Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Andres C.
===Messhermit disregards and violates constantly Wikipedia's policies on Civility, Harassment, andser No personal attacks===
 * By labeling me as an "Ecuadorian POV-pusher", and making other derisive remarks against me:, , , , , ,


 * By making sneering, sarcastic, and out-of-place remarks about my country of origin:, , ,.


 * By warning me he will "keep an eye" on my "biased" editions (wikistalking?):.


 * By hurling a personal attack at me ("you are nothing more than a POV pusher" []) for having requested that a disputed page be placed under temporary Full Protection so as to stop an ongoing edit war.

Messhermit has repeatedly called into question my good faith, and misinterprets Wikipedias' policy on Verifiability
This matter concerns mainly the validity of using as legitimate source a specific book on the issue of the history of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian border dispute and a peace treaty signed by both countries in 1942: ''Julio Tobar Donoso. "La Invasión Peruana y el Protocolo de Río: Antecedentes y Explicación Histórica". Banco Central del Ecuador, Quito (1945), 1982.'' ("The Peruvian Invasion and the Rio Protocol: Background and Historical Explanations") (my translation).

Messhermit has brought forward two main objections:
 * The book carries a biased title ("The Peruvian Invasion..."), therefore it is not "a reasonable source". As such, my editions based on that source "can be deleted"..
 * The book has no online links, therefore there is no way for him to confirm that what I cite from the book is actually there. Messhermit holds the view that sources that cannot be read on the internet have no place in Wikipedia.
 * Messhermit argues: "So far, the lines that I have stated in my previous argument are the only parts of the book that can be verify on the net. However, your editions go beyond that scope, providing a POV that cannot be verify (since there is no resources that support your claims on the net). Any link to support your editions? Once again, you have not present any accurate link.".


 * Moreover, I find Messhermit's stance rather puzzling, as this is a well-known and widely cited book, , among scholars dealing with this particular issue, from a well-known Ecuadorian writer and former Foreign Minister (actually, the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister who signed the abovementioned Peace Treaty). This leads me to suspect that, either Messhermit is purposefully acting in bad faith, or he is just not well informed about the issue at hand, in which case I must assume that he is just harassing me, or both.


 * In the end, I had to scan the relevant pages of Tobar Donoso's book and upload them to Wikipedia, to prove Messhermit that my citations from Tobar's books were real...to no avail. He has warned me that he will revert/remove a disputed paragraph that uses as reference Tobar's book (please see below).


 * More on Messhermit's stance on sources with no online links:, , , , , ,.

Messhermit blatantly violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy

 * By reverting/removing edits that present the Ecuadorian version of the events on the cluster of pages dealing with the history of Ecuadorian-Peruvian border dispute, on the grounds that Ecuadorian sources are "POV":, , or that the Ecuadorian Point of View is "biased": , , ,.


 * By stating that "Wikipedia must not allow two versions because the only thing that creates is more confusion to the reader.":, and that "2 versions in a single article cannot exist. This only leads to confusion. Therefore, paragraphs that have a certain ammount of POV must be removed.".


 * By passing judgment on the appropriateness of one account, dismissing alternative accounts as biased, preventing them to be stated in the articles.

===Messhermit violates Wikipedia's official policy on Resolving disputes and disregards Wikipedia's guidelines on Wikiquette and Reaching Consensus===


 * By making widespread reverts, with confrontational edit summaries ("Ecuadorian POV-pushing", etc.) every time I start editing the cluster of articles on the Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute:, , , , . In this case, by passing judgment on the appropiateness of the information to be stated, Messhermit involves himself in what he calls POV-pushing, violating once again the Neutral Point of View policy.


 * By turning down a Request for Mediation before the Mediation Committee, , on the grounds that "Nothing good will come from a mediation that use as base your own editions of this article.", and "...as my way to protest against your unilateralism", hurling more personal attacks against me in the process: , ,


 * By warning me of his intentions to remove/revert a paragraph that I brough forward as a way to reach a compromise . This particular paragraph, which uses as source material figures given by Tobar Donoso's book, was reviewed by two informal mediators: Neurodivergent:, , and Pvt Mahoney: . I should add that Messhermitt holds these two contributors in high esteem : ,.


 * By pretending to prevent me from making edits in a disputed article, stating that: "The previous paragraph is more approipate, hense it should stay as it was way before this whole debate started..."


 * By putting warnings on articles, and then doing nothing to remedy the situation, other than inform that certain (unspecified) paragraphs must be removed: , . After waiting for ten days to see if any debate is forthcoming, I decide to remove the tag. This is what happens: , , , , . Talk page: , , ,.


 * By trying to turn an interpersonal dispute into a dispute between Ecuadorians and Peruvians (?):, , , , , going so far as to try to call in fellow-Peruvian editors from the Spanish-language Wikipedia, to help him against the "Ecuadorian hordes" (that would be me): , ,.

Thank you for considering my statement. Andres C. 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional issues

 * In order to present my case in detail before this committee, I have made extensive use of Wikipedia's User contributions tool. This tool allowed me to know that Messhermit was:
 * Asking for support from editors belonging to Wikipedia ES (see above).
 * Requesting a postponement of the Arbitration to Tony Sidaway on the grounds that he was busy due to College . I did voice my opinion on the matter, without the intent of causing annoyance or distress on Messhermit (from Harassment). Moreover, his user contributions log clearly indicates that he is very much active on Wikipedia, removing extensive sections from the article Cenepa War (a retaliatory measure?), and sabotaging consensus reached by three editors on a section of the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute Talk page.
 * It also allowed me to point out to user:Bmahoney, who is directly involved in this matter, that this is not a RFC but an Arbitration case.
 * Messhermit sends me this message: This is the only official warning that I am giving to you. Stop following me trough all my editions in both Wikipedia:EN and Wikipedia:ES. What you are doing can be labeled as stalking and could lead you to serious consequences here in Wikipedia. If you proceed with this deviant behavior, I will start actions against your person. This is a serious issue and a clear attempt by your part to take this dispute to a personal level. Messhermit 03:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC).

-- Andrés 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Counterevidence by Andrés C.
Having read Messhermit's evidence, I present my counterevidence.

On Civility, Harassment, and No Personal Attacks
All evidence presented by Messhermit in these three sections is related to a previous interpersonal dispute that ocurred in October-November 2005, and that was never adequately resolved.


 * Messhermit says: This user clearly treated me disrespectfully as soon as he started editing here in Wikipedia.
 * Response: Wikipedia has a guideline called Please do not bite the newcomers. My very first contributions to Wikipedia, made on the article Cenepa War, on Oct 11, 2005 were reverted 24 hours later, with a summary that included the words "Rv dubious information" . Messhermit and I happened to meet each other when a note that I posted on the Talk Page of the same article on Oct 12, 2005, was responded two hours later with this remark: "Another Example of POV pushing. Truth always finds it way." . That is how I came to Wikipedia. That is how I met Messhermit.


 * All the insults from both sides that came afterwards (Oct-Nov 2005), and to which I referred when I made my Initial Statement on the Request for Arbitration page, took place on the article History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute. Messhermit's first intervention on its Talk Page was evidently directed against me: "The fact that another ecuadorian wikipedist is capable of discussing without a nationalistic POV is something that greatly improves this article." . It was that entry what prompted me to reply with the words "The most pathetic case of "the pot calling the kettle b[l]ack" that I have seen in quite some time..." . The interpersonal dispute was by then well under way. A personal message that I had put by mistake on Oct 16, 2005 on Messhermit's personal page (rather than on his Talk Page) was interpreted by Messhermit as an act of vandalism , . Here is my apology for that mistake:.


 * Be that as it may, this is the entry that initiated the heated exchange of words: . Here is where the unfortunate phrase fascist ecuadorians appears. The rest of the dispute, as I have pointed out, is archived here . As you can see, I did react very strongly, and I learned from my mistakes. That is why, during this dispute, I requested a Mediation. That is why I came before the ArbCom to resolve this case. I guess that is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has that guideline about not biting the newcomers.

Other Comments

 * I am not trying to surprise or mislead either the common reader or the Arbitrators. I find that the sections On Ecuadorian propaganda & High School subjects and On Ecuadorian maps in airports that appear on Messhermit's evidence are self-explanatory as to what is really going on here. Equally important is this (rather puzzling) statement by Messhermit: The Ecuadorian Version that the other user involved in this dispute promote is only supported by a minority of the less than 13 million of Ecuadorians around the world.


 * On the other hand, I would like to state before the Committee that I found one piece of information in Messhermit's evidence particularly troublesome, and I am referring to the section Messhermit regarding dubious attempts of Madiation. Here are the diffs regarding my Request for Mediation, in strict chronological order:
 * the Request for Mediation:
 * Messhermit's refusal to accept the Mediation:
 * Messhermit's statement on the relevant article's Talk Page: "I have voted against your mediation. Clearly, you are not interested in making the article NPOV, but only to present your POV. Nothing good will come from a mediation that use as base your own editions of this article."
 * My statement: "I see you declined the Mediation. Well, it was not "my" mediation. It is a procedure performed by a Mediation Committee, where both sides explain their arguments in a civilized manner. The Mediation was not going to use "my editions", but yours and mine...You did not accept it because you already know that nothing good will come out of it. Ouch! Well, it's ok...".


 * Messhermit says: "The first editions that the other user involved in this dispute made did not have any type of source. Therefore, as with any IP users that clearly push an idea, I proceed to revert the page. I cannot provide the links due to the fact that at least 3 different IP Addresses were used to modify the article. Once this user created an account in wikipedia [124], he still refused to provided sources, rewording the paragraph with information that clearly pushed an Ecuadorian view of the conflict and using different words to portrait a non-existent invasion [125], [126], [127],."
 * Response: I am not sure what Messhemit is trying to imply here. If he is suggesting that I started to engage in edit warring against him as an anonymous IP user "using at least 3 different addresses", before opening an account, he is quite wrong. This is another serious matter: the Committee can easily retrieve my IP address to see if this accusations are real.


 * The last comment made by Messhermit on my personal page, on April 22: . My response:.

Thank you. Andrés C. 20:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

From Messhermit's Counterevidence, Cenepa War

 * Messhermit said: "As stated, the first modifications were made with the clear intention to portray a "victorios" Ecuador in this undeclared war and a clear attemp to tie up this innacurate view with another historical battle that has nothing to do with Ecuador (since Ecuador at that time was not independent and the Great Colombian Federation existed)."
 * My response: This remark should be addressed to Albrecht, as the history page for the article tells us that he was the editor who introduced this paragraph on July 3, 2005. . Andrés C. 23:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit regarding Civility, Harassment, and No personal attacks
The following information is provided with the clear intention to prove to anyone who read the article that the other user involved in this dispute (and the one that is making the accusations against my person) has failed to present accurate and impartial information. Therefore, my defense will demonstrate that this dispute was not caused by my present behavior. The following information is provided:

On Civility:

 * This user clearly treated me disrespectfully as soon as he started editing here in Wikipedia, praising the use of the rv tool against my person and accusing me of lying. Quoting:
 * You imposed the tone of the discussion, you deleted external links, you accussed, you lied . Everything is there for everyone to see. It seems you are in a tight spot my friend .


 * In the following links, because of a faulty keyboard that I use to have, he started to highlight all my grammatical mistakes. This did not satisfy him, and proceeded to call me "moron". Quoting:
 * Making fun of you englis ( it's English, you moron ) is too easy. Look at how many stupid mistakes you made just in your last post. In fact, I'll put in RED every single mistake you make from here on, just so you can see how really bad your English is ..


 * I now proceed to ask: Is that the right approach to solve any type of conflict? Does a person that does not know the meaning of Respect be the first one to ask for Respect? I am unable to understand that logic.

On Harassment:

 * He mocks regarding my English skills. Quoting:
 * *Messerschmitt, seriously: I suggest you better stick to Spanish ..


 * He insults me. Quoting:
 * * You are the perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, Messerschmitt.


 * He mocks my sources. Quoting:
 * * Where are your sources for the Ecuadorian losses during the Cenepa War? Nowhere . Where are the results of your so-called research'' about the Ecuadorian invasion of Zarumilla in 1941? Nowhere . []


 * The other user involved in this discussion praising the erasing of my contributions. Quoting:
 * *Instead, look at your schooltext versions of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War and the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute, thankfully deleted now .
 * * The article that has been teared apart has been this one...gladly . Your previous version was, as you like to say "POV pushing". It very well deserved to go right to the garbage, which is where it went .

On No personal attacks:

 * The user then proceeded to attack me, regarding a supposed ultranationalist POV, due to the fact that I did not allow most of his editions that presented Ecuador as the Weak one (without sources) to be exposed in Wikipedia:
 * * I am making fun of your ultranationalistic stance in Wikipedia, your tendency to lie, your utter ignorance in the matter (so, did you find anything about the Presidents of the Real Audiencia?), you lack of proof to the statements you write, your deletion of every entry that goes against your nationalistic beliefs. You are just such an easy target it's almost boring .


 * The user clearly attacked my nationalism, accusing me of not being a patriot due to the fact that I never served in the Peruvian Army.
 * * I also make fun of your complete ignorance of the history of your own country, and of the fact that you have never served your nation (which doesn't prevent you from being an ultranationalist of sorts, and a bad one at that).


 * Finally, he attempted to portray me as a fool, wishing to totally ignore my ideas and assuming that his version of the events were the correct ones:
 * * Whatever you say, friend. The case is closed . Now move on to another topic please, and stop making a fool out of yourself .
 * *You are right, friend. Now please calm down, ok?


 * Several Wikipedist clearly points out this lack of respect against my person and stated their personal opinions, clearly talking to both of us to “calm down” and discuss the issues as persons., ,
 * As expected, the other user involved in this dispute totally ignores their Samaritan contributions . Using nice words, he basically keep stating that he was right and I was wrong, and that I'm the problem in the talk page.

Messhermit regarding sources
The other user clearly tries to surprise the common reader, basically attempting to put words in my mouth. Hence, a clear explanation is needed, that it is provided with the link that the other user is trying you use against my person:

On Ecuadorian propaganda & High School subjects:

 * Most of your editions are based on nationalistic and biased Ecuadorian propaganda (that you most likely learned in your Historia de fronteras subject in High School), and the only sources that you have bear such anti-Peruvian titles that if anything good comes from them, it would be a surprise.


 * I will not deny my words. In fact, it is historically accurate to affirm that between the time that compromises the unilateral nullification of the Rio Protocol and the recent decade, the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education promoted the so called “History of Frontiers /Historia de Fronteras” as a mandatory subject in High School.
 * The purpose of this subject was to present Ecuador as a country that was divided between their neighbors after independence, especially Peru. Now, considering the astonish faith that this Ecuadorian wikipedist has in his own version of this conflict, it is accurate to claim, based on facts, to believe that his views were influenced by this course.
 * Here are some Quotes, that can be found in some of those textbooks:


 * Pronto estalló la guerra civil entre los dos hermanos por la codicia expansionista de Huáscar, que pretendió usurpar la provincia de Cajamarca que pertenecía al Reino de Quito./ Eventually, civil war started between the two brothers. It was "initiated" by Huáscar (Inca Emperor), who attempted to invade and annex the province of Cajamarca. This province belonged to the Kingdom of Quito (?) 
 * Francisco Sampedro in "Geografía histórica territorial del Ecuador/Ecuador's territorial and geographical history".


 * Y siempre hemos continuado con nuestra ingenua actitud de confiar en la buena fe del Perú. Y ver a lo que ha quedado reducido nuestro territorio: a una mínima expresión, en beneficio de la satisfacción del expansionismo sureño"./ We have always acted with ingenuity and good faith with Peru, and at the end this is what has happened to our country (Ecuador): they have reduced our territory to the minimum, fulfilling in this way the expansionist ideals of our southern neighbor (Peru) 
 * César Augusto Benalcázar in "El Ecuador y sus fronteras/The Ecuador and its frontiers".


 * "El Ecuador se encontraba en inminente peligro de desaparecer porque el Perú manifestaba por los cuatro vientos que continuaría la invasión y que no desmayaría hasta poseer todo el suelo ecuatoriano."/ Ecuador was on imminent danger of disappearing as an independent nation; since Peru (according to the Ecuadorian Authorities) was proclaiming that it will not rest until establish possession of the whole territory. 
 * Avellán Z. Alberto in "Historia de límites del Ecuador/History of Ecuadorian frontiers".


 * "Hasta que llegó 1941, en que se produce la agresión peruana, empleándose la modalidad que en esos días empleaban los nazis en Europa./ Thus, we arrive to 1941, the same year in which the Peruvian invasion (to Ecuador) took place, using the same methods and tactics that the Nazis were using in Europe "
 * Francisco Sampedro en "El espacio territorial ecuatoriano/The Ecuadorian territorial space", Editorial Dimaxi.


 * Therefore, The Education provided by the Ecuadorian State has clearly prolonged the conflict.

On Ecuadorian maps in airports:

 * A careful explanation of the usual Ecuadorian map (the ones after the supposed nullification of the Rio Protocol and that they use to have in Guayaquil or Quito's International Airport) clearly includes Jaen.


 * Again, I will not deny my words. However, the following links provides an accurate view of what did I mean talking about the maps provided by the Ecuadorian State: ; ; ;, . With all the maps that I have provided, it is clear that during the whole time that the territorial dispute lasted, these maps were sponsored by the Ecuadorian Government, clearly defying the integrity, independence and sovereignty of Peru.
 * Thus, these maps clearly push a POV, totally ignoring a valid international treaty subscribed by two sovereign and independent countries. This map is clearly offensive in Peru, due to the fact that it only ignites hate against Peruvians.
 * A picture is provided, that clearly presents this idea:
 * What it is even worst, those maps used to be exposed in the International Airport that is located in Quito (or Guayaquil, I don’t remember). Obviously, their objective was to promote a nationalistic POV to any foreigner that is not familiar with the topic.

On the quality of books written by Ecuadorian Politicians:

 * I am providing the following statements:
 * *There is also evidence to suggest that Ecuadorian resistance to resolution in the 1970s and 1980s was almost entirely political, a ploy used by a typically intractable congress eager to obstruct the executive and to earn easy nationalist points (Hey 1995).
 * *Ecuadorian propaganda efforts seem to be inspired by the erroneous idea that if something is repeated frequently enough it is bound to be believed as true in the long run, disregarding how inaccurate, false, or absurd it may be. This reasoning on the part of Ecuador might be correct in the sense that perhaps it may be able to confuse some people into believing that the protocol of Rio de Janeiro reduced its territory and increased Peru's.


 * The previous paragraphs were not written by my person. Those are opinions developed after some research made by American organizations in 1995. Several other investigation trend to reach the same conclusions; that is, that the conflict is used merely with propagandistic aims.
 * Thus, they are NOT my words, as it is clear that they are trying to be used against me.

Messhermit regarding “Good Faith” and Neutral Point of View in the dispute

 * Any edition that lacks a source can be disputed. If sources are not provided, then what would be the quality of the article involved?
 * The first editions that the other user involved in this dispute made did not have any type of source. Therefore, as with any IP users that clearly push an idea, I proceed to revert the page. I cannot provide the links due to the fact that at least 3 different IP Addresses were used to modify the article.
 * Once this user created an account in wikipedia, he still refused to provided sources, rewording the paragraph with information that clearly pushed an Ecuadorian view of the conflict and using different words to portrait a non-existent invasion , , ,.
 * In this case, another Wikipedist (that did not have anything to do with the discussion but clearly detected the POV in the article) attempted to reworded to a more neutral and less conflictive paragraph, but the other user involved in the dispute rapidly revert it.

Messhermit requesting sources to the other party in the dispute:
I will show my words to prove that the lack of sources was the most important obstacle regarding this issue. The other user involved, however, refused to answer my calls several times, trying to confuse the reader by deviating the subject of dispute to my supposed Disruptive behaviour and not his lack of sources:
 * Asking sources. Quoting:
 * You have not provided sources for some of your editions, and anybody who reads them clearly views a Ecuadorian POV. Is that a personal attack?


 * Then, the other party involved attempted to change the discussion and accused me as the "aggressor":
 * Indeed. We are talking about sources and not personal attacks.
 * Once again, since when asking for sources is a personal attack?
 * WRONG, since at any moment I was talking about you. Read the whole thing, and don't try to surprise the reader with this type of sentences. Don't put words in my mouth. That paragraph clearly stated that compared with other BOOKS available in Ecuador, maybe the one from Tobar Donoso is the least worst.
 * The article was in that shape for several months, and I remind you that it was not writed by my person or you. Another Wikipedist used a far more neutral language. So far, no evidence is provided for your claims more than your word that those sources have that material, wich clearly states an Ecuadorian (and thus, not neutral) POV..


 * At this point, I pointed out his lack of neutrality:
 * Because the language that you are using for your editions, it is more than clear that you are pushing a POV; in this case, the ecuadorian one. The article was using a much more neutral language before your editions. Thus, regarding the POV issue, it has nothing to do with your sources.


 * Regarding sources with no online links, I have only asked for Links:
 * BTW, I have never accused you of faking those sources. So far, the only thing that I'm asking for are links, facts and some sort of way that those editions can be verify.
 * Link? Any way to look for your sources? So far I have seen none.
 * The sources that Andres C. is using are nowhere to find. Wikipedia is suppose to give accurate sources to people who can't access that information.
 * In Wikipedia, readers come here for that reason: they can't find sources. Now, you claim that I should read your sources. So every person that reads this article has to that? I'm afraid that you are not getting the right idea then. Besides your word, there is no single proof, once again, that those books contain that information. And if have not notice it, I'm not in Lima. I will not do your homework. It is you, who as a member of wikipedia, provide the ...


 * As stated, I just asked for sources.

Messhermit questioning the POV that the other user involved propose
Some of his first modifications in Wikipedia clearly attempted to portray a nationalistic and pro-Ecuadorian POV. Thus, most of the dispute regarding the articles revolves around the facts that several of his modifications don’t have any sources and that most of them are personal opinions. What type of neutrality can be stated with opinions? None and I will proceed to present evidence that proof this perspective. Quoting

On the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War

 *  Peru unleashed a full-fledged invasion of Ecuadorian territory 
 * The Ecuadorian Army, poorly armed and badly trained, was no match for a Peruvian Army, and Air Force.
 *  Peru launched an invasion of Ecuadorian territory 


 * Some of the books that this user use clearly ha Ecuadorian sources are clearly biased against what is considerated by most historians as: ,

On the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute

 * In this article, the other party involved was clearly trying to state a POV. The objective was to portrait a “weak” and “innocent” Ecuadorian Army against the “war machine” that the Peruvian Army was at that time. Quoting:
 *  In fact, the only artillery in the whole province of El Oro consisted of six Italian 65 mm mountain guns, sold to Ecuador as leftovers from the Great War, and almost without shells. These guns were never put into action.
 * ''(Peru allegedly has one of the strongest military forces in South America), which makes it even less realistic the account that puts the feeble Ecuadorian army of 1941 as the agressor.
 * ''By signing this protocol, about 200,000 km² (77,200 squared miles) of disputed Amazonian territory were awarded to Peru. Actually, considering the status quo line of 1936, Ecuador lost to Peru around 14,000 km2 (5,404 square miles).
 * Even then, hostilities didn't cease, as Peruvian forces began operations against the Ecuadorian posts on the Amazonian jungle, most of which were easily overrun .
 * As support for its arguments Ecuador has repeatedly cited the obvious difference in military might between the two countries, and the lack of preparedness of its forces. Peru was evidently prepared to carry out an all-out invasion and could have been simply waiting for the slightest provocation 


 * He also removed several paragraphs that did not suit his POV:
 * I quote myself once again:
 * "The previous paragraph is more appropiate, hense it should stay as it was way before this whole debate started..."


 * I just stated that the most appropiated one was already in the page. Why create a whole new dispute by putting another paragraph that only promote controversy?
 * Thus, this also another proof of harassment against my person.

On the Falso Paquisha Incident
According to Peruvian sources, the Ecuadorian resistance to the full implementation of the border dermarkation during the 1970s and 1980s was almost entirely due to domestic political struggles.
 * Also, using stating sources that cannot be verify and stating personal opinions that are not backed up by any independent research.

On the Cenepa War

 * The whole article itself its a proof of Ecuadorian irredentism, stated in such a clear way that several times the notice warning about "NPOV" has being stated there. The article itself has an "owner", clearly the other Wikipedist involved in this dispute.
 * His way to operate its simple: someone modify the article, regardless if is good or bad information, the "owner" revert it without any warning.
 * The only thing that I can do is to state that the Neutrality of the article is in question [], and this was not well recieved by the other Wikipedist involved in this discussion.
 * I have not being able to do any modifications to the article due to the fact that the other user involved will not allow me to remove the paragraphs that are clearly POV and not part of any serious and accurate research. Quoting myself:
 * I have not realiced that this article had soo much POV. Hense, the NPOV tag is placed.
 * 2 versions in a single article cannot exist. This only leads to confusion. Therefore, paragraphs that have a certain ammount of POV must be removed.


 * It is illegal to complain about the neutrality of an article? Does the fact that someone does not agree with the OPINION (because the article does estate several of those) is some sort of proof regarding my so-called "Disruptive Behavior"?
 * I have not modify the article, I have just stated its impartiality.
 * Thus, I reaffirm my doubts in the neutrality of this user in the Ecuadorian-Peruvian Related topics.

Messhermit regarding What Wikipedia is not

 * Once again, I have to clarify my words:
 * "Wikipedia must not allow two versions because the only thing that creates is more confusion to the reader."
 * "2 versions in a single article cannot exist. This only leads to confusion. Therefore, paragraphs that have a certain ammount of POV must be removed.".


 * The other user involved in this dispute clearly attemts to corrupt my own words (once again), portraying them as some sort of distortion of Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Quoting Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list :
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.


 * The Ecuadorian Version that the other user involved in this dispute promote is only supported by a minority of the less than 13 million of Ecuadorians around the world.
 * On the other hand, the International Community and the vast mayority of the 27 millon of peruvians supported the legality of the Rio Protocol and a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Messhermit regarding dubious attempts of Madiation

 * Regarding a certain Request for Mediation before the Mediation Committee, *I used the followed expresions:
 * "Nothing good will come from a mediation that use as base your own editions of this article."
 * "...as my way to protest against [my] unilateralism" ,


 * However, previously to that, the Ecuadorian Wikipedist stated this:
 * You did not accept it because you already know that nothing good will come out of it. Ouch!


 * I procced to ask now: With such previous statement, clearly stating that the idea "YOU (in this case me) are gonna lose while I'm gonna win", what type of mediation can I expect?
 * It is not against Wikipedia's rules to refuse a mediation.

Messhermit regarding a so-called "International Dispute" in Wikipedia

 * The following articles are presented as evidence against my person:
 * As any other person. I have tried to warn the people involved in the "Wikiproyect Peru" about the dispute, since several of peruvian-related articles are in such poor condition and without any type of care that they are easily corrupt.
 * Thus, I have not commited anything that any other wikipedist can do. It is not illegal and it is not against any rule.

Messhermit accuses Andres C. of stalking

 * The following links that the other user involved in this dispute had provided (,, .) are a clear example of stalking.
 * Unable to prove most of his points, He has going so low as to record every single movement that I made in the other Wikipedias in which I’m involved, violating my privacy and clearly attempting to hamper my contributions in the net.
 * I also accuse Andres C. regarding the clear violation of the |Wikipedia is not a battleground rules.
 * Thus, I accuse this user of promoting a persecution against my person on the grounds that I do not agree with his ideas.

Conclusion
My defense has presented enough evidence and data that clearly reveals the true nature of the other user involved in this dispute. Therefore, I reaffirm that I’m innocent of all the accusations that he has made against my person so far. Thus, I finally have to state some points:
 * He fails to present evidence strong enough to accuse me of disruptive behavior
 * He manipulates the information by presenting himself as a moderator and compromiser, while only providing information that totally ignores his behavior and puts me in a bad light.
 * He attempts to present Point of Views instead of accurate information.
 * He attempts to confuse any possible reader of the articles by providing information that clearly benefits his Ecuadorian stance.
 * He attempts to portray a victorious Ecuador and only works in articles that are related with the Ecuadorian Military.
 * He stalks me, tracking every single movement that I made in Wikipedia English & Spanish, violating my privacy.

I must ask a strong reprimand regarding the behavior of the other user involved in this dispute. If he learns to work with the community and not to confront every single person that does not agree with his ideas, he may become a valuable person in the community.

If I am banned from making contributions to any Ecuadorian-Peruvian Topic, I claim for justice and ask that the same penalty must be applied to the Ecuadorian Wikipedist.

I hereby conclude my defense. Messhermit 15:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding supposed "old material"

 * The other Wikipedist attempts to imply that the information that I use does not belongs to the main reason behind this RFA.
 * However, I must point out that several links that he uses against my person are from that period of time too.

Regading the editions of the Cenepa War

 * Once again, my words are being used with the ovbious intention to put me in a bad spot.
 * "Rv dubious information.


 * However, the whole phrase, complete, tells another story:
 * "Rv dubious information . Also, Battle of Portete de Tarqui was a Great Colombian Victory" .


 * As stated, the first modifications were made with the clear intention to portray a "victorios" Ecuador in this undeclared war and a clear attemp to tie up this innacurate view with another historical battle that has nothing to do with Ecuador (since Ecuador at that time was not independent and the Great Colombian Federation existed). Messhermit 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "I too have encountered difficulty not, with this user, only, but with every Wikipedist from Peru, if you dont believe me check yourself.

Another thing is, Peru has always made claims that favor them, and their media is the most nationalistic of south america, there news papers, and magazine, publish unsource information that favors them, as they have done, with Ecuador-Peru war, Gran Colombo War, and lately the limitography of the waters between Peru and Chile. It is safe to say that Peru has had a war with everysingle one of it's neighbors over territory.

Refering to the Great Colombian Federation which Peru claims Ecuador was non existent, it's base is purely on their judgement, which has been contradicted by every single nation in the world. Ecuador did exist, they were part, integrated, not fused, as was venezuela, but not Panama with was a province of Colombia. Besides the borders were already settled then, and their claims todays is the only way for Peru to justify foolish acts of expansion. Ecuador was solely the defeated country at war, and any of their propaganda proofs their views towards their neighbor nations. Peruvian propaganda brainwashes their children, and their attitudes are solely nationalistic with no NPOV. Another point is every country in the world except for Peru recognized Ecuador as it once was. Peru intends to change this by contradicting history, and placing farfetch information and conclusion that favor them in their call for resonable expansion.

For all the is rational and based on NPOV, I say Messhermit should be banned along with his IP, in all other languages as well, because i know of his existence in the Spanish Wiki as well.

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertio
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks