This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template

1) This is a draft of a template that may be added on the Talk Pages of the articles on the Ecuadorian-Peruvian border dispute.

Hello and Welcome! This the talk page of the [[{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}]] article, part of the series of articles on the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian Border Dispute.

This being a subject with potential for controversy, here are a couple of suggestions that you may find useful when editing the article or making entries on this Talk Page: Respect etiquette and assume good faith at all times. Also, be nice and remain civil. Avoid making rude or judgmental comments in edit summaries. Do not engage in edit wars. Remember the meaning of the neutral point of view. The issue at hand will always have conflicting views and interpretations, and chances are you will strongly disagree with some of them. Take extra care to allow for all views to be adequately presented on the article, even for those you believe to be "wrong". Don't forget to make use of reputable and reliable sources.

Regards. Andrés C. 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision Information

Assume good faith

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reliable sources

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biased editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I concur. I made the decision to present this matter before the Committee only after having attempted all other means for Resolving Disputes, as shown in the Evidence page [1]. The need to try all other means for resolving all disputes (which I think is the right way to proceed) has the unfortunate drawback of prolonging said dispute even for months, even when one of the parties (or all of them) are fully aware that the matter is so severe than it will only be resolved by the Arbitration Committee, especially in cases of interpersonal disputes. As such, the editor that takes the initiative to present the case before the Committee has the disadvantage of knowing that, by doing so, he is also risking measures being taken against himself, due to the very nature of the Arbitration, even if it has been proven that no other method could resolve the dispute.

An example of such a paradoxical situation is happening here where I, after taking all the steps Wikipedia advises on the matter of resolving disputes (from requesting that a disputed article be protected to end an edit war, all the way to asking for help from the Mediation Committee), and after presenting the case to the ArbCom, am also risking sanctions imposed on me, even when the other party, who turned down the intervention of the Mediation Committee, is not even showing up before this Committee. I should perhaps add that, by saying this, I am not contesting the wisdom of any sanctions being imposed against me, for I was fully aware of the risk of such an event happening during the Arbitration. Still, this made me think about the need of Wikipedia setting up perhaps some sort of Compulsory Mediation (something that fills the gap between a Request for Mediation and a Request for Arbitration) in cases where it is obvious that no other means can put an end to a personal dispute involving not only edit warring but insulting remarks as well. Andrés C. 22:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

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

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Need to identify and incorporate the other side. Fred Bauder 12:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

So far, there are five articles dealing with this particular topic in Wikipedia, all of them at different stages of development, at least one of them likely to be considered more a stub than an article: (1) History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute, (2) Ecuadorian-Peruvian war, (3) Paquisha Incident, (4) Cenepa War, (5) Rio Protocol. It is likely that all of them, and any future articles dealing with the same subject (i.e., the wars of 1828-29 and 1859-60, the failed Spanish Arbitration, the Peace Treaty of 1998, others) may see heated exchanges between Ecuadorians and Peruvians, with the implicit danger of particular editors, from whatever side, trying to impose a single point of view, to the exclusion of alternative interpretations.

While almost all of these articles have been affected by the dispute, at the core of this last incident was the intention of one editor (myself) to modify a single paragraph on the article History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute, to include information that another editor (Messhermit) interpreted as biased (please see the Evidence page). -- Andrés 19:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Failure of Messhermit to assume good faith

2) Messhermet fails to assume good faith, regarding Andres_C. as an opponent [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Who is he addressing? Fred Bauder 12:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Andres_C. Fred Bauder 12:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Messhermit refuses to accept sources

3) Messhermit, for whatever reason, has internet access but does not seem to have good access to the written sources [9] cited by Andres C., and is not willing to accept them, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit/Evidence#Messhermit_has_repeatedly_called_into_question_my_good_faith.2C_and_misinterprets_Wikipedias.27_policy_on_Verifiability and [10]. Andres C.'s citations are not detailed, being only to books rather than to specific passages in specific books, but are generally acceptable [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] [18], [19], and [20].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Messhermit

4) Messhermit has made personal attacks [21], [22], [23], and [24].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While personal attacks are by themselves a very serious matter, their impact on the intented target depend on the degree to which that editor permits insults from an unknown person to affect him/her. On the other hand, and please allow me state this as clearly as I can, mocking/sneering/ridiculing or outright insulting remarks made against the country of origin of an editor are a totally different matter. This, much more than any personal attack, is what I found most disgusting about my dispute with editor Messhermit.

If anything good comes out of this dispute and this Arbitration case, I really hope it is the creation of a precedent that, at some point, will evolve into an official policy that absolutely prohibits editors from making insulting or sarcastic attacks against the country of origin of any other editor in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never ever allow editors to engage in such activities, and I hope it does not happen to anyone in Wikipedia, not even to Messhermit, who made those remarks about my country. Thank you. Andrés C. 22:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Messhermit and NPOV

5) Messhermit either misunderstands or opposes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring by Messhermit

6) Messhermit has engaged in sustained edit warring [31] and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit/Evidence#Messhermit_violates_Wikipedia.27s_official_policy_on_Resolving_disputes_and_disregards_Wikipedia.27s_guidelines_on_Wikiquette_and__Reaching_Consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Messhermit and dispute resolution

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

This should have been resolved by mediation. Fred Bauder 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Messhermit banned from Peru-Ecuador conflict

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties: I think this is the most logical solution to the problem at hand. I have seen this issue develop over many months now. The user Messhermit appears to be unable to understand that Andres C does make contributions in good faith, verifiable, and of good quality. The same cannot abour Messhermit. Dragonlord kfb 08:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Messhermit placed on probation

2) Messhermit is placed on probation for five years. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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:

Enforcement by block

1) If a ban imposed by this decision is violated, Messhermit may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

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

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

*A statement of mine on the Proposed Finding of Fact Incivility by Andres C. may be found on the Talk Page of the Proposed Decision page. Thanks. Andrés C. 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others: