Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit

Case Opened on 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• Andres_C. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Messhermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by party 1

I would like to ask the Committee to review the conduct of Messhermit. He seems to bear a personal grudge against me, wikistalking mi edits & accusing me of being an Ecuadorian POV-pusher bent on selling biased Ecuadorian propaganda.

• Since I came to Wikipedia in October 2005, I have been subjected to massive reverts and personal attacks from Messhermit in a cluster of articles on the history of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian border dispute: [1], [2], [3], [4]. There was already one big edit war in October 2005. Being then a newcomer, I did make the mistake of letting myself be dragged into a personal dispute

• There is now a new incident. It started on March 7, 2006, when I went to work on the article History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute:[5]. Messhermit stepped in to revert my edits [6]. There followed an edit war over the next few days [7] until March 13, when I asked for a Full Protection. Still, the article's Talk Page saw more discussions, now archived in this important subpage.

• During this dispute, Messhermit has repeatedly violated Wikipedia's official policies regarding Harassment, No personal attacks, Wikiquette, and Civility. Some examples: [8], [9],[10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. There have been derisive remarks about my country: [15], [16], and attempts to turn this into an international dispute of sorts: [17], [18].

• On NPOV. He seems to have the wrong idea about the meaning of NPOV, regarding the importance of presenting all views fairly: [19], [20]. He claims to defend the neutrality of the articles against my alleged Ecuadorian POV-pushing to justify his massive reverting: [21], [22], [23], [24]. At times, he has stated that the Ecuadorian version of the border dispute is biased: [25], [26].

• On Verifiability: He holds the view that sources without links on the internet have no place here: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], so I have scanned books [36] to prove to Messhermit my good faith: [37]. If the English Wikipedia is to have quality articles about this rather obscure topic for the English-speaking world, many authoritative sources will have to come by necessity from books not available online, many without ISBN number, even those from the most prestigious Peruvian and Ecuadorian historians. If that requires scanning & translating books to support every reference note, I see no problem with that.

• Finally there is Messhermit's disrupting behavior regarding the resolution of disputes. In an effort to break the deadlock, I brought forward my arguments & recommendations here for others to comment. The paragraph I proposed was read by two other wikipedians, Bmahoney and Neurodivergent. These are their comments: [38], [39]. This is Messhermit's position. He actually warns me in advance of his intentions to revert what he calls my POV:[40].

• There is a similar dispute with Messhermit in the article Paquisha Incident and its talk page. It appears Messhermit is wikistalking me: [41]. I have tried to have patience & explain my arguments extensively on all the relevant Talk Pages, but perhaps this has gone too far. - Andres C. 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

An international dispute?

I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee two events that have ocurred since the opening of this case. One seems to be a minor retaliatory action in the Cenepa War article [42]. The other event is perhaps more troubling: Messhermit, whom a user search allowed me to know is an active contributor in the Spanish language Wikipedia [43], has been trying to present this case as a dispute between Ecuadorians and Peruvians, a fact that I became aware of by looking at his public contributions log in the Spanish Wikipedia: [44], [45], [46]. While I prefer not to pass judgement on the wisdom of taking personal disputes over to other Wikipedia projects, I would like to point out that this is an interpersonal dispute between Andres C. and Messhermit, not an international one between Ecuadorians and Peruvians. I would like to end this statement by pointing out, for what it's worth, that hordas ecuatorianas means just that, "Ecuadorian hordes". A horde of one, in this case. Andres C. 04:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Regarding the Ecuadorian Wikipedist Behavior

• This user has a long record of provocations, insults and bad behavior against my person.
• Proof of this is the flame war in which the Ecuadorian Wikipedist not only mocked of my English skills, but also dedicated itself to spread lies and false statements against my person.
• Not willing to compromise, this user clearly attempts to portray itself as a moderator, while there is proof in other pages that he was clearly conspirating against my person. This Talk page demonstrates my point.

Regarding Wikistalking

After the incident with the Ecuadorian Wikipedist, I tried to keep an eye on those topics that involved Peru and Ecuador; that is, the War of 1941, the Paquisha Incident and the Cenepa War.

• Beyond those articles, I have not being involved in any other discussion with the Ecuadorian Wikipedist.
• I have not involved in the Cenepa War, which is the creation of the Ecuadorian Wikipedist and has raised several doubts regarding the article's neutrality by other Wikipedist (which, he without reasons, removed). [47]
• It is not my fault that this wikipedist is only focused in articles that deals with Ecuadorian wars and his idea that Ecuador lost territory in favor of Peru.
• Thus, I see no truth in the accusation that is raised against my person of being a wikistalker, since I'm not involved in other articles in which he is involved.

Paquisha Incident

• The page that deals with the Paquisha incident was heavily updated by me (changing from more than a stub [48] to a more detailed article [49]), trying to achieve a NPOV article that will clearly avoid any partisan position in the article.
• On the other hand, it was the Ecuadorian Wikipedist the one that started the controversy in this article, erasing what he didn't like and stating information that cannot be verify.

Regarding sources

Several points must be made here:

• With no sources to support his claims, as any other serious wikipedist, I preceded to remove the contributions of the Ecuadorian Wikipedist.
• The Ecuadorian Wikipedist then changes the issue, this time accusing my person instead of my sources or my contributions.
• Wikipedia's purpose is to create accurate articles, and sources are integral parts of this idea. It is not possible to have articles that only present one side POV.

Conclusion

I conclude my defense. I have not committed anything that the other Wikipedist is accusing me off, and in the other hand I feel myself victim of a person that does not know the meaning of Compromise and only fights to see his own version of the events stated here in Wikipedia. Messhermit 17:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Vandal

I totally repudiate those actions. The main dispute regarding the Ecuadorian-Peruvian topics is regarding the Rio protocol and the accuracy of the sources. At any time does the status of Ecuador as a sovereign and independent republic was put at stake. Messhermit 12:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Fred Bauder 17:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 21:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 14:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Assume good faith

1) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

2) Information based on reliable published sources in acceptable. Lack of access to published literature by a contestant in an content dispute is not a basis for removal of well-sourced information.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant viewpoints regarding the subject of an article.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased editing

4) A user who regularly and aggressively engages in biased editing with respect to an area of editing may be restricted with respect to editing in that area.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

5) A matter comes before the Arbitration Committee when the procedures of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes fail. The results of Arbitration are much less satisfactory then successful mediation would be. Mediation can result in a comprehensive solution crafted by those familiar with the details of the dispute, while the results of Arbitration are often a crude, often somewhat arbitrary suppression of whomever is the cause of the "trouble". Users are advised to avoid Arbitration and its often unsatisfactory results by employing negotiation and mediation effectively.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is a dispute between Andres_C. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Messhermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding alleged nationalistic editing of articles which relate to conflicts between Ecuador and Peru, see Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar. Biased versions of events are part of the popular culture of both Peru and Ecuador, History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute#Education and public perception.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Failure of Messhermit to assume good faith

2) Messhermet fails to assume good faith, regarding Andres_C. as an opponent [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], and [56].

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit refuses to accept sources

3) Messhermit, for whatever reason, has internet access but does not seem to have good access to the written sources [57] cited by Andres C., and is not willing to accept them, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit/Evidence#Messhermit_has_repeatedly_called_into_question_my_good_faith.2C_and_misinterprets_Wikipedias.27_policy_on_Verifiability and [58]. Andres C.'s citations are not detailed, being only to books rather than to specific passages in specific books, but are generally acceptable [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65][66], [67], and [68].

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Messhermit

4) Messhermit has made personal attacks [69], [70], [71], and [72].

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit and NPOV

5) Messhermit either misunderstands or opposes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], and [78].

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring by Messhermit

6) Messhermit has engaged in sustained edit warring [79] and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit/Evidence#Messhermit_violates_Wikipedia.27s_official_policy_on_Resolving_disputes_and_disregards_Wikipedia.27s_guidelines_on_Wikiquette_and__Reaching_Consensus.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit and dispute resolution

7) Messhermit has been unable or unwilling to effectively use the earlier steps in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit/Evidence#Messhermit_violates_Wikipedia.27s_official_policy_on_Resolving_disputes_and_disregards_Wikipedia.27s_guidelines_on_Wikiquette_and__Reaching_Consensus.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring by Andres C.

8) Andres C. (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring opposite Messhermit, for example at History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute, and has characterized Messhermit's edits as vandalism [80].

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Incivility by Andres C.

9) Andres C. (talk · contribs) has made several personal attacks and other insulting remarks toward Messhermit, including making fun of his English and calling him a moron. ([81], [82])

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Messhermit banned from Peru-Ecuador conflict

1) Messhermit is banned for one year from editing articles which relate to the conflict between Peru and Ecuador. He may make comments and suggestions on article talk pages.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit placed on Probation for one year

2.1) Messhermit is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Andres C. placed on Probation

3) Andres C. is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6 to 0 at 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) banned Messhermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from editing Alberto Fujimori, to expire when his probation expires in May 2007, because of edit warring on that article.

• 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC) thatcher131 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Messhermit for 5 days for editing Alberto Fujimori in violation of the above ban. Although this was a first offense, the violation was deliberate and repeated, as proven by checkuser, so I feel the 5 day maximum is appropriate. Thatcher131 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Thatcher131 blocked 65.8.62.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for 24 hours and Messhermit for 3 days for editing Alberto Fujimori. This IP is in the same range and has the same traceroute path as Messhermit IP's proven by checkuser. Thatcher131 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)