Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Argentine history on Wikipedia

Comment from MarshalN20
I decline to accept Lecen's mediation game for a few reasons: Based on all this points, I see no need for any further mediation at this time (the need may arise later, after the WP:BRD process is followed and discussions reach this point). Lecen asked for third opinions, he got them, and yet continues to game the system looking for someone to agree with him. I kindly request the Mediation Committee to please stop Lecen from WP:GAMING the system. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 12:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Lecen's ad hominem attacks on Cambalachero's sources are pointless, especially considering these sources are academics (including the president of Argentina's national library). Their alleged nationalism, whether false or true, is not an issue to be mediated.
 * 2) Lecen's abuse of the term "revisionism" to confuse users who are not well-informed about Argentine history. Argentine "revisionists" were labeled as such by their political opponents, even when (in reality) they were not revisionists on the proper sense of the term.
 * 3) This mediation is way too abstract from the articles. What specific part of the articles does Lecen want to change? He never states it, and rarely edits the articles to improve them. He seeks a blank cheque to edit Juan Manuel de Rosas as he pleases (ie, WP:OWN the article).
 * 4) The WP:BRD process has not even taken place. Nearly all of the discussion has focused on article's talk pages.
 * 5) Lastly, and most importantly, other voices from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) were already heard and stood against Lecen. In fact, the people in the DRN were mostly (if not all) against Lecen. He conveniently tries to ignore these things, but I think it would be good to make a list of them here:
 * 6) Go Phightins (Mediator, ): "I advocated your position [MarshalN20] and refuted his [Lecen], for the most part, in the DRN."
 * 7) Amadscientist (commentator, ): "[M]y intitial concern is balance by Lecen. The editor seems to have more than a less than disinterested POV on the subject and it does certainly show in the editors remarks, posts and requests. The first source I found is also the first source prsented in the Third Opinion and appears terribly cherry picked."
 * 8) Binksternet (commentator, ): "Use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to name those who say Rosas was a dictator, and to name those who say he was something else. I don't think it is fruitful to demand that historians be found who say directly 'Rosas was not a dictator'."
 * 9) Wdford (commentator, ): "It seems to me just from this thread that a number of sources do not regard Rosas as a dictator. On that basis alone, I feel we should have a statement that "some see him as a dictator and others as something else". [...] I would recommend that we therefore mention that both opinions exist re Rosas, and hopefully the article contains enough background as to let the reader understand both perspectives in his original historical context."