Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Amortias (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare (Talk) & Euryalus (Talk)

Case opened on 01:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Keysanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Statement by Keysanger

case request statement by Keysanger

MarshalN20 was topic banned from all articles related to history of Latin America (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History) and the ban was released as he made statements about his editing of articles related to the War of the Pacific. (see diff)

MarshalN20's personal attacks have reached such intensity and disruptive level that I see need for action by the the ArbCom.

It achieved a preliminary climax when I invited him to resolve our disagreements before the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Causes of the War of the Pacific (2.) but he refused to delete a personal attack (This is borderline user behavior diff) from his contrib. The Mediation Committee had to refuse the request after I insisted to delete the rant.

Obviously he is trying to break down my psychological defenses as he states in diff

I don't think that this is healthy for neither the encyclopedia nor you. … I hope that you can understand what I am trying to tell you

He impungns my honesty

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939#Problematic Academic Dishonesty by Keysanger

He made off-wiki attacks:

[1] (English version here)

He advised other users to break the Wikipedia rules in order to exclude me from Wikipedia work:

[2] game the system
[3] mocks the ban

Some of us will say “it has to do with Keysanger only”. No. Others have been already “warned”:

In Peruvian nitrate monopoly his disruptive edits are very clear.

Instead of a pause and to talk with the other he begins frantic changes in the disputed article:

[7] more edits
[8] more edits

MarshalN20 starts his participation in a content dispute noticeboard with:

[9]

He continued:

[10]

More Personal attacks

[11] it's only the idiotic government of Bolivia, and several ignorants from said nation
[12] It seems to me that Evo Morales has brainwashed Bolivians
[13] but that might be one of the reasons Bolivia has such a high mortality rate.

User MarshalN20 stated that they became friends[14]. Well for MarshalN20. Erebedhel never edited again [15].

MarshalN20 arrogate for himself the right to delete other opinions in the talk pages

No one can't deal with a person whose first words in every attempt to resolve differences are insults, imputations and lies. A person whose admitted intentions are gaming the system, break the rules and exclude others from the work of Wikipedia. A person whose topic ban was released explicit on his promise to avoid problems but he sparks them.

I urge the Arbitration Committee to impose the word limit of 500 words to both parties and not only one. The current favoritism in favor of one party will confuse the issue of abide by the law (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA WP:CIVIL) and ruin the credibility of the Arbitration Committee. --Keysanger (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The other party has been given exceptionally rights to insult me in the Formal Mediation.

The other party has been given exceptionally rights regarding the length of his statements.

Now the other party is asking for a reduced period of investigation for his doing.

What is next?. No WP:OR, no WP:NPA, no WP:RS for the other party? . --Keysanger (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now the other pa

Statement by MarshalN20

Current word length: 1305 (limit: 500); diff count: 46. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

I became aware of this matter December 26, 2016, and responded December 27. I replied promptly per Doug's and Callanecc's request; however, this statement is carefully crafted out of respect for myself and the committee. I am a content creator with three Wikipedia featured articles (Pisco sour, Peru national football team, Falkland Islands), and active WP:3O participant. My behavior is under scrutiny, and it is important to know my work in Wikipedia as a whole rather than narrow the analysis to some instances where I was upset or annoyed by the circumstances.

Everything Keysanger has written about me is farcical.

Two RfMs failed because Keysanger sabotaged them. In the first, he listed many evidently inactive users in the acceptance stage, which he then falsely accused me of creating ([21]). In the second, Keysanger claimed the words "this is borderline user behavior" were a personal attack, so he altered my comments ([22]), argued with TransporterMan ([23]), then made his RfM acceptance conditional in spite of TransporterMan's advice ([24]). Keysanger then lectured TransporterMan on "civility" ([25]).

Keysanger claims Economic history of Chile is part of the problem. I've never edited it. Keysanger, however, was blocked by EdJohnston for edit warring there on May 2015 (see [26]). EdJohnston again warned Keysanger for his behavior there on June 2015 ([27]).

Diablada is unrelated. My content dispute with Erebedhel was resolved amicably; we became friends ([28]). In 2011, Ereb gave me an anti-vandalism barnstar.

Recommending an editor in the Spanish Wikipedia to document all interaction with Keysanger isn't a personal attack. Keysanger's been blocked there twice for false accusations and anti-consensus editing ([29],[30]). He also called me a big-eared donkey ([31]), which is hurtful albeit funny.😅

Keysanger joined German Wikipedia in 2006 ([32]). His activities since 2009 are not newbie behavior.

May 2009: Keysanger threatens banning Arafael ([33]); taunts and threatens Likeminas, "you want to be famous and Wikipedia:Be bold yourself?" ([34]).
July 2009: Keysanger proclaims "I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. [...] I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia" ([35]).
July 2009: Likeminas writes "Keysanger: I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it. [...] Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here" ([36]).
October 2009: Fifelfoo comments on Keysanger's tendentious editing, battleground mentality, editing others' statements, false statements, RfC manipulation, manipulation of sources ([37], [38]). RfC manipulation refers to Keysanger blanking the article's discussion page to confuse Fifelfoo ([39]).
2011: Alex Harvey commented negatively on Keysanger's insistence to narrow WOTP's content to three authors ([40]), making contentious edits without edit summaries ([41]), edit warring ([42]), frivolous RfC's ([43]), anti-consensus forum-shopping ([44]), refusal to get the point ([45]), tendentious editing ([46]), misrepresentation of others' views ([47]), manipulation of sources ([48]), battleground mentality ([49]).
September 10, 2011: Alex comments Keysanger operated against consensus from 6+ Wikipedians: "When there was just you & Marshal, getting outside opinions made sense. Now it seems to me that we have Marco polo, Tagishsimon, the anonymous professor, the various Peruvian editors, and myself all clearly in favour of Marshal's proposal" ([50]). September 15, 2011, Alex wrote to Keysanger: "You really seem to have no idea how Wikipedia works. You need to build a consensus. Why is this so hard to understand?" ([51]). A day prior, Keysanger had decided to "fire" Alex as mediator ([52]).
March 2012: Alex explains everyone involved in WOTP up to then was "burnt out and got sick of arguing" with Keysanger ([53]).
March 2012: Keysanger hounded me to Falkland Islands's talk page, wrote a diatribe about WOTP ([54]), reverted my deletion of the off-topic comment ([55]). Toddst then blocked Keysanger for this disruptive editing ([56]).
November 2013: Keysanger removes sourced material in WOTP claiming it was "non-referenced" ([57]), because they were Peruvian sources ([58]).
August 2014: MjolnirPants and Forbidden User indicate Keysanger is Wikilawyering and made a slanted RfC ([59], [60]).
August 2015: Keysanger taunts Dentren: [61]
October 2015: KoshVorlon says Keysanger sees personal attacks where there are none, refuses to drop the stick, editing others' statements ([62], [63]).
March 2016: Keysanger boasts to Robert how he has edited in War of the Pacific "for years" and how he has had many fights with multiple editors: [64]

To conclude: This dispute involves multiple editors, not just Keysanger and me. The first users who interacted in WOTP with Keysanger were Dentren, Likeminas, and Arafael. I joined later, and many other users have also followed: Fifelfoo, Alex, Marco, Tagishsimon, Cloudaoc, Rasdar2, Darkness, etc. All of us have shared one opinion: Keysanger acts disruptively and against consensus. War of the Pacific doesn't need discretionary sanctions. What needs urgent intervention is Keysanger's behavior.

Attempts at Resolving Dispute not Listed by Nominating Party —- Mediation 2009, 3RR September 2009, ANI September 2009, 3RR October 2009, NPOVN 2011, ANI March 2012, ANI June 2012, ANI October 2013, 3RR July 2014, ANI October 2015, ANI November 2016.

Double Jeopardy Request - Moved to Arbitration Case Requests Talk Page ([65])

*Double Jeopardy Request: I respectfully ask the Committee to please consider that remedies for my behavior were placed on my account on June 2013 ([66]), and that the Committee decided my behavior since then had improved and, thus, lifted these remedies on September 2015 ([67]). After having some more time to think about it, I have realized that this case is again considering to apply remedies for my behavior prior to September 2015. This does not seem logical or fair, because the Committee would be repeating judgement on my past behavior after it had determined my behavior had been remedied by September 2015. Therefore, I request that the arbitrators keep this in mind and, if I am to continue being a part of this case, please consider accepting evidence for my behavior only since the time the Committee decided my behavior was no longer disruptive (September 2015).--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To further elaborate on this request: Please consider that the remedy that the Committee decided to use on June 2013 was a topic ban "from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces" ([68]), meaning that it also encompassed the War of the Pacific. If there is any doubt of this relationship between the War of the Pacific article and the Committee's June 2013 remedy, Keysanger himself cleared up any questions on this matter when he used the "Argentine History" ruling to justify my blocking at Arbitration Enforcement on November 2013 ([69]). Hence, to again use my behavior prior to September 2015 to again place remedies that encompass the same areas of editing as the remedy from June 2013, is almost a textbook definition of double jeopardy. This is why I respectfully request that I either be excused from the case or that the Committee only take into consideration my activity since September 2015.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 03:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to DeltaQuad (Amanda) with Additional AN/I and Dispute Resolution Information

*@DeltaQuad: Please don't take this the wrong way, but I do have to correct you on the point made about seeking assistance from the administrative noticeboard. Please see the following for the different attempts me and others have made to resolve this matter through ANI and other dispute resolution methods: Mediation 2009, 3RR September 2009, ANI September 2009, 3RR October 2009, NPOVN 2011, ANI March 2012, ANI June 2012, ANI October 2013, 3RR July 2014, ANI November 2016. Each and every single time, the process failed usually because everyone at ANI kept dismissing this as just a content dispute (hence why there have been different "mediators" and plenty of "mediation"). Keysanger probably should have listed these diffs at the start of this ArbRequest, but they paint a different picture than the one he wants to portray. And, sure, in a few of these diffs you are going to again read Keysanger alleging I am insulting him; I've not been a saint, but I hope the committee can understand that anything I've said about Keysanger has not been unfounded, albeit at times sternly worded.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Also, I would like to again graciously request from the committee an extension for the 500 word limit. I have narrowed down my statement from 1820 words to just 783 (less than 2 pages on print), not counting this request and message to Amanda. Thank you.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos Contreras: I've responded to Keysanger's comment about Carlos Contreras at Talk:Peruvian_nitrate_monopoly#Carlos_Contreras_-_Chilean_historians (please see [70]). It was an honest mistake; I meant to cite Contreras' 2014 book from Colmex, not the 2012 book. I thank Keysanger for pointing this out, but find his commentary about my profession again unnecessarily insulting and taunting ([71]).--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This case was brought to my attention yesterday (26 December 2016), and I have been carefully considering the options while continuing my contributions to encyclopedia content and at WP:3O. I do not understand why Doug is requesting an immediate response from me. I am all the more concerned now that the case has been renamed "per convention" to my username. You're shining the spotlight on me, and I do not consider the provision of a rapid, thoughtless statement either useful to myself or respectful to the committee.

Since my behavior is on question, I can tell you with great pride that—since the closure of the Argentine History case—I have focused on my content creation work, producing three featured articles that have also appeared in the main page (Pisco sour, Peru national football team, and Falkland Islands). Users that can tell you more about the quality of my work and my behavior include BarrelProof, Basalisk, GiantSnowman, Kareldorado, and Wee Curry Monster. I have worked with all of these listed users in the aforementioned articles and/or subjects pertaining to those articles. To be fair, I consider all of them friends, but I trust them to be fair in their assessments of me as an editor. I am, at present, working on three more soon-to-be featured articles: Bicycle kick, Chilean expansionism, and Seven Wonders of the World.

I have also become an active participant at the WP:3O project. You can ask Robert about my behavior there. Even before the "Argentine history" case, I focused my time on helping resolve disputes. Unfortunately, my attempt at helping resolve the problems at Paraguayan War and Juan Manuel de Rosas turned out negatively for me. I understand now that I should not have been so aggressive in my participation in the Paraguayan War's move request discussion; however, I consider that the Arbitration Committee's imposed topic ban on the entirety of "Latin American history" was excessive and a punishment (rather than a remedy).

Of course, that's a different case and there is little need for me to bring it up again in this discussion. Nonetheless, I do want to make the committee aware that Keysanger has made it his duty to bring this "Argentine History" case up consistently and everywhere (some examples: [72], [73], [74]), which I consider to be harassment. I remember reading somewhere that it was inappropriate for ARBCOM decisions to be used as a tool to bully other users, but I do not know where to report Keysanger as he was not a party to the arbitration case (although he is certainly adamant about the case: see here). I would appreciate any advice on this matter.

As for Keysanger's accusations, I can affirm that these are all absurd. First, with regards to the Requests for Mediation, both of them were closed by TransporterMan because of Keysanger's actions. In the first one, Keysanger gave a preposterous list of 8 users (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Causes of the War of the Pacific), many inactive, and then proceeded to falsely accuse me of creating that list ([75]). In the second one, Keysanger got into an irrational argument with TransporterMan ([76]) over an alleged personal attack ([77]). Keysanger then proceeded to alter my comment ([78]), and then conditioned his acceptance in spite of TransporterMan's statement ([79]). Keysanger then went on to lecture TransporterMan on his talk page ([80]). It seems evident to me that Keysanger purposefully sabotaged the mediation.

Let me re-affirm that I have not insulted Keysanger at any point during the Requests for Mediation. Please ask TransporterMan.

With regards to the claim that I advocate "gaming the system" and "mocking the ban", if you actually click on the diffs, it should be very clear that these are false accusations. In reality, in the diffs I express being mindful of my prior topic ban, and I also support the use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. This is not the first time that Keysanger resorts to false accusations. As KoshVorlon wrote on October 2015 ([81]), Keysanger refuses to drop the stick, consistently falsely accuses users of making personal attacks, and consistently edits other user's statements (to disrespect and intimidate others). Keysanger even "boldly" closed Wee Curry Monster's explanation that it was untrue I had filed an SPI report on Keysanger ([82]), again to intimidate another Wikipedian. Moreover, as Joe wrote in October 2015 ([83]), it is utterly false that I have breached my topic ban, despite Keysanger claims otherwise. I hope that this demonstrates that Keysanger often resorts to false accusations.

With regards to my work on Peruvian nitrate monopoly, you can read the situation at the talk page ([84]). I was never sarcastic. I provided quotes from Robert N. Burr's book that demonstrated Keysanger was imposing a fringe view on the article. Keysanger is the one who replied with a one-sentence question. It seems he was upset at the successful requested move of the article ([85]), and then proceeded to announce this ArbCom discussion in the article's talk page ([86]). There seems to be an ownership problem here. Furthermore, Keysanger has demonstrated that he does not have a competent understanding of economics to properly edit this article (for example: [87], [88]).

Also, I have never edited the article on the Economic history of Chile. What I have found is that EdJohnston blocked Keysanger for edit warring in this article on May 2015 (see [89]). Ed again had to warn Keysanger for his behavior in this article on June 2015 ([90]). Dentren was involved in this matter, but I was not involved in this discussion at all.

With regards to my interaction with Robert, DangerousPanda, and JulianColton, while I was certainly upset when I wrote to them (or about them), at no point did I use foul language nor did I ever insult them. Since then, I consider to be in good terms with Robert and Panda. As for Julian, I have not interacted with him ever since July 2014—that's over two years ago. I became upset with all of them at one point because they used the "Argentine History" case to indicate negative things about me.

Okay, so now that hopefully I have made it clear that I am not at fault here, I would like to express my support for Robert's statement. I also consider that this issue has been going on for long. However, I do not find it necessary to focus on the "War of the Pacific" in general. The behavioral issue here comes from Keysanger. Here is a brief history of Keysanger's activity in Wikipedia with diffs:

Keysanger's erratic behavior has been consistently aggressive and disruptive since 2009 ([91]). In July 2009, Likeminas wrote: "Keysanger: I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it. [...] Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here" ([92]).
In 2011, Alex Harvey attempted to help resolve matters at the War of the Pacific article. He quickly became aware of Keysanger's nonconstructive behavior and edit warring tendencies after carefully reviewing his edits ([93], [94], [95]). On September 15, 2011, Alex wrote to Keysanger: "You really seem to have no idea how Wikipedia works. You need to build a consensus. Why is this so hard to understand?" ([96]). This was a day after Keysanger had decided to "fire" Alex as a mediator ([97]).
In 2012, Keysanger hounded me to the Falkland Islands article. There he again began to write a diatribe about the War of the Pacific ([98]), and even reverted my deletion of the erratic off-topic content ([99]). Toddst ultimately blocked Keysanger for his actions in the article ([100]).
In this diff from 2015, you can read how Keysanger bullies Dentren, accusing him of being a liar: [101]
In this statement to Robert in 2016, Keysanger explains how he has edited in War of the Pacific "for years" and how he has had numerous confrontations with editors: [102]

So, what we see here is a trend in Keysanger's unapologetic behavior that dates back to almost a decade.

To conclude: I haven't done anything wrong. Please leave me out of this case; focus on Keysanger's behavior, not mine. Please rename this case to "Keysanger" and let me go on my way. I want to have nothing to do with this case—I have done enough by providing you with all of the diffs that demonstrate my innocence and show that Keysanger is the user with the behavioral problems. Please focus your "remedies" on him and leave me alone.

Thank you very much, and best wishes for 2017. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 05:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:The ed17 has a very nasty obsession with me ([103], [104]), [105], [106]) and I am very much concerned at this user's constant attempts at harming my account. I don't understand why this administrator has such a strong grudge against me. Based on his past involvement in matters regarding my Wikipedia account, I would have hoped that someone at this time would have already done something to stop him from getting involved in any matters concerning me. It is unhealthy for the project.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 06:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:The ed17, as you indicate, it has been two years. Why are you still hounding me? No one is forcing you to comment here. No one has contacted you for an opinion. And while you're certainly free to contribute wherever you want, it is no coincidence that you made the decision to comment in this particular case concerning me. Please end your grudge now and forever—I have no interest whatsoever to interact with you now or in the future.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 06:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:The ed17. I have not made any legal threat whatsoever, and I also have no knowledge of the term "chilling effect". Look, I found this little interaction we had back in March 2013 ([107]); it brought a smile. I'm sure that you're a swell guy with good intentions at heart. However, I don't know or understand what it is that I did to anger you to such an extent that you have a need to comment in cases related to me. Please accept my apologies, for whatever it is that I did to you in the past is not even in my memory; please move on with your long life ahead. Thank you.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 06:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, back in 2013 ([108]), I also was very clear that Ed's actions were very uncomfortable to me. At that time, only AGK, SilkTork, and Cambalachero replied. Ed also commented, so he has been aware of this since December 4, 2013 ([109]). AGK stated: "if the problem seems to continue or worsen, you can always ask us to reevaluate." Well, it's now December 27, 2016, and I am still feeling very much aggravated by Ed's behavior towards me. I honestly hope that this is the end of it.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 07:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doug. I appreciate the kind message. The date confusion might certainly be related to the timezone. I read about the case on the 26th, and then wrote the statement on the 27th. Please do let me know if I can help respond any further questions.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word Limit Extension Request: Dear Arbitration Committee and Clerks, I kindly ask for my statement to be given an extension to the 500 word limit. Contrary to the negative personal remarks made about me by the nominating party ([110]), I am neither attempting to game the system nor to mock Wikipedia's rules. I plead my case for extension based on that my situation has a precedent from a past arbitration case ("Argentine History"), which places my actions under greater scrutiny and, thus, requires me to explain myself in greater detail than a user without this precedent. I have also requested that the Arbitration Committee please exclude me from this case and, instead, apply remedies on the nominating party. Based on past experience, I am aware that matters here at the Arbitration Committee, although important, are also very stressful and nerve-wrecking; I don't consider my health strong enough to handle another arbitration case. I hope that the information that I have provided about the nominating party is enough to help the committee either reach their own conclusions or to serve as a starting point for further investigation. Unless the committee has any further questions for me, I do not wish to participate any further in this Arbitration concerning Keysanger's behavior.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by other users

Additional statements included on the main case page, collapsed, by direction of the Arbitration Committee. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, both to look at whether there has been disruptive editing, point-of-view pushing, and battleground editing by any of the parties, and to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions on either at least the topic of the War of the Pacific or Latin American history in general. As the list of previous attempts to resolve this shows, disputes over the coverage of this war have been going on since 2014. I ask ArbCom to change the name of this case again to War of the Pacific. Evidently this war has the same place in Peruvian and Chilean culture as the American Civil War does in the United States, in that, as William Faulkner wrote, the past isn't dead, because it isn't even past. Maybe the ArbCom should have provided discretionary sanctions for nineteenth-century South American history in the Argentine History case, but they definitely should, at least for this war, now. I don't have an opinion on who is at fault, but the fact that this has been going on for so long and efforts to mediate have failed indicates that there are conduct issues as well as content issues. ArbCom should accept this case, impose one or more topic-bans, let administrators impose topic-bans under discretionary sanctions, and let more reasonable editors work this out. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

Marshal has been previously noted and sanctioned for battleground conduct two years ago, and he has been known to skirt the letter of past restrictions, something that has been made worse by Arbcom's overly hasty (IMHO) motions to remove remedies. Clear fences should be laid down again (including an interaction ban, at minimum) so that both editors here can be productive on this site. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshalN20: "Obsession" is an interesting way to describe not having any contact with you in two years, as near as I can recall. I do thank you for finding this, which I was unable to find on a quick search earlier. I've added it to my statement. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On the other part of your message, my job has absolutely nothing to do with the edits I make as a volunteer and in no way informs my opinions that I hold about Wikipedia and the people who edit it. I would ask that you remove that language unless you are actively attempting to cast a chilling effect. Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshalN20: You haven't addressed the second part of my last message. Removing a link doesn't change the overall thrust of your message. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshalN20: Thanks. I took the liberty of removing the other three words; I hope you don't mind. Linking my job with my volunteer editing is a slippery slope that I'd very much rather not go down. :-) Am hatting this part of the conversation, as it's off topic for the case request here. You may want to do the same so that others focus on your main points. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Statement by Kareldorado

Hi, I am not going to totally dig myself into this matter as I think I have better things to spend my time to. However, there are two things I want to point out that need consideration.

In my experience, MarshalN20 is one of the most civilised authors I encountered at Wikipedia so far. In helping to elaborate the article I gradually brought from C-class to Featured status (Belgium national football team), he has been utmost cooperative. He inspired me with clear views and handed me over copies of an interesting source. However, he remained objective and preferred meticulous, gradual adaptations over 'easily' supporting or opposing my views. He can be very critical, but leaves space for arguing, by which I mean he is reasonable. I genuinely believe that he wants other editors and other articles to 'go further' rather than stare at his own achievements. Considering his achievements, academic background and as far as I know his gentle and self-controlled behaviour, I think he deserves great respect.
The same user has chosen various interesting yet challenging (or even controversial) subjects to work on as they can raise nationalist feelings from other editors. Most relate to South-American history, which is not surprising considering his background. Having lived in Peru for almost a year, I gained the impression that many South-American people (unfortunately) still live in the past and keep on displaying quite a negative behaviour towards other nations who they have been in a war with during last century. I think of the nations engaged in the War of the Pacific and the Falklands War. Many articles and subjects he worked or works on are prone to nationalist feelings from several sides: Pisco sour (claimed by Peruvians and Chileans to be 'theirs'), the bicycle kick (likewise), the Falklands War (still causing a bad relationship between Argentinian and British citizens) and Chilean expansionism. However, I am confident that he is enough self-controlled to let his background of historian dominate over his identity as a Peruvian citizen during his editorship at Wikipedia. I think he is wise enough to see that displaying a non-neutral point of view would tackle his reputation.

In conclusion, I have nothing bad to tell about Marshal but consider him of great value as an editor. I think it is important to realise that many of the articles he works on are simply prone to controversy. If an edit war seems to pop up, for heaven's sake don't take yourself too seriously—we are all tiny humble people—but rather try to discuss the issue on the talk page and work things out, like this section suggests. Kareldorado (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SilkTork

I have been pinged by MarshalN20 as evidence to his concerns regarding The ed 17. My involvement in that matter was to comment at the time that I saw no cause for concern in the evidence he brought against The ed 17. The Committee may draw from this what they will - my statement here is purely factual and neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

I have to declare my involvement having previously attempted to mediate this dispute (at the request of Keysanger) and having reported Keysanger for sockpuppetry. I was on friendly terms with both editors before this.

The case should be renamed in my opinion to War of the Pacific. The article has long been subjected to an editing dispute between a succession of editors. One of the main reasons why there has been an intractable dispute, is Keysanger has been immovable in seeking to ensure the article reflects the Chilean POV. This is very clear from previous attempts to mediate.

There has also been sock puppetry, where Keysanger has sought to shore up his position with socks. I reported one such occasion.

I can provide links if required but much of this took place when I edited under a previous identity. Due to off-wiki harassment I no longer use my real life identity to edit.

I'm not convinced that arbcom should take on this case. IMHO the best remedy would be for community sanctions to be placed on the article e.g. a WP:1RR restriction. I don't believe this has been tried yet.W C M_email 16:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Renamed request to "MarshalN20" per convention. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Keysanger: Arbcom clerks have no remit to revert changes outside of the Arbitration pages any more than any other editor. If MarshalN20 is editing pages related to this dispute then you may include it in evidence but will otherwise have to follow normal process if you disagree with the changes made.

Also the statement length is being discussed and if an extension is granted they wil be given time to edit this to fit the extension, if they do not do so within a reasonable timescale then the clerks will trim it for them. Amortias (T)(C) 13:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keysanger: The policy on word limits is being applied. Exemptions can be granted and MarshalN20 has had an exemption requested and granted and at the last count was within the new limit. If you (or any other editor) wishes to request an extension you are free to do do. Amortias (T)(C) 13:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (10/0/0)

I'm waiting for a comment from MarshalN20 before voting on whether to accept or not. Just noting as well that given the time of year it's very likely that the request won't be accepted or declined until the new year. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Callanecc: MarshalN20 was notified of this case request yesterday and deleted the notice[111] and has made 10 edits since, 3 after your ping. I too would like a comment and if there isn't one soon I shall probably vote to accept. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Doug Weller: Got a reply on my talk page, hopefully we'll have a statement soon. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't had a chance to read this yet, and this is now out of date, but FWIW I don't think it's necessary for people to drop everything else they're doing on Wikipedia to deal with arbcom, especially near the holidays when we're likely to be a little slow anyway :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - {{re|MarshalN20)) Thank you for your response. I should have phrased my comments a bit better, as I wasn't seeking an immediate full response, just an acknowledgement. It's always a good idea to think about a full response carefully. I'll wait for others to comment before saying anything more. One minor thing, I'm confused about your saying you learned about it yesterday the 26th. Is that a time zone thing? Doug Weller talk 09:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, given the time of year, unless there are compelling reasons to speed things up, it might be better to wait another week before making any decisions, as some editors - for both this case and the one below - might not become aware of it this week. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @MarshalN20:That explains it. I read it as timestamped at 5:02 this morning, which for me is the 28th! Doug Weller talk 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards accepting this case, though I'd like to allow a bit of extra time for statements as OR has suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Keysanger: Hopefully someone more fluent than I can translate the eswiki comment, but in the interim here is the gist of it:

Translation of the eswiki comment

Hello Alvaro. I appreciate your comment on the 3RR noticeboard. I participate in the English project ([112]), and have interacted with Keysanger there for several years now. His attitude has been the same since the beginning; always combative, mocking, and lying (he likes to say unfounded things, hide/erase/change sources, and distort discussions). He is also stubborn and likes to write long responses to (muddle?) discussions. But out of everything, over time and unlike anyone else, (his attitude has only gotten worse?) (and because of that I have already tried to put an end to his misbehavior [113]). It seems, since no one wants to interact with Keysanger in the War of the Pacific article, now he is looking for fights in the Spanish article. I recommend that you document all of ~~your~~their actions.

Modified. Questioning two parts of the translation, corrected one. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. Seems like arbitration is really the only next step here. I'm inclined to grant MarshalN20's request for an extension, as he has trimmed his statement considerably and it no longer seems overly verbose. If accepted we'll want to consider the case name; this has expanded to examine both MarshalN20's and Keysanger's conduct, with a few editors being mentioned tangentially. Perhaps Keysanger and MarshalN20 (alphabetical), or something more general than that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept It's clear that these two can not interact with each other in peace. I see issues on both sides of the line here, that are not exclusive. Letting this continue at this point would only have more users be dragged towards the timesink of drama and exasperate the situation. The one part I do question though is only having saught the assistance of an administrative noticeboard once in this long dispute. Had there of been more of that, we might not even be here right now. Despite that, the arbitration committee retains jurisdiction over cases it has previously heard. The case should examine the topic area as a whole, and not directed at one user, especially if we are considering expanding DS into this topic area, the pattern of disruption needs to be from the entire topic.

That said, @MarshalN20: I'm not inclined to extend your word limit at this time. I count at least 1/3 of your statement as verbose (aka about 500 words). The Arbitration Committee focuses on the behavior in the dispute at hand, not 1) The actual content dispute nor 2) a users long history of good edits nor 3) excessively spilling things out for the committee. We may not know your dispute, but we know how to interpret user behavior I'm not saying we discount good editing history, but it doesn't help your case in case request statements, especially with a word count. If after a good faith attempt at reducing your statement you still need more room, I'd be willing to consider an extension.

I would also encourage the committee to consider an injunction for an interaction ban between the two parties for the duration of the case. If there is some support for this, I have ideas for ways to prevent the disruption during the case as exceptions to the interaction ban. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshalN20: Thank you for pointing out the previous other boards, i'll look into those in due time. Arbs are limited on knowledge of the dispute history, so corrections/new info are appreciated. Also, granted for your extension to 900 words to allow for any more replies. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept as I can't see another way around this. personally I think if an editor can show another editor has been misusing sources or warping NPOV editing then that is important to understanding of the case. No we don't opine on content but warping accurate NPOV content is extremely serious. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I'm not sure this intractable, exactly, but it's also the kind of case that would really benefit from a structured inquiry in a moderated forum as opposed to the free-for-all at ANI. I agree with GW on the case title, though - either both parties, or a general descriptive name ("War of the Pacific"?). Also agree that the current statement lengths are fine. (I've already read them now anyway...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accept --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accept --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)~~ Vote expired. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as "War of the Pacific." Agree with OR that this is not (or should not have been) intractable, but it's here now so let's aim to get it resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept I understand why this case is here given the previous ArbCom history. For me it remains to be seen as to whether this is something where a single editor is the nucleus, a dispute between two editors, or the topic area requires remedies. I'm in agreement that the title does need to be expanded to include at the very least both parties. Mkdw ^talk 05:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, echoing DeltaQuad's comments in her first paragraph. Further, I agree with OR's comments, as well. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.