Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A Question from Andrés C.

Hello. I have a question to the members of the Committee regarding the Arbitration Procedure. The Proposed decision page for this case has two Proposed Findings of Facts and one Proposed Remedy that were directly added to the page without first appearing on the Workshop page. They are:

  • The Proposed Findings of Facts:
    • Edit warring by Andres C., added on May 3, 2006 [1], by Arbitrator Dmcdevit.
    • Incivility by Andres C., added on May 10, 2006 [2], by Arbitrator Mindspillage.
  • The Proposed Remedy:
    • Andres C. placed on Probation, added on May 3, 2006 [3], by Arbitrator Dmcdevit.

My question is: Where may I put my comments on these proposals, so the Arbitration Committee can read them? I did not have the opportunity to do so in the Workshop page. Thank you -Andrés C. 16:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment should go here, I did not make those proposals as it seemed that Messhermit was the main source of trouble. However, I have gone along with them as you were edit warring. Fred Bauder 14:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Question from Messhermit

To whom it may concern:

As stated before, in order to this RFA against my person to be "fair", "neutral" and "balance", I have to point out an important issue that is being (apparently without the knowledge of the Committee) omitted:

  • Proposed remedies:
    • Messhermit banned from Peru-Ecuador conflict

Thus, I have to ask for fair treatment. In this sense, I request that the same penalty that is proposed (being unable to edit Peruvian-Ecuadorian topics here in Wikipedia) be also effective against the other party involved in this dispute; that is, Andres C.

My reasons are based on the following premises:

  1. Andres C. fails to respect my editions [4].
  2. Andres C. fails to respect my person [5].
  3. Andres C. fails to respect my knowledge in Latin American History [6].
  4. Andres C. fails to understand the concept of neutrality in every single the Peruvian-Ecuadorian related topics, modifying them in order to present a clearly pro-Ecuadorian stand in Wikipedia [7]
  5. Andres C. fails to understand that Wikipedia is not only focused on Ecuadorian Military articles, since most of his contributions revolve around that idea [8]

Having stated this, it is reasonable to say that Andres C. has committed the same mistakes that I have made during the whole dispute in the Ecuadorian-Peruvian articles. Thus, I have to ask for the same penalty to be applied against his person.

Thank you. Messhermit 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Andres C. on Proposed Decisions

As suggested by Fred Bauder, I put my comments on this Talk Page for the Proposed Findings of Facts and Remedies that did not appear on the Workshop page.

[edit] On Proposed Finding of Fact: Incivility by Andres C.

As the case is coming now to a close, with the Proposed Remedy Andres C. placed on Probation for one year being supported unanimously by all Arbitrators, I would like the Arbitrators to please consider this statement.

The Evidence against me is clear
There is no denying that I did engage in personal attacks toward Messhermit in the past. Moreover, I was forthcoming about these incidents when I presented the Request for Arbitration (please see here). The evidence is clear on that point. Still, as the editor who brought forward this case before the Committee, I would like to express some thoughts on the matter.

From Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers:
"We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things."

As you can gather from the links posted by both Messhermit and I on the Proposed Decision page, all these instances of incivility toward him happened during our previous dispute, back in October 2005, when I was new to Wikipedia, unfamiliar with the kinds of heated debates/disputes that can take place here, and the mechanisms that Wikipedia has in place for the resolution of disputes. I was caught off-balance, and I reacted wrongly as the dispute began to escalate.

From Wikipedia: Avoiding common mistakes:
"Newcomers to Wikipedia may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. [...] Here are a few common ones you might try to avoid: 4. Taking it too seriously: Aiming for war".

While I did not “aim for war” on Messhermit, as I didn’t know him when I began to edit on Wikipedia, I did make the mistake of taking it too seriously when my first edits were reverted with edit summaries of “dubious information” or “another example of POV pushing”. And I took it too seriously for the very reason that the accusation of "POV pushing" by Messhermit meant to me that something wrong was going on with the kind of information that fellow editors allowed to be posted on the articles about the Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute. In this case, as the Evidence presented by both Messhermit and I demonstrates, there is/was a problem regarding the appropriateness of including of the Ecuadorian point of view on the matter, which is what I was doing, or trying to do.

What steps did I take to correct my previous mistakes, and to avoid repeating them in the future?

  • One simple, albeit important step: Familiarizing myself with the official policy for the the resolution of disputes, and taking good care to follow this policy in case I found myself in the middle of another dispute in Wikipedia. As it happened, in March 2006, I got involved in another dispute with Messhermit, and over the same cluster of articles. Once again, at the core of the problem was—as the Evidence brought forward by both Messhermit and I shows—my alleged intention to corrupt the articles about the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute by pushing a Ecuadorian POV with biased and baseless arguments.

I followed each and every step Wikipedia recommends for the Resolution of Disputes
As is shown on the Request for Arbitration and the Evidence pages for this case, I conducted myself in this dispute according to the official policies of Wikipedia.

  • Full Protection: On March 13, I requested that the article affected by the dispute (History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute) be placed under Full Protection [9] to bring to an end an edit war, as Wikipedia suggests.
  • Request for Mediation: On the same day, I also filed a Request for Mediation [10], which was unfortunately turned down by Messhermit. Please note that I have presented the diffs having to do with the Request for Mediation in chronological order in this section of the Evidence Page.
  • Request for Comments: On March 14, with the Request for Mediation turned down, I filed a Request for Comments [11].
  • Talk Page: As was shown with several diffs on the Evidence page, both Neurodivergent, Pvt Mahoney and I tried unsuccesfully to reach a consensus with Messhermit on the wording of the paragraph that caused the dispute.
  • Request for Arbitration: which is what I asked for after all previous mechanisms failed to resolve the dispute between Messhermit and I.


Final Comments Please consider that at no point during this two-month dispute was I uncivil. At no point did I resort to personal attacks of any kind. Had I done so, Messhermit would have had no trouble posting the corresponding evidence. My answers to Messhermit's sad remarks about Ecuador (which can be seen also on the Evidence he brought forward), about my alleged POV-pushing, or about me lying regarding sources, were those that Wikipedia considers appropriate.

Thank you for bearing with me this (lenghty) statement. Andrés C. 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)