemption for these (articles, talk pages, pages related to FA review), revocable by an uninvolved admin in the event of misconduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather either designate one admin that was willing to supervise, or say send it back to ArbCom for review if needed, rather than the open-endedness of any uninvolved admin. We've done the first two strategies.  Not, to my memory, the any uninvolved admin route.  If no one objects strongly, I'll throw up a motion tomorrow. Courcelles 03:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we've also done the latter, though I can't recall the details now and, speaking personally, I'd prefer to have any uninvolved administrator authorised to revoke the exemption (which, by the way, I too support). Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I sympathise with DGG's comments somewhat, I think we can do this. Not decided yet on which route to take about rovocing it if necessary, I need to see the pros and cons. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Argentine History)


Enacted - S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * 1) As proposer.  I think this strikes a balance between the various methods of revoking the exemption.  Copyedit or change as desired. Courcelles 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) L Faraone  05:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)   Roger Davies  talk 06:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reconsidering my vote in the light of the very sensible opposes as I've long been in favour of ArbCom-lite. Are any of those how've already supported unable to live with a copy-edit the last sentence of the exemption to read: If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made here.  Roger Davies  talk 17:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given they would be modifying an Arbcom motion, not a sanction, we really ought to be notified of any sort of action. Perhaps "If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made here.  The administrator making such a revocation must log it on the Argentine History case page, including diffs that explain the reason for the revocation."  The original safeguard is still in my eyes best, because I'm not a huge fan of allowing any admin to do this versus a designated mentor.   Courcelles 17:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems a good compromise. A bit of suggested tweakage: "The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs." Which is a little bit shorter,  Roger Davies  talk 18:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) NativeForeigner Talk 07:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That would make it "If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made here. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs." I'm fine with these changes. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, except that "here" makes no sense when this is published elsewhere, so specified. Courcelles 19:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support amended version. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) The amendment resolves the problem I had, so switching to support. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  21:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Better now that the appeals come here. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as amended.  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I support the exemption, but not the mandatory referral. If Cambalachero thinks the administrator in question has made a mistake, he can appeal to us. Demanding that the administrator ask us to confirm his decision is a waste of time (his and ours). Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Salvio. On balance I support the exemption, largely on the basis of a good record of content contribution and particularly the featured article, since the topic ban was imposed. But mindful of the reasons for the initial ban, I'd prefer the simpler process described by Salvio, to requiring the uninvolved admin to seek confirmation of their action. A "bad" revocation can be raised at AE or directly with the admin concerned, in the usual way. If this last clause of the motion was modified, I'd support the motion as a whole. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * <S>Per Salvio and Euryalus. I fully support the exemption, but I disagree with the mandatory referral; any disagreement with a revocation should be treated like any other appeal of an arbitration enforcement action. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)




 * Abstain/Recuse:


 * Comments:
 * Support in principle though I'd like to suggest a clarification of our intent here:
 * From "This restriction may be withdrawn if there is misconduct by an uninvovled administrator, either for one page or for all of them. Any administrator who does so is required to open a amendment request for the Arbitration Committee's consideration."
 * To: "If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be temporarily revoked either in part or entirely by that administrator prior to referring the issues back to the Committee for review via a amendment request ." Roger Davies  talk 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That works,, but I think it needs just one more word to make it an imperative that the admin open the ARCA... Courcelles 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Argentine History (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by MarshalN20 at 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Topic ban


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * Topic ban
 * Requesting removal of topic ban. This is an appeal that was allowed after one year of the decision; nearly 2 years have passed.

Statement by MarshalN20
A considerable amount of time has passed since the "ARBARG" case reached its conclusion. After the topic ban was placed, I asked then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare on how to proceed in order to appeal it; he suggested that I tackle a controversial article and take it to featured status (see ). Since then, I have taken three articles to featured status (Peru national football team, Falkland Islands, and Pisco Sour), and I am now in the process of passing another one through the GA-FA process (Bicycle kick) as well as conducting a GA review of an article by Kareldorado. It is worth mentioning that I worked on the controversial Falkland Islands article with Wee Curry Monster and was supervised by administrator Basalisk.

I am requesting the removal of this topic ban on the basis of the following points:
 * First, I have demonstrated through actions that I am a valuable contributor to this encyclopedia. Over a year has passed since the ARBARG case, and so the topic ban at present is punishing rather than preventative (which goes against WP:NOTPENAL).
 * Second, I understand my mistake and apologize for it. I was accused of battleground conduct because I pointed out that the editing patterns of certain editors were suspicious and favoring a national POV rather than a neutral POV. I felt that my points were left ignored, so I became increasingly aggressive. This behavior was wrong. At the time I did not know that there existed a Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where I could have taken my concerns. I now know of its existence and, in the future, plan to use it in order to avoid creating bilateral conflict that is disruptive to the encyclopedia.
 * Third, since its inception, the topic ban has been the cause of much harassment against me. Most of the enforcement and amendments that followed were the result of hounding users taking advantage of the TBAN's lack of clarity. Luckily, in all cases either an administrator or the Wikipedia Community stood by my side and repealed any harm done to my user account. Unfortunately, this has not prevented users from still using the TBAN to attack me. For example, most recently I was called a "delinquent" and unfairly accused of misbehavior for simply directing a new user to contribute to Wikipedia; the situation was so ridiculous and upsetting that administrator EdJohnston boxed it up (see ).

The third point, which goes against WP:HARASS, is what has prompted me to request this TBAN removal. The harassment needs to stop, and the only way to do so is by removing this unnecessary, punitive topic ban. My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves and demonstrate that I am not an editor that deserves this type of mistreatment. In fact, this experience has taught me many valuable lessons about Wikipedia and its community, including the reality that many editors also deal with this problem of harassment; in the near future, I would like to become an administrator in order to help users become productive editors while also tackling harassment issues which drive away productive editors. To achieve this goal, I will have to earn the community's trust, and this I will do by committing myself to continuing my positive behavior and contributions to this online encyclopedia. To be more precise about my near future plans, I would like to first take the Peru article through an FA re-review (since it no longer meets the standards) and next work on taking more articles to featured status (mostly those in my sandboxes).

Please let me know if you have any questions. I would kindly appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions prior to arbitrators making any final decision on this request.-- MarshalN20 T al k 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In light of recent comments, I would just like to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon. I believe that, if needed, can provide further insight on the situation that recently occurred with Keysanger, and he can also explain each side's behavior. As I write this message, I read the following recommendation from the committee: "Be professional. Comments that are intended to provoke a negative reaction or that are uncivil are completely unhelpful." That's exactly what I plan to do. Regards.-- MarshalN20  T al k 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero
I understand the reasons why I was topic banned back then. I know that many people does not trust me, I can't simply ask for a lift of the topic ban by just stating my good intentions. Although two years have passed, I think that I have to earn that trust, and time alone may not be enough. For that reason, I asked some months ago for exceptions for the biographies of the Argentine presidents from 1983 to modern day: if I manage to make them all featured articles, then I may have something to justify my case. Unfortunately, my limited time did not allow me to have any progress that I may show at this point (I'm just with a good article nomination, and nothing more). Because of this, I will make no special request in this case for me at this point.

On the other side, there is a request I would like to make: please do not tie Marshal20's fate with mine. His situation is not the same, and his topic ban should be lifted now. The original dispute was with the biography of Juan Manuel de Rosas; the scope was expanded to all of latin american history surely to prevent the problems with "testing the limits" if the thing was too narrow. But if you check him, you will see that before that dispute he had never took part in any discussion or made any significant number of edits to either the article of Rosas or to some other article that may be more or less related (such as those in the navbox Argentine Civil War). In fact, he's not Argentine but Peruvian, and the national histories of Argentina and Peru had very little points of intersection. MarshalN20 simply joined the discussion when the discussion had been taken to venues to request to intervention of more users, just that. If someone deserves to be punished for that old dispute, let it be just me. Cambalachero (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Second comment: please take Keysanger's comments with care, and check them instead of taking them at face value. First, have in mind that MarshalN20 has not been topic banned because of his work in the article on the War of the Pacific. That article has never been discussed during the case, it just fell into the expanded topic ban placed to make sure that we did not get anywhere near Juan Manuel de Rosas (and let's point that both topics are not even contemporary; the war started almost 30 years after Rosas was ousted in the distant Buenos Aires). The topic ban does not prevent MarshalN20 from discussing with or about Keysanger as a user (for example, providing evidence in a sock puppet discussion about Keysanger). Neither should be forbidden to talk about the articles as articles (as in "X user has been editing Y article"), as long as he does not discuss the content of the article or try to influence the way it is being edited (and note that when Keysanger says that MarshalN20 provided info in a sockpuppet discussion related to the War of the Pacific, he's not pointing that the user under investigation is him). He describes a diff as "was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific", which is a completely inaccurate description of the discussion linked (note that admin EdJohnston saw no problem in that discussion; a newbie asked MarshalN20 for help and he simply told him someone else who may help). As for the wikisource link, which is the alleged problem? Here in wikipedia, the name of the article about a document would be that document's name, and I'm sure that the same applies in wikisource; there can hardly be a hidden agenda if we simply call a spade a spade. In any case, have in mind that Keysanger already held several disputes with different users about the war of the pacific, in a short investigation I have seen two mediation attempts (see here and here), an edit war that led to article protection for two months (here), and another edit war that had him blocked (here, the admin points that "The saga of the War of the Pacific continues"). Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by BarrelProof
I was dismayed when the topic ban was imposed on MarshalN20 (on 23 June 2013), and I expressed my disappoinment on MarshalN20's User talk page at the time. I have interacted with MarshalN20 for some years here, and have personally always found MarshalN20 to be a helpful and constructive contributor who seems to be here to help write a good encyclopedia. I also recently encouraged MarshalN20 to request for the ban to be lifted (on 3 July 2015), which at the time I thought was one year after the topic ban was imposed, but actually I now notice that two years has passed by. I think enough time has gone by to further demonstrate that this user is a very helpful contributor to Wikipedia. The user has also expressed regret for the prior behavior that led to the ban, which further demonstrates a willingness to do better in the future. I never really thought I properly understood the prior dispute, but have always thought MarshalN20 was a generally good editor who should be allowed and encouraged to help further improve Wikipedia – in all areas – and especially for the history of Latin America, as that is a subject on which MarshalN20 appears to have considerable expertise and a commitment to try help and to try to improve accuracy and NPOV (e.g., with regard to political and nationalistic biased editing). I thus strongly support removal of this old topic ban. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Keysanger
The ban was imposed on 23 June 2013. Since then MarshalN20 has broken the ban a lot of times, always in an agressive manner:
 * On 21 October 2013 MarshalN20 commented in the talk page of the War of the Pacific: diff
 * On 27 Feb 2014 he wrote Hopefully now that Keysanger has "retired" the editing of War of the Pacific articles will have less conflict. diff (BTW he is canvassing votes for his nomination of an article)
 * On 6 Mai 2014 he participated in a investigation about my contribs in the War of the Pacific : Sockpuppet investigations/Keysanger/Archive
 * On 29 May 2014 he wrote  I am still concerned by the behavior of these users. Their contribution history is filled with combative nationalist behavior in controversial articles (please see ).  diff
 * On 27 June 2014 Cloudac seeks advice by MarshalN20 how to proceed in the War of he Pacific diff
 * On 21 October 2013 diff MarshalN20 induced Darkness Shines to gather information against an editor of the article War of the Pacific (Darkness Shines is now blocked for different causes) ... My only recommendation is that you document all of the nonsense and later present it at AN/I or an RfCU for review...
 * On 22 October 2013 diff Darkness Shines asks MarshalN20 for information to post to the War of the Pacific article EMail me the full quotes please
 * On 22 October 2013 diff MarshalN20 sent the information needed for reaking the ban. He knew that he was breaking the ban but he didn't care: ''The information is found in the second paragraph of page 192. I'd rather not take any further action at this point without listening to Basalisk's advice. Nonetheless, if Basalisk thinks it's appropriate, I can also just write the text to your talk page (both in Spanish and the translation). I am honestly not trying to mock the topic ban (and have been mindful of it in my actions); in this case, the issues of vandalism and conflict of interest are pretty blatant.
 * On 23 October 2013 Darkness shines explained to MarshalN20 which is the best way to break the WP rules diff: : Spanish is not my language, posting on my talk page would violate the TBAN, mailing it to me will not.
 * On 27 July 2014 Darkness Shines reverted my proposal at the article War of the Pacific: diff
 * On 28 July 2014 Darkness Shines was congratulated by MarshalN20 for breaking his ban:diff Stay strong, friend. Don't lose your cool in the face of stupidity.
 * On 4 August 2015 was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific: diff

It doesn't belong to the scope of this committee, but this intervention demostrates the true intentions of MarshalN20.

A topic ban should not be punitive, but should be preventive, that is it schould protect the others editors working in Wikipedia. And the quality of MarshalN20's edits, if any, say nothing about his capacity to team work. There is al lot of "good" editors that have been blocked or are unable to work in team.

In the light of MarshalN20 breaks of the ban, can anyone guarantee that MarshalN20 will respect the Rules of Wikipedia this time?. No. He didn't respect the rules before the ban and not during the topic ban and he will not respect the rules if the ban is lifted.

I thus strongly oppose removal of this neccesary topic ban. -- Keysanger (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Argentine History: Clerk notes

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



Argentine History: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It would be most appreciated if and  could comment here. That being said, provided there are no serious objections, I could see using the same method we've used before, with a probationary lifting of a ban for a year followed by lifting entirely if no incidents occur. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read through the objections, and don't find anything recent and seriously concerning there. I've proposed a motion accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Seraphimblade,  Roger Davies  talk 07:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think Seraphimblade's proposal of a probationary lifting is a good way forward here, and pending any credible objections I recommend we follow that route. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that a probationary relaxing of the restrictions would be a good precursor to fully lifting the ban. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I may as well pile on here and agree. Seems a very reasonable course of action. Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion: MarshalN20 topic ban suspension


Proposed:


 * Remedy 2 (MarshalN20 topic banned) of the Argentine History case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should MarshalN20 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.
 * Enacted - L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators