Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Evidence

MarshalN20's section
Dear Committee. I was wondering if it could please be required that, when submitting diffs and other evidence, it all be dated at least with the year and preferably with the month & year. I think that this is important to help the Committee better understand the users' behavior, find trends, and distinguish between past & present behavior. Thanks!-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. Not sure what you're looking for - the diffs all already have a date and we will know to look out for really old matters. I'm about to post a short case scope statement which might also cover this concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I was not sure if it would make it easier for the Committee to provide the dates in the evidence list, but your reply addresses my concern. Also, I was wondering how much evidence should we provide for the Committee? Is the Committee conducting its own separate investigation the matter? Sincerely.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 22:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Committee is likely to review the editing history of both case participants, but we rely on the submitted evidence to give pointers to what the dispute is about. So you don't need to provide every single example you can find to support your argument, just sufficient to (in your view) make the case you want to make. As you know, the Committee is specifically not looking at the actual content issue; it's entirely about editor conduct and how it affects productive contributions. See the case scope I just posted on the /Evidence page for more. In passing this concept of posting case scope is a new one (or a really old one revived), so views welcome on the wording and how useful this is in defining what we are all here for. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the scope is useful, and I also appreciate your effective responses in the talk page. Nonetheless, I do hope that the content issue does get a strong consideration. The main content issue here is with regards to the economic causes of the war. I think the evidence shows that Keysanger seeks to eliminate Chile's economic ambitions over the nitrate fields of the Atacama, and instead he wants to place greater blame on an alleged Peruvian nitrate conspiracy. My position is that Chile's expansionist ambitions are the mainstream historical view on the matter, and that the Peruvian nitrate conspiracy is a fringe view.
 * I think that made a comparison of this matter with that of the US Civil War. My view is that allowing Keysanger to continue giving undue weight to fringe perspectives is akin to allowing the "states rights" and "war of northern aggression" narrative to have equal or greater weight than the mainstream view that places the US Civil War with the American South's fear of losing their slaves.
 * Behavior-wise, I think that this matter closely relates to the misuse of sources. If an editor is simply piling sources without reading the content or presenting fringe material as mainstream, then this poor academic behavior should not be tolerated. This directly affects the encyclopedic quality (reliability) of Wikipedia.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 22:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, to a point. I suppose what I'm saying is we won't pass a decision saying there was or was not a Peruvian nitrate conspiracy. But we might or might not find that disruptive editing is occurring through deliberate misuse of WP:RS. Important however to stress the "might not" as well as the "might" - this post is a hypothetical to explain the committee's role, it is very definitely not a comment on the evidence so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Euryalus; I understand.🙂 Please do let me know if there is anything about it that I can help clear up.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 00:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm very confused by the evidence submitted by Keysanger. It seems to me that he is making several strange conjectures and providing diffs that don't support his contentions. I don't think his request for a 6000 word evidence extension is justifiable, and urge the Committee to please look at the diffs before reaching any conclusions.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I think that he is misusing this talk page to post his "evidence" when that should be done in the mainpage.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Cherrypicking - Just to clarify that knowing how to use online databases (including the Google search engine) to find information is most certainly not cherrypicking. It's also not some secret magic that only I know; even Google teaches you how to search their database . At what point do absurd accusations in the evidence page become personal attacks?-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 23:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As I just noted below, we've granted Keysanger an extension to 3,000 words and 300 diffs. You may also take advantage of this extension if you wish. I disagree that the cherrypicking accusation is a personal attack, but we will of course consider whether or not provided evidence actually shows the behavior described. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was wondering, could I add as evidence the behavior exhibited during the request phase?-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 07:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's admissible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . However, on second thought, I think that we have all witnessed the other party's behavior during the Request Phase. I think highlighting it again is repetitive and disrespectful to the Committee's intellect.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 08:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: I can't understand how articles like Morenada and Kullawada relate to this matter at all. I also read far too many content-related matters that I don't know whether or not to respond or to ignore; especially since the Committee has made it quite clear to both parties that it won't get involved in content-related matters. I'm so very confused by all of this.😐-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 18:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, in response to the statements about my actions in relation to the role of British Imperialism during the War of the Pacific, I can cite PJ Cain's and AG Hopkins' British Imperialism, 1688-2015 (Routledge, 2016), which discusses the War of the Pacific and explains that the war was not "provoked by a conspiracy of financial interests" from the UK, but that there was a "benign neutrality" (favorable to Chile) during the conflict and support from British creditors and bondholders. Keysanger would have you believe that there was no support from Britain for Chile.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If the Committee is going to allow Keysanger to continue defaming my account with strange conjectures, then please hereby consider my participation in this matter done. I trust that the Committee will make the right decisions, but—at this time—I don't have anything else to add in this matter, and I will not respond to any of the absurd allegations made against me by a user with a grudge who obviously has no intention to stop. All I have to say about my past behavior is that I learned from my mistakes, continued striving towards making Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia (feel free to send all of my three featured articles to WP:FAR, if there are any doubts), and will continue to productively participate in the project with my account. With utmost respect and sincerity.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 08:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am trying to allow some amount of leeway with evidence, largely because I've found it's easiest to just have the ArbCom sort through it all and distinguish credible evidence from unfounded statements during the PD stage (with the exception of obviously defamatory claims, though I'm not sure the one you mention qualifies). Please do trust that the Arbitration Committee does not take statements given during the evidence phase as fact without evaluating the diffs to back it up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the need for leeway, but do find it worrisome for the other party to abuse this to make derogatory remarks about my account. The other party clearly finds anything that I do a Machiavellian master plan. I'm not a mastermind. That's frankly giving me way too much credit as an intellectual. While I certainly regret past actions, I've had time to reflect on them and redefine my role in Wikipedia. Yeah, during the 2013-2015 period I still had some issues to work out with the topic ban, but the Committee in 2015 made a decision to lift the ban (in spite of opposition from Keysanger) based on my work and then an entire year passed when nothing was presented to re-instate it. What I see now is a user (Keysanger) who purposely sabotaged two mediation attempts to continue his battleground attitude towards me, using the Arbitration's evidence phase to expound the strange ideas he has about me and those who agree with me.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 18:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment on Keysanger's Evidence 10: Looking over the 10th evidence, I find no justification for Keysanger's accusation that I "fabricate references". A couple of the references existed at some point before they became deadlinks, and Soto's book can be accessed in full PDF format. Soto's book, titled British Influence over Saltpeter (Influencia Britanica en el Salitre) is most certainly not tangentially related to the War of the Pacific, which is also known as the "Saltpeter War". None of these sources were made-up; therefore, they were not fabricated.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Fascism: I honestly don't appreciate the comments made about me with regards to fascism. kindly reverted Keysanger's first accusation, and left a clear warning on his user talk page . Keysanger's response was to revert and add material that in no way, shape, or form justifies such a personal attack on my account . I'm simply amazed at the amount of lies and hatred aimed towards me.-- MarshalN20  ✉🕊 20:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Keysanger's section
I published eight of my shortest Evidences and overloaded the allowed 1000 words by 49 items. You can see that the evidence can't be shortened. I ask the Arbitration Committee to allow me 6000 words. -- Keysanger (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Request more space for MarshalN20's actions

For example, I can't shorten following evidence:

See most of the Evidence in User:Keysanger/sandbox5.

I think it is better a few words more and less work for the ArbCom that the reverse, few words here and much work for the ArbCom. -- Keysanger (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you have to make sure that the investigation doesn't deviate to a content dispute in the case of the Causes of the War of the Pacific.
 * Causes of the war

I have invited Dentren and MarshalN20 two times to resolve the content dispute. User Dentren has refused to participate the two times. User MarshalN20 refused the first time and screwed up the second with his rant.
 * 1) Requests for mediation/Undue weight and original research in the Causes of the War of the Pacific
 * 2) Requests for mediation/Causes of the War of the Pacific (2.)

Now, the ArbCom deals with a personal dispute, and MarshalN20 has to explain why he refused the first one and screwed up the second one.

I think it is too late for MarshalN20 for a content dispute. He should have thought it before.

-- Keysanger (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm discussing the extension with the other arbitrators. I'm generally happy to grant extensions, but 6,000 words seems like too much. For now I would recommend you go through your evidence and trim down some of the sections focusing on old behavior. Although we will take into account patterns of behavior starting a long time ago, extremely detailed evidence on behavior years ago is not as useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with GorillaWarfare's comment above. Keysanger, also agree with your comment that this case is about the patterns of conduct and not the underlying content per se. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We agreed that 6,000 words is far too long; however, we will grant you 3,000 words and 300 diffs. This extension is also available to MarshalN20 if he wishes to use it. Pinging the so they're aware of this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a quick reminder that use of userpages for the submission of evidence is prohibited and should be removed as soon as possible. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I published in the project page my first 16 Evidences. Please, let me know if you have some reading comprehension problems, it could be my English. I am ready to respond for all my contributions to Wikipedia before, during and after the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History and in any page. I urge the ArbCom to make an inquiry of any doubt about my behavior, but I don’t respond for what other editors may have said about me. I respond for Keysanger’s deeds, that is diffs. I expect the Arbitration Committee attests to the truth of my evidence and if needed, to ask for more information. -- Keysanger (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC) We all agree that this is a Personal Dispute and as such it has a credibility component. There have been several texts and excerpts that been cited in different evidence items. In order to facilitate the work of the committee I propose that the clerks publish the complete passage (cited and non-cited) with the book data in the Workshop page. That would looks like:
 * Cites in Workshop
 * Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, 1927, page 8
 * I know the objections which will be raised against this assertions. It will be said that the characteristic of human masses despicted here, which is supposed to prove that coercion cannot be dispensed with in the work of civilization, is itself only the result of defects in the cultural regulations, owing to which men have become embittered, revengeful and inaccesible.

That would free the ArbCom from looking in internet or public libraries the complete references and they could better and quickly appreciate the correctness, misrepresentation or falsity of the citations. Of course, both parties would present the desired quotations. -- Keysanger (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Im not sure the insertion of entire quotes etc by the clerks is within our remit, if you wish to include something in the workshop phase then this would need to be added by yourself. The clerks are responsible for maintaining order general housekeeping and the enforcement of decisions with regards to the pages not evidence submissions or proxy editing for other users. Amortias (T)(C) 14:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we can finish the translation of MarshalN20's contrib to the Spanish Wikipedia in the Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific: Muddle is good for "anudar" (to make knots) and I recommend that you document all of yourtheir actions. is "his actions", that is my actions in Spanish Wikipedia. I hope it is the last time we have to do with that kind of texts. Kind regards, -- Keysanger (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Translation for the posterity

Evidence phase closing soon
Hello parties and others, the evidence phase for this case is closing at 23:59 (UTC) today. Please submit evidence before then. After the evidence phase is closed, your contributions at the workshop are still valued. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kevin.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 20:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)