User talk:NuclearWarfare

I do understand ..

but I disagree with this — Ched :  ?  18:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• also .. the "sig" is missing from your decline .. just letting you know. — Ched :  ?  18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Added the sig, thanks. And as for the other part of that edit, fair enough. Kumioko was clearly just making a big fuss out of nothing, but when I skimmed Beeblebrox's talk page and saw something like twenty posts in the last few hours, I figured that it things might be easier (if less just) to do things this way. NW (Talk) 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My only concern is that letting the baby have it's bottle will only encourage further temper tantrums in the future, but I certainly don't intend to make any further fuss about this, more than enough has been said already. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful my comment was at Arb, but since I was involved in the last action that lead to this Arb case, I felt like I was obligated to say something. Same with Kumioko, not sure my comments had any effect, especially now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for every Arb, but I do read every statement before voting at minimum, and I make sure to keep an eye out for the people I consider clueful. You're certainly on that list, and your comment seemed spot on to me. NW (Talk) 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• follow up. I wasn't trying to "stir the pot" or anything, in fact I wouldn't have even mentioned it had I not stopped by to note the sig. thing. And actually, it was more a "personal preference" note than an objection or saying it was "wrong". — Ched :  ?  13:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentine history

I have some final questions about the Argentine history case. Do I open a request for clarification, or is it acceptable if I simply ask you? I don't want to break the ban by asking questions out of place, but I wouldn't want either to generate even more bureaucracy if it wasn't needed. Cambalachero (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to just ask me; if I feel it is something that should be addressed by the rest of the Committee, we can go through the formal process then. NW (Talk) 21:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to know (with an actual explanation, not with just generalistic principles) why my evidence and comments in talk pages have been rejected. Specially the parts where I pointed that the current use of revisionist sources (and even before the whole discussion) is minimal and next to zero, and when I pointed the lack of relation between the historians criticized by Lecen and the the historians actually used in the article. I also want to know why all the simpler solutions have been ignored, going straight to the most severe one; I have never been blocked or sanctioned before ad I may have easily followed any condition imposed.

Argentine history is not the only topic I have been editing, but it is the one I'm most interested in editing, and I would like to be able to do so again some day. I understand that if I stay editing other articles I can appeal the ban the next year, but with a speedy 0-10 vote against me in this case, do I really have a chance in such appeal, or would it be a waste of time? Which is the rationale to decide which appeals are accepted or rejected, what exactly do I have to do to be able to edit in Argentine history again? Also, would the appeal process involve the 3 users, or just me? Are the arbitrators the same, or others?

Are modern politics included in the ban? And if not, how much back in time can I get? What about biographies of modern people, such as the current Pope or the current president?

In any case, this message is not to start any discussion. I want just those clarifications, and then I will consider the case to be over. According to the answer I receive, I will decide if I try to work for a successful appeal by working in other articles, or if I simply leave wikipedia. Cambalachero (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, the bulk of the first part comment I think is best not for here but should be laid out at WP:A/R/CL so that other Arbitrators can give their input if they need to. To summarize: I think the simplest answer though is that your comments were read but that Lecen's argument was simpler taken to be more credible. As to why we didn't vote on a narrower sanction, I don't know. I am recalling that there was a particular reason for it, but I cannot come to it except for the fact that we worried that any intersection of you and the topic area wouldn't be beneficial because of your tendency to point-of-view push, knowingly or not.

The full Arbitration Committee is the only body that hears sanction appeals.

Until January 2014, the membership of that body should stay the same; the membership list can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members. Appeals are done onwiki at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Any user may comment, including Lecen and M., but it is not as adversarial a process as this last one unfortunately was. I usually consider appeals de novo, with the qualification that I do not have the same time to spend on reading evidence for appeals that I do for reading cases. For a case like yours at this point in time, what I would be willing to support the most would be exceptions for individual or a small set of articles that you would want to advance, perhaps with a mentor attached. Should you appeal the full sanction at a later date, what I would want to see is evidence that independent reviewers agree that your work is clear of neutrality issues; writing content reviewed by other editors is often a way to do this.

My person opinion would be that anything in the last 15 years is fair game, especially the more non-contentious it is. Pope Francis or President Kirchner would both be fine to edit, but that you want to avoid any of their actions regarding the Dirty War. Try to clear the articles you edit with an Arbitrator before you do just to avoid any misunderstanding, at least for the first while; I would be happy to do that for you. NW (Talk) 02:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20

Dear NW,
I would appreciate if you could answer (all or some) the following questions (non-elaborate responses are fine):

1. Is it a coincidence that the arbitrators replied after Lecen made a "plea" at the requests noticeboard for a sanction based on alleged editorial inhibitions due to harassment?
2. You write that "Lecen's argument was simpler [sic] taken to be more credible". How was credibility determined?
3. Why were the comments of non-involved users so easily dismissed? Was weight given to Lecen's claim of WP:CANVASS?
4. Lecen has been warned to follow the behavioral guideline, but nonetheless has (and more than likely will continue) to exhibit the same behavior. What steps should I take once further evidence has been gathered in this regard?
5. If, according to most arbitrators, I "baited" Lecen into making brusque comments, what made the topic bans better than an interaction ban?
6. 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)?
7. What should I do (if anything can be done) to demonstrate these accusations were excessive and clean my reputation? If I can demonstrate it, will the arbitrators make a clear amendment of it in the case file?
8. In a month, as you recommended, may I seek an amendment that narrows down my current topic ban to topics concerning the history of the Empire of Brazil? How likely is this proposal to work? What would the arbitrators like to see (perhaps something such as my recent FA with Pisco Sour)?

These other set of questions concern article content:

1. Lecen's recent edits in Juan Manuel de Rosas have focused on adding an image featured in Pacho O'Donnell's unreliable work (discussed in the arbitration case) as well as removing sourced information about Rosas' career as a Miguelete (soldier). He plans to "in short time" nominate the article for FA status. Although I do not disagree with the inclusion of Lynch's point of view (that Rosas was "probably absent" due to illness), his current edits indicate he plans to continue pushing for a negative-POV of Rosas in the article (inherently breaking WP:NPOV). The question: Will the arbitrators keep an eye on any further important developments in the JM Rosas article (mainly an FA review)?
2. Lecen's contributions have been accused of exhibiting content excessively favorable to the Empire of Brazil. What is the appropriate noticeboard that would devote greater attention to this matter? Can I discuss these matters with other users in Wikipedia without fear of being accused of canvassing? What would be the optimal way to approach this matter (aside from talking to Lecen, which is practically impossible) in a non-confrontational manner?
3. Who is the man that would risk his neck for his brother man?

Thanks in advance for the answers. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what you are talking about, so it was probably a coincidence, yes.

2. There's no real formal methodology; it's mostly a "we read the content, we looked at the diffs, and this is what we came up with."

3. I mostly didn't pay attention to who gave what evidence; I just read the page and evaluated the points raised on its own merits.

4. Nothing. You are theoretically at liberty to file requests for administrators to look over his behavior, but leave it to other editors to deal with it (like SandyGeorgia below apparently).

5. Because the primary concern was that you were POV-pushing, not that you were uncivil. That was at most a minor factor in my eyes.

6. See 5; they are connected to an evaluation that your editing was not in line with our neutrality policy.

7/8. Yes, bringing an article about a slightly-more-controversial topic than a beverage to featured status and having well-established independent editors evaluate the sourcing in particular would be a good start. It is unlikely that we would vacate the case entirely, but if you are able to present a strong case, we would note that the topic ban has been altered on the case page. I cannot speculate as to how likely this would be to succeed.

1. No. That is up to the community to handle. As far as we look at content matters at all, it is only for what we consider to be egrigious violations of the neutrality policy. Incidentally, I take it you are referring to File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png?

2. WP:NPOV/N, but keep in mind that your topic ban extends to all namespaces. I would advise that you not open such discussions and only ask one or two longstanding editors whom you trust for advice before moving ahead.

3. Never seen the movie, but it looks neat. Maybe I'll watch it when I have some free time (hah!).

NW (Talk) 04:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

NW, yes, I was referring to that image. There was even a short discussion on this at the article's talk page not long ago (see [1]), where again we find Lecen making unwarranted insults ("No wonder this article sucks") when nobody had done anything that could be considered baiting. The image Lecen has included looks like a distorted version of Rosas with unnatural eyes and a strange facial formation (compare it with the others in the Wikimedia page [2]). My personal favorite (from the available options) is the black-and-white one (see [3]).

This aside, thank you very much for the advice. I will focus on cleaning my honor as an editor. I think that Falkland Islands is a reasonably controversial article that I can bring to FA standards. Since the article's history section is partially mixed with Argentina, could I please get a minor exclusion to work on it?

There's no such thing as free time. I do, however, believe in procrastination. ;)

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that there was also an image deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons (see [4]), where considerable points were raised in favor and against the image (although there is consensus that the eyes are completely unnatural). I just noticed this discussion. I did not use it in the "evidence" section of the Arbcomm case, but (after reading it) again find Lecen making excessively aggressive comments for no good reason. However, as mentioned by Sandy below, hopefully the warning is enough for him to change his way of interacting with others.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands seems like a good choice. I think the best way to go about it would be to first work on the sections that aren't related to the history of the article, then identify someone who would agree to be a "supervisor" of sorts, who you agree would have the power to immediately re-restrict you from the article. After that, you could apply for the exemption from the Committee. I don't have the power to grant that on my own, so you have to ask the full Committee. Some members are rightly skeptical of modifying decisions so soon after they are issued, but I think that this progressive approach should be enough to mollify them. NW (Talk) 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Popped on my watchlist

The most recent posts on your talk popped on my watchlist just as I am making a probably useless attempt to catch up on a number of issues, and I feel terribly about the Argentine history case. I know I should have found time to weigh in, regret that I simply didn't and don't have the time, and feel terribly about the amount of evidence wrt Lecen's ongoing disruptive behaviors that was not brought forward. I'm reminded that the arbs can do their job best only when editors bring forward evidence. I didn't. At least Lecen got a reminder, and hopefully that will be enough to lessen the egregious behaviors I've witnessed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, nice to see your name around again. It's a shame that you weren't able to contribute to this particular case, but hopefully I will continue to see you around the project. If Lecen's name comes up at Arbitration again, would you like me to drop you a line? NW (Talk) 04:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate that, although I can't say it would have made a difference this time. I had relevant diffs to bring forward, there has long been an aggressive, disruptive, vituperative, POV, and OWN issue, but I just didn't have time to get involved. I can't promise I would either if there's a next time-- the best possible outcome would be that the reminder/warning leads to a change in behavior. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Prize

I noticed some assumptions on the talk of SandyGeorgia, where I am not welcome, that I would ask you to correct there: The PumpkinSky Prize is NOT given by PumpkinSky, but by me. (He took the picture.) It was created - in continuation of the "Awesome Wikipedian" by Phadriel, Rlevse and a few others - when PumpkinSky was blocked, January 2012. At first I didn't call it by that name - it seemed not appropriate then ;) - I am proud that people from different sides of arguments fall in that same category of Precious. On a daily basis I look for some achievement and so far always found it, sometimes large, sometimes small, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, and for the compliment and the awards that you give out. I have clarified my post on Sandy's talk page. NW (Talk) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

question:

I noticed a post of yours on Sandy's talk page: "Ched's modified RfC". Is it in reference to my draft on Infoboxes? (which I have pretty much abandoned after researching and seeing a huge problem that I doubt it could have solved). Or is it in reference to the RfC Doc James started? (which I still need to post to, but I'm still working on my wording for that.) re: Fragmented conversations hurt my brain. I would have posted there, but I do try to avoid interacting with people that I frequently disagree with - and Sandy I think is usually pretty respectful to me in that way as well. (not that either one of us would hesitate to inform the other of something we thought was important, just an "oil and water don't mix" type of thing.) — Ched :  ?  13:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a reference to this proposal of yours. My initial thought was that proposal would essentially be a carefully drafted RFC/U to allow James to better figure out where the community stands on actions he has taken. I don't think that is necessary any more (per some of Sandy's comments), but it was a good proposal. NW (Talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, ok - thanks for the clarification. I noticed that you were pinged in the current discussion]. I may put the official "RfC" tag on that - your thoughts on that? (the tagging rather than your thoughts on "protection") — Ched :  ?  16:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"there is no current problem with James' admin actions"...uh, you can't be reading the same RFAR and evidence as many others, because that is not what people are saying at all..PumpkinSky talk

Any proposal that didn't allow for that option would be construed as inherently biased, prejudging that that conclusion was impossible. IE: It is a bureaucratic necessity. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis, so you're saying NW said that out necessity?PumpkinSky talk 17:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I understand why Ched made that one of the options in his comment [5], which is what I thought you were referring to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, my quote is from what NW said on SandyGeorgia's page. Go check it out.PumpkinSky talk 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ched, that seems good to me.

Rlevse, I am saying that there is no immediate (current) problem with James' actions and desysopping is not required. As such, events ought to proceed in a way that allows James to adapt to community expectations of best practices in the simplest way possible. NW (Talk) 18:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My name's not Rlevse. And that's not what you said. Keep backpedaling. So what do you call many involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, one as recent as 10 days ago?...all showing a pattern 3 years back? If that's not current, I don't know what is. So James is allowed to adapt while his innocent victims suffer his abuse and the victims get squat. Why am I not surprised?PumpkinSky talk 20:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Meat puppetry

This has just happened: [6] As I expected, one of MarshalN20's friends, an usual editor of the troubled Falkland Islands-related articles[7], with no previous history of editing on Juan Manuel de Rosas[8], appeared to make one edition obviously on behalf of MarshalN20: [9] Is it all a coincidence? Making the exact same assertion as MarshalN20 about the eyes of a portrait? And replacing the old image with the very exact image MarshalN20 told you that he liked the most? ("My personal favorite (from the available options) is the black-and-white one")[10]

This behavior is unnaceptable, it's a clear and obvious violation of the ArbCom sanctions. When I warned that this could occur[11] it was because I was well aware of how he acts. The complaint doesn't even make sense. Sources describe Rosas as blond haired, with "iceberg-blue eyes"[12] and "piercing blue eyes".[13] It's clearly a trap for me: he expects me to revert it. Then his friend will complain about it and there you'll have it, a strong proof that I have problems with article ownership, that I am troublesome, etc, etc, etc...

Should I file a formal complain at the arbcom or here is enough and you'll do someting about it? --Lecen (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To MarshalN20: "While a formal interaction ban may not have been considered by the Arbitrators, try to treat your approach to Wikipedia as if it does exist."[14] Please, stay away from me. --Lecen (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked Langus to comment here. NW (Talk) 15:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20

I have the Rosas article on my watchlist and, upon seeing Langus' edit, I seem to have correctly concluded Lecen would come here.

Dear Lecen, did it ever occur to you to discuss this directly with Langus instead of casting aspersions [15]?

You continuously keep accusing me of canvassing editors, without any proof at all other than your clear disregard for WP:AGF. I am neither the first nor last person to comment that the image you keep uploading for the Rosas article is unnatural. Even the image you uploaded of Rosas at age 37 shows him with dark hair and a normal vision.

And this message you leave here with NW does again exhibit your ownership problems, because the only apparent sin committed by Langus was to lay a finger on "your" Butterfinger article. I provided a whole list of evidence of this in the ArbComm case, and Sandy above further bolsters my statement. In fact, your recent actions also bolster my statement: Despite being continuously recommended by the Wikipedia community to change the main picture of the Pedro II of Brazil article (recent discussion and older discussion), you keep refusing to do it for no good reason other than that you don't think it should go on the article.

Just like Sandy, and several of the arbitrators, my hope was that the reminder would be enough for you to stop your egregious behavior, Lecen. However, your recent (post-ArbComm) edit history shows that this is not the case. And, unless the ArbComm ruling is amended to include more appropriate remedies for you (and, consequentially, diminish the harsh findings that lay all blame on Cambalachero and me), you will more than likely continue this misbehavior.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment if I may insert a minor comment here. I'm not involved in this discussion (I don't recall ever editing that article) but I have to say that if I were to describe the image Langus replaced I'd definitely use the word glow about his eyes. It looks a bit creepy actually. How about a middle ground solution? I propose the article uses a third image, also by the same painter (Cayetano Descalzi) but a bit less "I'm going to eat your soul if you stare too long at me". Here's the image I'm talking about. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, the image you propose is the most widely known for Rosas, and was the image originally in the article (prior to Lecen including the unnatural image). However, Lecen claims that Rosas was blond. This is why I consider that the black-and-white image is the best middle-ground; Langus seems to think so as well. Added that the black-and-white image, with a few minor edits, could easily get a Featured Picture status.

Personally, due to color and direction, I think Lecen's upload of Rosas at 37 would be an awesome image to have on the lead as well. For similar reasons, I think this image (see [16]) would also be best in the Pedro II article.

Color and direction do much to engage readers and draw them into the article.

Cordiallly.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)