Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Workshop

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Template
1) In order to facilitate the work of the ArbCom I classify MarshalN20 evidence:


 * Misuse of Sources


 * Nr 1) See first sentence of Rory Millers passage given in Workshop: The background to Chile's war with Peru and Bolivia was a severe economic crisis in Peru, due largely to the decline of its huano resources and economic mismanagement ... 
 * Nr 2) See the complete cite of Ronald Bruce St. John in Workshop: Although persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced, it must be recognized that Peruvian interests had deep-seated economical and political reasons for going to war. At the end of the 1870s, the Peruvian government had a near-monopoly on the nitrate trade, and Bolivia's 1878 tax supported its position. In turn the consolidation of Chilean control over Antofagasta promised ruinous competition for Peru.
 * Nr 3) Sater's Book is mainstream published in Spanish and English.
 * Nr 4) I am not IP 211.26.218.11
 * Nr 5) This is content dispute, and he "declined" my invitation to work it out.
 * Nr 6) This is content dispute, and he "declined" my invitation to work it out.
 * Nr 7) See my Evidence 3


 * Battleground behavior


 * Nr 1) To delete good references can be interpreted as vandalism. No battleground behavior.
 * Nr 2) Ibid.
 * Nr 3) Darkness shines is now blocked by sockpupptry and "Eddy" is still a WP:SPA
 * Nr 4) The deleted "sources" were unreliable sources, partisan, biased, only snippets are shown
 * (for 5 see Keysanger's Evidence 11)
 * Nr 6) A mediator has to obtain the trust of all parties. He didn't get it.
 * Nr 7) A failed mediation doesn't imply bad intentions. I didn't insulted Dentren nor Kharkiv.


 * Trolling, Baiting, Insults


 * Nr 1) There is no insult in the sentence
 * Nr 2) Ibid.
 * Nr 3) Ibid.
 * Nr 4) Ibid.
 * Nr 5) Ibid.
 * Nr 6) Ibid.
 * Nr 7) Ibid.
 * Nr 8) a fact supported by a diff respective a page isn't an insult
 * Nr 9) I think that my English is bad and your is ramshackle. Is it an insult or a matter of taste?
 * Nr 10) it is a sandbox and it was deleted


 * Anti-Consensus, POV Editing


 * Nr 1) Content dispute (whether the use of primary sources is appropriate, etc) is out of the ArbCom's competence
 * Nr 2) Content dispute. There were no consens about the inclusion of a section "Causes of the war". No edit war.
 * Nr 3) It is really heavy to believe that a Village Pump question can break the Wikipedia rules.
 * Nr 4) Reference desk?. It is the Talk page:War of the Pacific.
 * Nr 5) Every one is free to think what s/he wants. Also Chiton Magnificus.
 * Nr 6) Neither Anti-Consensus nor POV Editing. It is a conversation with Robert McClenon in his talk page.
 * Nr 7) Yes, it is from W. Sater, author of "Andean Tragedy" a book about the war published in English and now also in Spanish.
 * Nr 8) I wish I could write so good English. It is not me, it is IP 211.26.218.11.
 * Nr 9) First diff belong to Windroff. Second diff is a POV-Tag. Third diff is a content issue.
 * Nr 10) Yes, I prefer that photos instead of romantic, nationalistic, which glorifies war or violence like the fotos that I removed.


 * Tendentious editing, Refusal to Get the Point


 * Nr 1) Again, a gratuitous accusation without any diff.
 * Nr 2) This is a tipical MarshalN20 accusation: 520 words but no one diff, no one prove for that what he says.
 * Nr 3) Yes, there is no need for reducing the article quality because of bits and bytes.
 * Nr 4) Yes. RPA was right appropriated and MarshalN20 knew it.
 * Nr 5) See Keysanger's Evidence 16
 * Nr 6) See Keysanger's Evidence 14


 * Disrupting article to make a point


 * Nr 1) Yes, the reader has to be warned.
 * Nr 2) Yes, the reader has to be warned.
 * Nr 3) This was the edit war Keysanger and Dentren were correctly blocked by EdJohnson.
 * Nr 4) Yes, we disagree.


 * Article ownership


 * Nr 1) Accusation is gratis, without any diff.
 * Nr 2) A romantic, heroic view of the war with beautiful oil paintings isn't my thing. There are enough photographs about the war, the real war.
 * Nr 3) See Keysanger's Evidence 1


 * Edit warring


 * Nr 1) Dentren as well as MarshalN20 refused to discuss: Requests for mediation/Undue weight and original research in the Causes of the War of the Pacific


 * False accusations


 * Nr 1) The problem was acknowledged and resolved minutes later.
 * Nr 2) That is not a false accusation, it is an exhortation.
 * Nr 3) See Keysanger's Evidence 16
 * Nr 4) See Keysanger's Evidence 16


 * Abuse of the Argentine History topic ban


 * Nr 1) Yes I asked L135 and then I posted the case to ANI . Shouldn't I do it?.
 * Nr 2) Yes, I warned the readers of the talk page that MarshalN20 had violated the tban, . MarshalN20 begrudgingly deleted his comments but he continued to advice Darkness Shines and to deliver him with links and advice. See further consequences in.
 * Nr 3) This is a Spanish idiom similar to English people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 * Nr 4) WP:ANI is the place to inform the community about that issues.
 * Nr 5) WP:ANI is the place to inform the community about that issues.


 * Additional points for consideration (or, to recap)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)
 * To MarshalN20's Misuse of Sources item Nr. 2
 * Ronald Bruce St John, The Foreign Policy of Peru, Lynne Rienner Publishers - Boulder and London, 1992, page 105
 * Black: cited by MarshalN20 in his Evidence Misuse of Sources, item 2
 * green : not cited by MarshalN20 in his Evidence Misuse of Sources, item 2
 *  Although persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced, it must be recognized that Peruvian interests had deep-seated economical and political reasons for going to war. At the end of the 1870s, the Peruvian government had a near-monopoly on the nitrate trade, and Bolivia's 1878 tax supported its position. In turn the consolidation of Chilean control over Antofagasta promised ruinous competition for Peru. 


 * To Keysanger's Evidence 1


 * Carlos Contreras and Marina Zuloaga (2014). Historia Mínima del Peru, page 197 (In Spanish Language)
 * Black: cited by MarshalN20 in Talk page of Peruvian nitrate monopoly
 * green : not cited by MarshalN20 in in Talk page of Peruvian nitrate monopoly

Finally, the Peruvian attempt to convert the nitrate into a substitute of guano regarding fiscal funds provoked an international conflict known as the nitrate war or the war of the Pacific between 1879 and 1883. ...(ca. 70 words)... Bolivia and Peru had signed in 1873, the same year in which Peru created its state monopoly on nitrates, a treaty of defensive alliance. This treaty was invoked by Bolivia, dragging Peru into the war. Regardless, Peru had a vivid interest in the resolution of the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, because the success of its nitrate state monopoly depended on the competition proposed by its neighboring country, whether it be Bolivia or Chile. According to Chilean historians, Peru thought it would be much easier to force the Bolivian government than the Chilean in association with its monopoly of fertilizers. The Peruvian historians tend to sustain, on the contrary, that Peru became involved in a war that did not concern it, due to its desire to fulfill its word committed to a treaty, and because it could not abandon Bolivia at the mercy of Chile without its own security being affected.
 * style="width: 50%; padding-left: 4em; padding-right: 4em; vertical-align: top; padding-bottom:0px; padding-top:0px;" |The Saltpeter War
 * style="width: 50%; padding-left: 4em; padding-right: 4em; vertical-align: top; padding-bottom:0px; padding-top:0px;" |The Saltpeter War
 * style="width: 50%; padding-left: 4em; padding-right: 4em; vertical-align: top; padding-bottom:0px; padding-top:0px;" |(Orig. Spanish) ...
 * colspan=2 style="text-align:right; vertical-align: top; padding-bottom:0px; padding-top:0px;"|
 * }
 * }


 * To Keysanger's Evidence 3 (added on 2017 Jan 26)


 * The 1873 Treaty contains an article that makes it secret and the wording of the treaty is non-aggressive. But most historians agree that it was not secret (except during a short time after its signing) and not only defensive. We can ask, for example, if it was secret, why asked the Chilean gov. the Peruvian envoy about the existence of "a" treaty. And if it was defensive, why was declared secret. How much secret and defensive it was, is a content dispute.
 * But to call it defensive and to delete the adjective "secret" in the name and the LEDE is an unacceptable POV.


 * To Keysanger's Evidence 5 (added on 2017 Jan 31)


 * In RSN I asked MarshalN20 why he had deleted the appreciation of the 1873 Treaty according to Luis Edgardo Mercado Jarrín from the LEDE which I had taken from his book Política y estrategia en la Guerra de Chile. As its name announces, the book deals with strategy, policies, objectives of the Peruvian and Chilean governments before and during the War of the Pacific.


 * MarshalN20 response was:
 * It's wrong to give undue weight to the opinion of a minister who served in the mid-20th century. The treaty was signed in 1873, decades before the minister was even born. Why is his opinion so important? Also, the proposed alteration is against the standards of the Wikipedia Manual of Style.


 * Edgardo Mercado Jarrin was a well known Peruvian politician of the 1970s, Peruvian Army general, Director de Inteligencia de la Escuela Mayor del Ejército, Comandante General del Centro de Instrucción Militar del Perú and profesor de Inteligencia y de Estrategia Nacional en la Escuela de Investigaciones, Foreign Minister of the Military Government of Juan Velasco Alvarado, later Chief Commander of the Peruvian Army and later Defense Minister. According to TEORÍAS GEOPOLÍTICAS, page 22, Mercado Jarrin is El mayor autor de los estudios de geopolítica del Perú es el General Edgardo Mercado Jarrín. (Engl.: The most important author of geopolitical Studies in Perú is Edgardo Mercado Jarrín.)


 * According to the es:WP he was author of
 * El Perú y su política exterior (1971), compilación de los discursos pronunciados en su calidad de Ministro de RR.EE.
 * Seguridad, política, estrategia (1974)
 * Ensayos (1974)
 * Política y estrategia en la Guerra de Chile (1979)
 * Un sistema de seguridad y defensa sudamericano (1989)
 * Consecuencias y enseñanzas de la guerra del Golfo Pérsico (1991)
 * Perú: perspectivas geopolíticas (1993)
 * La geopolítica en el tercer milenio (1995)


 * He is cited in:
 * http://cienciageografica.carpetapedagogica.com/2012/10/conceptos-basicos-de-geopolitica.html
 * http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/coedicion/medrano/04sistema.pdf
 * http://peru21.pe/opinion/aldo-mariategui-ppk-homenajea-golpistas-2266636


 * I ask the ArbCom to compare this author, despised by MarshalN20, with the unknown authors of his google-search-string-books.


 * To Keysanger's Evidence 10

The background to Chile's war with Peru and Bolivia was a severe economic crisis in Peru, due largely to the decline of its huano resources and economic mismanagement. This led to default on its external debt in 1876, which primarily affected british and French bondholders. Just before this, over-supply and falling prices in the nitrate industry had led to its partial nationalization. Peru paid the ownwers, many of whom were British, with certificates which it also defaulted in 1877. During the war there was a strong public support for Chile among British merchants, and the easy with which British firms came to dominate the booming nitrate industry in the 1880s after the Chileans had captured and privatised it added to the prima facie case for British involvement.
 * Text of Rory Miller, Britain and Latin America in the 19th and 20th Centuries, page 64-65
 * Rory's personal page
 * google books page 64-65
 * Text of MarshalN20 about the Role of Great Britain, added on 26 July 2009
 * style="width: 50%; padding-left: 4em; padding-right: 4em; vertical-align: top; padding-bottom:0px; padding-top:0px;" |War of the Pacific
 * style="width: 50%; padding-left: 4em; padding-right: 4em; vertical-align: top; padding-bottom:0px; padding-top:0px;" |War of the Pacific
 * style="width: 50%; padding-left: 4em; padding-right: 4em; vertical-align: top; padding-bottom:0px; padding-top:0px;" |War of the Pacific

In fact the first allegations against Britain came from the US Secretary of State, James Blaine, in 1882 when he stated that "it [was] a perfect mistake to speak of this as a Chilean war on Peru. It [was] a English war on Peru, with Chili as its instrument' There is little in the British Government archives to support this. V. G. Kierman, after a meticulous study of the documents, concluded that the Foreign Office was always calm and correct, usually alert, and sometimes notably at masterly inactivity. He found no case against either the Foreign office or its representatives in South America.

If the evidence absolves the British Government, it again leaves open the role of private interests. The key firm was Anthony Gibbs & Sons, the leading merchants on the west coast [of South America] who, after making their fortune in the guano trade, had become successful nitrate entrepreneurs. Beside administering Peru's state nitrate company between 1875 and 1878, Gibbs were also minority partners in the Antofagasta Nitrates and Railroad Company (then in Bolivia), the taxation of which provided the casus belli. Fortunately the house left a massive archive in London, research in which has shown that Gibbs themselves had little control over the Santiago government and indeed much reason to quarrel with it. Instead, it seems, the close connexion between the Antofagasta Company's Chilean shareholders and their government, coupled with the adroit use of propaganda, propelled Chile into a war in which the results, for British interests, seemed far from clear until 1882. After the begin of war the government of Great Britain declared its neutrality and refused to allow Peru, Bolivia, and Chile to take delivery of military or naval material on English soil.[40] In the book Influencia británica en el salitre, Chilean historian Alejandro Soto argues that although throughout the war Great Britain presented itself as a neutral viewer of the matter, in reality Great Britain had great influence and domination over Chilean saltpeter, nitrate, and iodine companies in the region.[41] At first, the British positioned its saltpeter production in the zone as a small commercial venture, but soon the investments began to serve as a guarantee for the payment of Chile's external debt, in which large amounts of British capital were stocked.[42] Between 1860 and 1870, Great Britain financed Chile a loan of £1,000 pounds.[43] British saltpeter production in the region increased from 13.5% on 1879 to 55% by 1901.[44] In order to protect its interests, Great Britain intervened in Chilean internal and external matters, which influenced the country at various points throughout its history.[45][46] During the War of the Pacific, Chile was backed morally and financially by the British Empire.[47] During the Chilean invasion of the Atacama desert, British businessman John Thomas North provided support for the Chilean army during its occupation of Antofagasta and Iquique.[43][dubious – discuss][48] North, taking advantage of the chaos caused by the war, was able acquire the Peruvian certificates of the saltpeter companies that operated within its territories, and was later given by the Chilean government a monopoly of the saltpeter production in the region, which North later used to finance investments in Europe and Egypt.[49] In the early years of the war (1879-1881), Chile acquired a series of ships from the British shipyard company Yarrow Poplar.[50][51] Also, Chilean soldiers were said to be equipped with English uniforms and rifles.[52][53] Throughout the conflict, Britain had seven battleships stationed at the front of Peruvian and Chilean coasts, which were a menace for Peru.[54] However, while Peru was attempting to buy armament for the war, Britain sent a series of diplomatic missions across Europe in order to prevent Peruvians from acquiring weaponry. In the Ottoman Empire, Peru sought to acquire the battleship Fehlz-Bolend by using a Greek banker as an intermediary,[55] but a British sailor working for the Turkish government warned the Chilean delegation in London of the event, which resulted in the cancellation of the buy.[55] Britain also thwarted Peru's acquisition of German warships Sócrates and Diógenes, both which were stopped at the English port of Southampton after Chilean agents warned the British government of the Peruvian acquisitions of the ships.[56]
 * style="width: 50%; padding-left: 4em; padding-right: 4em; vertical-align: top; padding-bottom:0px; padding-top:0px;" |Role of Great Britain
 * }


 * Causes of the war
 * This is a personal conduct investigation, but I consider appropriated to inform the ArbCom an issue that appears repeatedly in the discussion.
 * The causes of the war were economical, geopolitical, and of internal politics. See William Sater's Andean Tragedy page 37ff, section Seeking the origin of the war. This book has been edited in Spanish and English, it is mainstream, we like it or not. Also, for example, Luis Ortega, a Chilean historian that advocated the Chilean interests as main cause, accepts in the Conclusiones of his work Los empresarios, la politica, y los origenes de la Guerra del Pacifico, page 61, that: No hay una explicación unilateral y total para 1os orígenes de la Guerra del Pacífico, y la motivación central detras del esfuerzo de guerra chileno es, todavia objeto de controversia. Ciertament 1os factores que incidieron en el desencadenamiento del conflicto fueron variados e incluyeron aspectos jurídicos, geopolíticos y económicos (Transl.:There is no general explanation for the origins of the war. The main cause is controversial. Factors were juridical, geopolitical and economical).
 * Keysanger thinks that all causes have to be proportionately present in the description of the causes:
 * Other means that only the Chilean economical interest should be represented. Peruvian and Bolivian economical interests should not be mentioned:


 * About MarshalN20's contribution in Talk:Peruvian nitrate monopoly (added 2017 Jan 25)
 * In diff MarshalN20 wrote 8 sentences that we transcribe complete and numered in the following list:
 * This article is slanted towards the Chilean perspective of the causes for the War of the Pacific.
 * As Robert N. Burr writes: Chile justified war against Peru on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to destroy Chilean nitrate operations and establish Peruvian predominance. It was claimed that since established Chilean interests and rights in the Bolivia littoral stood in the way of that scheme, Peru became secretly allied with Bolivia which it then encouraged to resist Chile's just demands. The extent of Peruvian treachery became evident when it sent to Santiago a mediator even as it prepared for war. Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force (1974), p. 138.
 * This demonstrates that it is a Chilean point of view that Peru was attempting to achieve domination over the nitrate fields.
 * This article presents the Chilean perspective as a fact.
 * Not only that, but Burr actually considers another economic factor to be the primary reason for the war—Chile's economic ambition over the minerals in Bolivia's desert.
 * A few further lines down, Burr adds: A detailed evaluation of the merits of these and other versions of war guilt in the Pacific conflagration of 1879-1883 is beyond the scope of this work. Several conclusions do present themselves, however, in connection with the circumstances and forces that affected Chile's decision to wage war and its formulation of war objectives. The most immediately obvious casus belli was the conflict of interests arising from one country's economic predominance on the soil of another. [...] Bolivians came to entertain fears concerning ultimate Chilean political domination of the littoral. But fearful, impotent, poorly governed Bolivia could neither strengthen its economic and political position in the littoral nor develop an effective policy toward Chile. For their part Chileans came to regard the coastal desert as their own in all but name. Not only were Chilean economic interests predominant, but development of the littoral was due almost exclusively to Chilean capital, labor, and technology. The spasmodic efforts of frequently corrupt local Bolivian officials to carry out the often arbitrary orders of the Altiplano were met by Chileans with angry resentment.— Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force (1974), pp. 138-139.
 * This quote demonstrates that Burr's view of the primary reason for war (casus belli) was Chile's ambition over the mineral deposits in the poorly-defended Bolivian littoral (coast).
 * Given this situation, this article is in serious need of a rewrite to balance perspectives.-


 * Sentences 1 and 2 present the introduction, a thesis (slanted towards the Chilean) and a cite.
 * Sentence 3 gives the interpretation of the cite, the reasoning: it is said by Chileans that Peru was attempting to achieve domination over the nitrate fields and presented in the article as a fact.
 * First of all, the historiography has today reached a state that doesn't allow words like "Chile" or "Peru". In Peru as well as in Chile are different tendencies and interpretations of the facts within the historians. But in order not to confuse MarshalN20 we continue to talk about Chile and Peru as monolithic entities, which they aren't.
 * In fact, Burr states that the Chilean gov saw Peru as mastermind behind the Bolivian tax and confiscation. The Ch. government told it officially to friendly powers in a statement short after the beginning of the war.
 * The question is: Is it only a Chilean view? Does Burr say that only the Chileans think so?. No. It is not said by Burr that only Chilean think so, it is not in his sentences. I can see that, the ArbCom can see that. From a particular case (the Chilean gov) MarshalN20 concluded a general consequence. We are obligated to WP:AGF. So, let's believe that is only a little error of MarshalN20.
 * What do say other about the domination over the nitrate fields?
 * In 1873 the Peruvian gov created a state monopoly over the production and sales of nitrate Peruvian law of 1873. In 1875 the Peruvian gov nationalized the nitrate industry. See a Legislación sobre salitre y boráx en Tarapacá written by Guillermo E. Billinghurst (later President of Peru) about the Peruvian laws about the nitrate. In page 69 you will find it: "La Expropiación".
 * What does St John say about that? MarshalN20 cited him incomplete. We repeat the complete cite as given by Keysanger above:
 * Although persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced, it must be recognized that Peruvian interests had deep-seated economical and political reasons for going to war. At the end of the 1870s, the Peruvian government had a near-monopoly on the nitrate trade, and Bolivia's 1878 tax supported its position. In turn the consolidation of Chilean control over Antofagasta promised ruinous competition for Peru.
 * I ask the Arbitration Committee, is it possible that an editor of that article doesn't know that Peru wanted to control the world price of the nitrate in the 1870s? Please, see the bibliography of the article, all of them write about the nationalization, the 7.000.000 British Pound the Peruvian gov. needed to expropriate and didn't get, the purchase of Bolivian licenses by the Peruvian government, the antagonism between the Peruvian nitrate producers and the guano traders, the problems of the Chilean gov with the holders of the Peruvian debts certificates after the occupation of Tarapaca, etc, etc, etc. And MarshalN20 denies all that and states that it is a Chilean point of view that Peru was attempting to achieve domination over the nitrate fields. We are obligated to WP:AGF. So, let's believe that is is only another little error of MarshalN20.
 * Sentence 4 is half correct: it is a fact that existed a Peruvian attempt to control the nitrate trade and production. It is supported by all historians. But it is not only a Chilean view.
 * Sentence 5 Chilean companies were interested in make money. There is no difference with today and other countries.
 * Sentence 6 is a cite.
 * Sentence 7 pretend to interpret Burr's words as blaming Chile for the cause of the war despite the fact that the author self refuses to determine the causes of the war: A detailed evaluation of the merits of these and other versions of war guilt in the Pacific conflagration of 1879-1883 is beyond the scope of this work. He says that Chilean consider the region almost a their own, that they had a predominant role in economy and work. Furthermore, that the Bolivians were unable to develop the region and feared the Chilean domination.
 * Where does MarshalN20 read that Burr's view of the primary reason for war (casus belli) was Chile's ambition is nowhere to be founded. At least, it is not direct said in Burr's text as required by WP:RS. ::Another MarshalN20 little error?.
 * No. They are not errors.
 * To make wrong inferences AND to ignore the basic bibliography about the article AND to blur the statements of an author AND to make incomplete cites isn't an error.
 * It is MarshalN20 incapacity to abide the rules of Wikipedia.
 * I have to emphasize that all my statements don't regard the content of the article. It is all over logic, correct cites, and correct understanding of English language sentences.
 * The standard reading for the theme is The Peruvian Government and the Nitrate Trade, 1873-1879 by Robert G. Greenhill and Rory M. Miller, Journal of Latin American Studies © 1973 Cambridge University Press. (in jstor.org)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * , it seems clear to me that you don't understand the definition of a state monopoly. It seems to me that you think that a state monopoly is the same as a true, total monopoly. As Greenhill and Miller indicate in "The Peruvian Government and the Nitrate Trade", a state monopoly specifically refers to an "attempt to extend control over [a country's] natural resources" (p. 107). State monopolies occur solely within the borders of a particular nation. You confuse (purposefully or inadvertently) Peru's attempts to consolidate its state nitrate monopoly with the alleged attempts it had to acquire a total monopoly of nitrates. Burr calls this extension of the state monopoly an alleged conspiracy and St. John is clear in indicating that there is no concrete evidence of Peru manipulating the Bolivian nitrate market, even if Peru was interested in the outcome of the dispute between Bolivia and Chile (according to Contreras). Greenhill and Miller are also clear to point out the causes of the War of the Pacific under the economic context that you so often seek to minimize:""By now war between Chile and the alliance of Peru and Bolivia ended any possibility of normal commerce. The conflict was ostensibly caused by Bolivia's imposition of duties upon Chilean entrepeneurs around Antofagasta contrary to her treaty obligations. It had, of course, wider implications; an aggressive desire on Chile's part for nitrate fields and hegemony upon the west coast, Peru's 'secret' treaty with Bolivia and jealousy of her powerful neighbour to the south, the international ineptitude of the Government at La Paz." (Greenhill & Miller, "The Peruvian Government and the Nitrate Trade," Page 128)."


 * Did you read the article before deciding to share it? Regardless, thank you for sharing it and further helping prove the validity of my position on this matter.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and when disruptive, those contributors may be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Consensus building
3) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion, involving the wider community if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Mediation
4) Mediation is a process through which editors should resolve disputes and improve teamwork through consensus rather than seek to win disputes. Mediation should neither be used to further muddle discussions nor to deceive mediators into agreeing with a position based on misinformation. All parties and mediators should keep proper decorum, and involved parties should avoid relentless arguments that tarnish the collaborative atmosphere of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Well yes, but mediation is entirely voluntary and requires willingness from all participants. There's many reasons why editors might decline mediation, and it seems very unlikely that the Committee would sanction someone for not wanting to take part. Further views welcome, but I can't see this forming part of the PD. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reference desk
5) The purpose of the reference desk is for individuals with an expertise or knowledge of a particular subject to help answer questions presented by the community. The reference desk should not be used to gain supporters in editing disputes, or to breach the consensus established in content-related matters.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Meh. Evidence that this is worth including? -- Euryalus (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute
1) This dispute primarily involves allegations of tendentious editing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing War of the Pacific, Economic history of Chile, Peruvian nitrate monopoly, and Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, pretty much. As outlined in the case scope. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Keysanger: Tendentious editing and battleground conduct
2) has edited in a manner inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy (e.g.,, ), has engaged in battleground conduct  and anti-consensus editing , and has acted deceitfully (e.g., , ) including making false statements such as placing into question the integrity of the Arbitration Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Mildly, I don't see the last diff as within the case scope, or particularly actionable. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * , I agree. I was also doubting whether or not to include it, specially since had previously explained the "mooning the jury" point (which, I hoped had been understood by the other party). However, it seems that the other party refuses to desist on accusing the Committee of favoritism . This is part of a general trend whereby the user in question (Keysanger) undermines the authority of the mediating party; disagreeing with him on any point, regardless of size or importance, immediately means that you are non-neutral and favoring the other side. This behavior is what has largely caused the present situation (and the myriad failed mediation attempts, in War of the Pacific and other articles); I believe a finding should be made about it, but I lack the policy knowledge to properly frame it.-- MarshalN20  ✉🕊 10:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Keysanger: Dispute resolution gaming
2) has abused the trust of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system to pursue battleground, anti-consensus editing (examples of past mediation attempts that failed due to Keysanger's behavior:, , , ).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Personal view: not on the basis of this evidence. Mediation is voluntary, and this mediation stalled before it got under way. Of themselves these are not actionable. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Keysanger topic banned
1) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history, economics, society, and politics of Peru and Bolivia (from 1800-2000), broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Keysanger 1RR restriction
2) is restricted indefinitely to one-revert editing in order to promote consensus-building and prevent problems such as article ownership, edit warring, and gaming the dispute resolution system. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Mildly, would consensus building not be better promoted if all relevant parties were restricted to 1RR? -- Euryalus (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair points. Agree that edit warring is not really the issue here. In passing, to both you and, thanks for the opportunity to read the articles relevant to this topic. Not a topic area I've come across before. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, not a supporter of this. Other committee members' mileage may vary. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I wouldn't be opposed to it, although perhaps such a restriction would best be narrowed to the locus of the dispute. I'd also be open to an informal 1RR restriction (perhaps a warning?) that could then be escalated to a restriction if the problem is proven to continue. Looking at the dates, Keysanger hasn't edit-warred since 2015, and the last time I was blocked for edit-warring was in 2012.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 05:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

War of the Pacific article permanent semi-protection
3) Due to the proven contentious nature of the topic, as well as the suspicious past and recent activity of IP editors or recently-created accounts, the article War of the Pacific is to be placed into semi-protection indefinitely. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Nature of underlying dispute
1) The underlying dispute in this case concerns MarshalN20's behavior, explicitly, his attitude towards other editors, towards the basic rules of Wikipedia and towards the sanctions imposed to him by the ArbCom. The Arbitration self was triggered by MarshalN20 continual insults during a Formal Mediation.

During the present case a manifold of articles have been mentioned: War of the Pacific, Charango, Kullawada, Chile–Peru football rivalry, Morenada, Caporales, Humboldt Current, Diablada, Economic history of Chile, Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru), Template:Ocean, Baltimore crisis, Peruvian nitrate monopoly, es:Monopolio peruano del salitre, many others talk pages in the English and Spanish Wikipedia.

Alone the variety of issues shows that the investigation cannot be restricted or focused only in a content dispute.

The common element in all the evidences is MarshalN20. He blurred and twisted the historians statements, changed the nationality of a Peruvian historian and made him a Chilean one, made incomplete cites in order to defuse and hide the true opinion of the author(s). He pushed an extreme nationalistic Peruvian POV, renamed the Humboldt Current to Peru Current, he used the articles to promote fringe views about the "English war against Peru", the "massacre of Valparaiso", the "under international law Bolivia never declared war", the view that the Bolivian cultural assets belong to Peru for administrative reasons. Furthermore, in order to appear civil and respectful to the rules, he "buttressed" his edits over highly controversial issues with references which were given without page number in a book of 650 pages, dubious websites that soon disappeared for ever, books which content is only known through google snippets or/and that have been placed as reference without any consideration of the author's and editorial's reliability or the audience for which they were written, the reference had no author name or no book name, only the google search string e.g. "repaso" or "ayuda inglesa".

Beside that, MarshalN20 has gamed the system through civil POV pushing, alleging always to act according the rules of Wikipedia, repeating again and again that he won two GMs and that he learnt from his errors after the sanction of 2013. He has succeeded again and again to convince the community that it was the last time he had made the mistake he has been caught by. But in fact he is involved again and again in issues about the history of Latin America.

But the most problematic, if not dangerous, edge is MarshalN20's attitude towards other editors who contradict him. He becomes aggressive, libelous and deny them any possibility to discuss the issue. He insult, intimidate, offend, made casting aspersions in and off wiki and even a veiled threat against Keysanger.

In order to conceal his doing he resorts to create new problems as he did in the English Wikipedia about the article "Monopolio peruano del salitre" in the Spanish Wikipedia, which had to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee only to state that until now there is no claims in the Spanish Wikipedia about it and that the content of the article doesn't belong to the competence of the committee.

MarshalN20 has breached the sanction and rules of Wikipedia regarding his topic ban (War of the Pacific, Peru Chile football rivalry), the 500 words limits of the Arbitration Committe, the 700 words limit of the Arbitration Committee, his promise not to edit articles related to the War of the Pacific.

None of MarshalN20's accusations against user Keysanger about racism, POV, dishonesty, personal attacks, etc, has been proved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is considerably longer than most findings of fact we include. You might find the advice in the Guide to arbitration on the workshop portion of the case useful, particularly #3 about referring back to evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm just curious as to what is meant by: "repeating again and again that he won two GMs." What are GMs?-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 04:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious as to what exactly justifies the claim that I have an "extreme nationalistic Peruvian POV".-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 05:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tag-bombing
1) Excessive application of templates messages on an actively edited page is disruptive, and is counterintuitive to collaboration. (See, , .) (Based upon instructions at WP:GAR not to tag bomb, and an essay about Tag bombing.) Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of template
2) The purpose of template tags is to raise awareness of a legitimate issue within the article, and promote collaboration between editors of the page to fix it. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fringe theories
3) Fringe theories, either by professionals or amateurs, being presented as if they were mainstream beliefs, are damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia and its policy of Verifiability. (See Here, Here, and Here.) Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The word "massacre" to refer to the Baltimore crisis was a poor choice of words, but that's not proof of a fringe view. [1] That the United States and Chile developed a serious rivalry as a result of the War of the Pacific and the Baltimore Crisis is most certainly not a fringe view; proof of this can be found in William Sater's Chile and the United States: Empires in Conflict (page 72): "American support for Balmaceda and the Baltimore incident left an aftertaste that soured Santiago's already acid relationship with Washington. Lamentably, diplomatic relations continued to fester during the remainder of the nineteenth century." [2] The exact date and nature of the Bolivian declaration of war is contentious, which is why it was agreed through editorial consensus that the optimal phrasing was to write that "Bolivia declared a state of war existed" (which is not a fringe view). [3] There's plenty of sources that detail the amount of British (state and non-state) influence in the course of the War of the Pacific and its aftermath; books include William Edmunson's A History of the British Presence in Chile (Springer, 2009), Will Kaufman's and Heidi S. Macpherson's (eds) Britain and the Americas (ABC CLIO, 2005), among others. British influence over the economic resources in this part of the world is also the primary reason for the United States' involvement as a mediator in the conflict (see the Encyclopedia of U.S. - Latin American Relations ). Keysanger's version of the article has so excessively removed the role of British interests that it doesn't even mention the rise of John Thomas North ("The King of Nitrates").-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Campaigning
1) MarshallN20 has campaigned for support against Keysanger outside of article and wikipedia talk pages. (See Here.)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think it's unfair to look at this matter as a problem between two editors. I have provided substantial evidence that demonstrates this uncomfortable situation has involved numerous individuals over the course of almost a decade. Dentren, Likeminas, Ian, Arafael, Eddy Ramirez, Alex Harvey, Darkness Shines, Fifelfoo, among others are a few of the names that come to mind. It's unfortunate that these users are no longer active in Wikipedia or have decided to not participate in this Arbitration, but to label this as a campaign from my part is a very limited perspective that does not accurately reflect the problem.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 20:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Personal attacks
2) Both parties, being MarshallN20 and Keysanger, have committed personal attacks, both directly, and in mention to other users. (See Here and Here.) Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Source manipulation
3) Keysanger has repeatedly used sources that do not actually support their claims as if they did support their claims. (Here) Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Carlos Contreras is the friend of one of my colleagues. I have never misused sources—I can't be blamed for old web pages and deadlinks (especially since I no longer use webpages as citations; I now solely rely on published secondary sources). I've been clear in indicating that the correct Contreras book is Historia Minima del Peru, where he explicitly states the Chilean historians' perspective. Keysanger is taking Contreras' view completely out of context. Peruvian and Chilean historiographies do not blame themselves for the conflict; this can be clearly read (in Spanish) in the historiographical monograph by Nicolas Cruz and Ascanio Cavallo, Las Guerras de la Guerra . The argument of Cruz and Cavallo's work is that each of the participant nations' historiographies have traditionally blamed the other two combatants for the start of the war.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Misuse of Sources

Proposed 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.

Interaction ban
1) Both parties are issued a one year interaction ban, broadly construed (inclusive of direct mention to each other). (See above part on Personal attacks.) Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Source manipulation warning
2) Admonish both parties about the use of source manipulation, and warn that any clear further use of it will result in a block. (See above source manipulation). Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Revisiting
3) Neither party may request a remedy for this case within the calendar year. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Interaction ban
1) Breaking the interaction ban in any way mentioned by WP:IBAN, unless they are requesting ARB enforcement, will result in a month log ban. If the same party breaks it again, it will result in an indef block. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Source manipulation block
2) Issues of source manipulation should be raised at WP:MILHIST, and then brought to ARB enforcement if the board has consensus that the source being manipulated. The two parties would not directly address each other in these circumstances (the filing party would request for another user to ping the other party), but should defend their case, without reference to each other. In th The punishment for obvious source manipulation will be a six month block, followed by an indef if it is repeated. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I suppose it would be WP:RSN. But here's the problem with the suggestion - I suspect you and Keysanger have a more detailed knowledge of the sources in this field than any other regular editor. The questions on any of these sources is not whether they are "reliable" (which generally they are), but to what extent do they reflect the author's interpretations or biases as opposed to objective fact and how they should be collectively represented so that any one set of interpretations appears in context (ie. the minority views get minority space, the mainstream historical opinion gets centre billing). These are matters of fine analysis, and given the relative obscurity of the topic area I doubt you'd find many other editors willing to be involved. Bluntly, the longevity of this dispute, and the nitpicking on minor points, would also be something of a discouragement.
 * If something like this wee pursued I wonder if WT:Milhist is a better "appropriate board." But to my knowledge there's not been an Arbcom remedy that formally co-opts a wikiproject in this way instead of a formal en-WP notice board.-- Euryalus (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, no problems at all, in fact as above I would be strongly of the view that Milhist would be better at it, so if it wanted to take control of the issue as you describe, that would be a net benefit to WP. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and apologies for the delayed reply, was out of phone range for a couple of hours. How do you think Milhist would feel about having an active role in resolving source analysis questions in this field? I doubt it would be that onerous, but you never know.
 * a topic ban would be a great idea, but would knock out two FA-quality editors in a specialist field. Might still be where we end up. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * While I don't consider to have engaged in source manipulation, I am not at all opposed to partake in this enforcement. I think it is an excellent idea. However, I do suggest a more specific wording than "at the appropriate board". What is the appropriate board? ANI? RSN? POVN? Regards.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 18:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If the problem is ultimately one pertaining to trust, specifically whether or not Keysanger and/or I have been dishonest in our use of sources, then wouldn't an appropriate remedy be one that focuses on rebuilding that lost trust? Perhaps the best option here would be to topic ban both Keysanger and me from subjects related to the War of the Pacific until we can rebuild that trust. I've contributed a fair share of good and featured articles in other topics, all of them carefully evaluated by multiple editors, which is why I am perplexed at the accusations of source manipulation. However, if the Committee needs further proof of the quality and sincerity of my work, I would be totally willing to further produce more featured articles. If Keysanger is truly here to help build an encyclopedia, then I would assume that this should not be a problem for him either.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 21:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still very hopeful about this proposal. However, I also think that it's important that the article War of the Pacific get fresh hands working on it, or at least some stronger commitment to move it up to at least a Good Article. For better or worse, the GA/FA system is the best method available in Wikipedia to have content checked for accuracy and reliability. Unfortunately, my time in general is very limited towards this goal. I'll probably be in another research trip during the summer as well, so that again diminishes the likelihood that I'll have time available to work on it.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 01:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In passing I like it too, and have included a mildly reworded version in the draft PD. Just awaiting feedback from GW (and any other Committee members). -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I considered offering MILHIST, but as a coordinator of MILHIST I thought that may seem as if I was attempting to take control of it/ a conflict of interest. I have changed it to RSN. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest I change/offer it as an option, due to its net positivity, despite the lack of precedence? -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * hmm, that may be necessary, as having both of you edit the same page you are disputing on with an interaction ban is likely to cause a breach of the IBAN. P.S. After a review of all the sources, I agree with you on the source manipulation, and have changed the PFoF accordingly. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added in the MILHIST or RSN may be used. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for MILHIST as a whole, but I'd wager a guess that the regular commentators on the talk page would be fine with it. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have changed the proposal slightly to add that the users shouldn't directly interact.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also removed RSN from the proposal, as it doesn't really make sense. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. We've been a bit delayed by the other case and paid editing (also by real life), but an interaction ban will certainly be part of the PD.

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: