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

The Evidence phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations. In this case, the evidence length and diff limits will be vigorously enforced by the clerks. The Committee has indicated that it will be receptive to requests for extensions made in advance on the talk page by those seeking to present evidence in excess of the above-stated limits.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

1. Peruvian nitrate monopoly: Keysanger presented "the attempts by the Peruvian government in the 1870s to create a monopoly" ([1]), despite the fact that prominent historians dismiss this view as fringe (Robert N. Burr defines it as: "an alleged conspiracy to destroy Chilean nitrate operations and establish Peruvian predominance" in By Reason or Force (1974), pp. 138-139) and the state monopoly was established in 1875 (see David P. Werlich, Peru: A Shorty History (1978), p. 101).
2. War of the Pacific: POV pushes the above Peruvian monopoly fringe conspiracy view into the article, despite Ronald Bruce St. John is cited: "persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten-centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced" ([2]).
3. War of the Pacific: Undue weight is placed on a single author's opinion and cites the incorrect page numbers, please also see Dentren's text in the same diff ([3]).
4. War of the Pacific: Removes sourced material on Chilean's views of racial supremacy over Peruvians and Bolivians during and after the war ([4]).
5. War of the Pacific: Systematically removes references to Chile's economic needs and interests ([5], [6], [7]), including the entire removal of the sourced economic section about Chile ([8]). Keysanger then throws out Chile's economic rationale for war altogether ([9], [10]). To understand why all of this is horribly wrong, please read (p. 193) from the Chile Reader published by Duke University Press in 2014 ([11]) and the Encyclopedia of the Developing World (p. 1483) from 2006 ([12]).
6. Economic history of Chile: Keysanger edit wars his economic view of the war into the article "to deprioritize one reason" ([13], [14], [15], [16]). Dismisses opposing viewpoint as "marxist historians" ([17]), which unnecessarily politicizes the subject.
7. Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru): In spite of a successful move request to the current title ([18]), Keysanger refuses to drop the stick ([19]) and pushes for what he thinks "is another name, much more common" ([20]). He pushes this point by piling 8 sources to his preferred title ([21]). How is this misuse of sources? None of the sources he cites support his view; they are simply instances where the word "secret" comes up in relation to the treaty. This is why Keysanger hasn't filed a new Requested Move and why he then lies to KDS4444 ("I have not challenged the technical title of the article" [22]).

1. "If you delete my references againg you will be banned of the english wikipedia." ([23])
2. "I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia" ([24]).
3. Harangue against Dentren, Darkness Shines, Eddy Ramirez, and myself: [25]
4. Removes sourced material claiming it was "non-referenced" ([26]), because they were backed by Peruvian sources ([27], [28]).
5. Keysanger "fires" mediator Alex Harvey ([29]). Alex commented on Keysanger's making contentious edits without edit summaries ([30]), edit warring ([31]), frivolous RfC's ([32]), anti-consensus forum-shopping ([33]), refusal to get the point ([34]), tendentious editing ([35]), misrepresentation of others' views ([36]), manipulation of sources ([37]), battleground mentality ([38]).
6. At Talk:Economic history of Chile/Mediation, refuses mediation by Steven Crossin ([39]) because Steven wanted to avoid overly verbose walls of text, which is Keysanger's modus operandi to derail discussions ([40]).
7. Also in Economic History of Chile: Failed mediation ([41]) by Kharkiv07 . Mediation failed again because of Keysanger. I count 5 or 6 failed mediation attempts due to Keysanger (Alex Harvey, Fifelfoo, Kharkiv07, Steven Crossin, and the two recent cases closed by Transporterman).

1. "we have to take care not to insult the intelligence of other people." ([42])
2. "Don't You want to have a WP:NPOV?" ([43])
3. "you want to be famous and Wikipedia:Be bold yourself?" ([44]).
4. "Hmm, is that your understanding of Wikipedia's neutrality imperative?" ([45])
5. "Thank you MarshalN20 for freeing us from the darkness, Now we know the ligth of your words, your mind is iluminating our way to the future, please continue your work in other articles, we already free. you are Wikipedia's Liberator!!!" ([46])
6. Taunts me ([47]); Alex agrees taunting is unnecessary ([48]).
7. "http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Shallow-brained . Talk to me, if you need more English." ([49])
8. "Have you told another lies to Wikipedia? Are you liying now? Thanks for your sincerity, if any." ([50])
9. "M20, your English is ramshackle, but you can also do something with us." ([51])
10. Calls me a "fanatic and arrogant ignorant" ([52]).

1. "I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact." ([53])
2. Anti-consensus edit warring ([54]).
3. Forum shopping ([55]).
4. Uses Language Reference desk to gain "support" against consensus ([56])
5. "I think that Keysanger is systematically pushing War of the Pacific things in favour of Chile" ([57])
6. Boasts about editing conflicts and recommends less editors in discussion that disagree with his POV: [58]
7. Downplays the economic aspect of a conflict over mineral resources also known as the Saltpeter War: "The true causes of the conflict are not economic but geopolitical" [59]
8. Deletes sourced material on Chilean racism against Peruvians and Bolivians during the war and in its aftermath ([60])
9. Downplays Bolivia's lack of access to the Pacific Ocean as only an "emotional issue" ([61]), then tags it as POV because he didn't get his way ([62]), and finally modifies it entirely to remove material that does not fit his POV ([63]).
10. Imposes Chilean photographs as the main source of visual aid for the article ([64])

1. "Keysanger is clearly missing the point about references here, which in turn, is stalling this whole discussion with redundant arguments." ([65])
2. On July 2009, I detail Keysanger's disruptive behavior. Keysanger mockingly replies: "LOL" ([66]). Does he enjoy upsetting editors?
3. Refusal to understand the importance of readability (WP:READABLE) for articles ([67]).
4. Removes fair criticism, claiming it to be a "personal attack" ([68]); Dentren disagrees with Keysanger ([69]), but I in good faith rewrite material ([70]).
5. Refuses to get the point about the fringe conspiracy theory ([71]).
6. The user Alvaro Arditi ([72]), who has interacted with Keysanger in the Spanish Wikipedia, tells me the following information in Spanish ([73]); a translation of the most important part: "I'd only like the point out that, at least in my opinion, the problem [with Keysanger] is not so much that he is inclined towards the Chilean version, because that can be solved by placing the Peruvian version by its side, but rather that this user is citing Peruvian sources in an incomplete manner and engaging in tendentious editing, this is so that he can make believe that one or another Peruvian author is also in agreement with the Chilean perspective. For example, he cites Basadre in an incomplete manner, and takes Contreras and Bonilla out of context; context is very important [...] Anyhow, I'll make sure to expose all of these points in the discussion [in the Spanish Wikipedia]. I'm just giving you a heads up. Greetings."

1. Justifies excessive tagging, "Now you see waht taht means." ([74]) "every tag is necessary" ([75])
2. Refuses to remove tags, despite consensus against them ([76])
3. Creates a POV content fork ([77], [78],[79])
4. Tags article as fringe, despite authors not being fringe ([80]), just because he disagrees with them.

1. 3 editors comment on Keysanger's article ownership ([81])
2. Deletes good faith contribution of Tobby72 without a valid explanation ([82]); especially when comparing the poor image use imposed by Keysanger in the article ([83]). Wikimedia Commons has dozens of paintings that could help illustrate the War of the Pacific ([84]), but Keysanger refuses to use them.
3. Removes tags, falsely claiming no reason was presented in talk page ([85])

1. Removal of tags ([86], [87], [88], [89]).— no block was applied.

1. Accuses me of source manipulation, then reverts ([90])
2. Accuses Arbitration Committee of favoritism ([91])
3. Accuses me of "screwing up" formal mediation ([92]), when it is blatantly evident that mediation was closed "due to conditional acceptance by filing party" and "with prejudice against refilling by this filing party" ([93])
4. Claims that the 2016 Mediation process went as follows ([94]): Treaty of Defensive Alliance -> Undue Weight & OR in Causes War Pacific -> Causes War Pacific (2). However, the actual process was Undue Weight & OR (March 2016) -> Treaty of Defensive Alliance (1 December 2016) -> Causes War Pacific ([95]) -> Causes War Pacific 2 ([96]). I don't know why Keysanger is now trying to confuse the Committee on the dates, but this type of lying and muddling of situations is already too common when interacting with Keysanger.

While reading a few of the diffs presented by Keysanger, I was able to again find the policy on how other editors should treat (or rather, not mistreat) Wikipedians with bans on their account (see WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED). To quote it: "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them."

As I pointed out in the main case page, Keysanger has made it his duty to use the ban as a way to bait and mock me throughout Wikipedia. Even in this very Arbitration Evidence phase he continues to mock my previous topic ban, clearly with the intention of upsetting me. Here are some other examples:

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99] Links to Committee ban in Spanish Wikipedia user talk page, to harass me and engage in name-calling (deriding me as a "big-eared donkey")
4. [100]
5. [101]

My interpretation of the policy is that topic bans should not be used to intimidate or mock fellow editors. Keysanger has used the ban to deride my account with impunity. I think that the Committee should create a stronger policy in defense of banned users.

1. Since January 2013, I have only made two edits to the article War of the Pacific ([102], [103]). That's 2 edits in 4 years.
2. Andean culture is not relevant to this case, but I think it is worth explaining that it is a culture shared by numerous countries in South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Chile). Bolivian nationals and IPs from the Palacio Quemado continuously attempt to claim that numerous Andean traditions (pertaining to dance & music) solely "belong" to Bolivia. My attempts, as can be seen here ([104]), have been largely to bring back balance into these articles.
3. Please don't confuse the logical fallacy of cherry picking with knowing how to use search terms in a database. The postulation of such an absurd idea only demonstrates a lack of understanding of what cherry picking actually means and also of how to properly conduct investigations online (or anywhere, honestly).
4. That the War of the Pacific was a conflict caused by mineral resources (nitrates) is the historical mainstream narrative. The idea that economics had nothing to do with the war, or was a factor of lesser importance, is a fringe view supported by Keysanger (at least with regards to Chile, as can be seen in his actions in War of the Pacific and Economic history of Chile).
5. I only ever declined to participate in one mediation ([105]), and I was not the only one to refuse any further interaction with Keysanger in that occasion (which is why the mediation ended due to lack of consent from a majority of the parties).

During the acceptance phase of this case, links were given to a number of requests for mediation by the Mediation Committee, none of which were ultimately accepted for mediation. This statement is merely to clarify that the privilege of mediation (that statements made in mediation cannot be used as evidence in other proceedings) does not ordinarily attach to statements made during the request for mediation process. While exceptions do exist to this rule, none of those exceptions apply to those requests. Thus, any statements made by any prospective party or parties in those requests may be used here. This statement is intended only to clarify the status of those statements. It is not intended to express or imply any opinion, positive or negative, about the conduct of any such prospective mediation party or about any party to this ArbCom case, nor is it intended to express or imply any opinion that any such statements do or do not have any evidentiary value for, or should or should not be used in, this MedCom case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

textmanipulation

MarshalN20 changed the original sentence which stated:

Historians agree that the Peruvian plan to control the price and production of the Bolivian nitrate fields was one of the causes of the War of the Pacific (1879-1883) ref1, ref2, ref3

He used for the new sentence the ref2 and ref3, which expressly names Peru’s quest for control of the nitrate fields, to support the new sentence that says nothing about Peru. He twisted the statements of the authors in favor of his own view in a new sentence:

Historians agree that control over the nitrate fields in the Atacama were a central cause for the start of the War of the Pacific. ref2, ref3

Furthermore, he added a new sentence:

Some Chilean historians consider that the Peruvian plan to control the price and production of the Bolivian nitrate fields was what ultimately caused the War of the Pacific (1879-1883) ref1.

He supported it with ref1, taken from the upper changed sentence, ref1 is

Contreras Carranza, Carlos (2012). La economía pública en el Perú después del guano y del salitre (in Spanish) (Primera ed.). Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. ISBN 978-9972-51-349-7.

whereby es:Carlos Contreras Carranza is a Peruvian historian.

Immediately after I published this findings in the ArbCom case [106] he made excuses and in four frantic posts [107] he tried to explain his “mistakes” with another book of Carlos Contreras Carranza:

Carlos Contreras and Marina Zuloaga (2014). Historia Mínima del Peru (In Spanish)

The excerpt he cited is in page 197-198 of the book:

‘’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.’’ (Translation by MarshalN20)

Does the excerpt support MarshalN20’s new sentence? That would be a difficult question to respond and further a content dispute because Wikipedia is very clear in this question, WP:RSCONTEXT: ‘’Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.’’

What MarshalN20 tried to conceal us is that the previous paragraph, located in the same page and ca. 5 cm above, says exactly what he has deleted:

Finalmente, el intento peruano de hacer del salitre el sustituto del guano en materia de fondos públicos provocó un conflicto internacional conocido como la guerra del salitre o guerra del Pacífico entre 1879 y 1873.

(Translation by Keysanger) 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.

We recapitulate, MarshalN20:

1. deleted my ref1.
2. concealed that CarlosCarranza and MZuloaga clearly and explicitly says that the Peruvian plan was a factor that led to the war. (We can discuss much about how important was the factor, how many Peruvian historian say that, about the wording of the sentence, etc but that is content dispute).
3. denaturalized a historian and from a Peruvian he made a Chilean historian.
4. blurred the opinion of Peruvian historians.
5. cited a ambivalent excerpt to support his opinion.

Furthermore, MarshalN20 tries to cozen the ArbCom with [108]: he mention only the half of my cite of BruceStJohn: persuasive ..+ Peruvian interests had deep-seated ..

Also in talkpage he tries to cozen the ArbCom. In page 139 of RBurr's book the author says: Chilean activities ... assumed increasing importance to Peru as its own nitrate industry in Tarapaca, ... expanded

Evidence 1 proves: VANDALISM, POV, cherry picking, misuse of sources

article tagged, plus pseudo-reasoning in talkpage

The “reasoning” contained a cite of RBurr, By Reason or Force (1974), p. 138:

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.

He stated ‘’This demonstrates that it is a Chilean point of view that Peru was attempting to achieve domination over the nitrate fields.’’

Not only some Chilean historians think so, also others historians think so and in fact some Peruvian historians think so: CarlosCarranza, AlejandroReyesFlores and HoracioBonilla.

Evidence 2 proves: MarshalN20 doesn’t follow a logical sequence in his thoughts. He doesn’t draw the right conclusions.

“Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica Dispute” (1927) by William Jefferson Davis (University of Iowa) contains 90 documents related to the controversy between Peru and Chile, a great job of compilation, translation and checking the data. Document nr. 23 is the “Treaty of Defensive Alliance or ‘Secret Treaty’ Between Peru and Bolivia, 1873”. That is the name given in the scholar compilation.

MarshalN20 deleted the other name “‘Secret Treaty’ Between Peru and Bolivia, 1873” and all it's references with the summary “(Removing the POV rubbish. The treaty has one title.)” [109]

I remark that it is about WP:OTHERNAMES not about technical name as MarshalN20 tries to deviate the attention of ArbCom.

Evidence 3 proves: MarshalN20 doesn’t follow a logical sequence in his thoughts. He doesn’t draw the right conclusions.

1. [110]
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113]
5. [114]

Evidence 4 proves: MarshalN20 is unable to collaborative work of Wikipedia because he is unable to accept dissident opinions.

On 15 January 2013, MarshalN20 edited the article WotP for a last time before he was topic banned [115] In this version, with 135 listed references, twelve references (10, 12, 14, 15, 44, 45, 55, 80, 88, 113, 114 and 117), almost 10%, are easily identifiable as “google books string search result”, all inserted by MarshalN20, were:

• 10 [116]
• 12 [117]
• 14 [118]
• 15 [119]
• 44 [120]
• 45 [121]
• 55 [122]
• 80 [123]
• 88, 113, 114, 117 [124]

(The last four were modified by other user through a script named Reflinks. It inserts the name of the book and author to the link. MarshalN20 hasn’t done it.)

The search function of google books is, to say the least, “Tell me any thing and I give you something that echos what you say”. It doesn’t matter the content of the book, relevance of the author, audience, time or the context. Simple “it is there”.

Evidence 5 proves: MarshalN20 doesn’t apply the first rule of WP:RS: ‘’Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.’’ He does the opposite. He search the sources which support his opinion

References 88, 113, 114, 117 of Evidence 5 section regarded the atrocities committed during the WotP.

The nationalistic book “Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroísmo de la Nación peruana en la guerra con Chile“ (reference 114), without accessibility, neutrality, reliability or academic worth is used by MarshalN20 to support a sentence in a highly controversial issue like the atrocities committed during the war.

I ask the Arbitration Committee to compare the description and the sources given in the current version of the article WotP and MarshalN20’s references and text. the current version deelivers two sources, Sergio Villalobos and Hugo Pereyra Plasencia a Peruvian historian.

Evidence 6 proves: MarshalN20 doesn’t apply the first rule of WP:RS: ‘’Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.’’ He does the opposite. He search the sources which support his opinion.

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]
5. [129]
6. [130]
7. [131]
8. [132] Comment: still banned from history of LA
9. [133] Comment: still banned from history of LA
10. [134] Comment: still banned from history of LA
11. [135]
12. [136]
13. [137]
14. [138]
15. [139]
16. [140]
17. [141]
18. [142]

Evidence 7 proves: That is WP:ASPERSIONS: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe.

On 16 January 2010 MarshalN20 added following sentence to the LEDE of WotP [143] ‘’Peru's prominent admiral Miguel Grau, known by all sides of the conflict as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry.’’ and completed (only) three mentions of Grau.

On 23 August 2011 I raised an objection about the peacock in Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 11

On 15 January 2013 (last MarshalN20 edit) in the WotP [144] Grau was named 7 times in the article and 5 times in the bibliography:

1. Grau commanding ...
2. Grau ordered...
3. Grau's success ...
4. Grau's monitor ...
5. Grau died ...
6. Grau became ...
7. Grau (infobox)
8. Grau, Peruvian... (Biblio.)
9. Grau ... heroic (Biblio)

Evidence 8 proves: POV, PEACOCK, UNDUE. Again, MarshalN20 is unable to represent the events in a balanced and neutral form

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]
5. [149]
6. [150]
7. [151]

Or simply Peru

1. [152]
2. [153]
3. [154]

On18July2009 MarshalN20 inserted in WotP a complete section of 316 words called “Great Britain”, by 26July was expanded to 455 words and pagenumbers added [155].

All that with references like

1. pdf deadlink
2. Peru heroico Peruvian nationalistic website, deadlink
3. Influencia británica en el salitre of AlejandroSotoCardenas, 674 pages, tangentially related to the war.

I ask the ArbCom to compare 26July2009-WotP against what MA PhD (Cambridge) Rory Miller wrote in page 64 of Britain and Latin America in the 19th and 20th Centuries (384 words) about the same issue.

1. For "Great Britain presented itself as a neutral viewer of the matter" MarshalN20 referred pages 609 and 651 of Soto's book, but pages 608, 609, 610, 650, 651, 652 says nothing about a "neutral" "impartial", "impartiality" or "neutrality" or whatsever can be associated with that concepts. MarshalN20 had faked a reference.
2. For "Chile was backed morally and financially by the British Empire" MarshalN20 referred pdf. A dead link again. But Rory Miller wrote in cited RELIABLE SOURCE that: 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.
3. For 26JulyVersion "Throughout the conflict, Britain had seven battleships stationed at the front of Peruvian and Chilean coasts, which were a menace for Peru" which is a downgrade of "England had seven ships stationed at the front of Peruvian and Chilean coasts during the War of the Pacific, and the English were willing to use them had Chile required their assistance" of the 18JulyVersion he deliver a reference to Amayo. Google books shows no page of his book. So much to his reliability.

I want to hint that the whole section is peppered with such faked, fabricated and deadlink references which fulfill the elements of the offence of WP:Civil POV pushing, somebody who pushes a particular POV while pretending not to be editing disruptively.

16:00 28July2009ROLEdeleted 20:32, 28July2009ROLEadded

Evidence 10 proves: MarshalN20 spreads conspiracy theories and fringe theories through Wikipedia. Violation of OR, NPOV and VERIFY and when needed, he fabricate references.

1. [156] MarshalN20 conceded that BdoW is mainstream but WP:VERIFY doesn't matter
2. [157] MarshalN20 continues
3. [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] Alex explains MarshalN20 again and again that BdoW is mainstream
4. [163] MarshalN20 continues
5. B. Farcau, author of "The Ten Cents War", states that BdoW is mainstream and that he had never heard of an alternate view that Bolivia didn't declare war.
6. [164] IP-Professor of Texas, friend of MarshalN20, states noBdoW
7. [165] MarshalN20's attempt to declare it as "academic voice" is rebuked in RSN
8. [166] MarshalN20 got it: noBdoW. Bolivia only declared that a state-of-war existed and Keysanger is disrupting editor.

Evidence 11 proves: MarshalN20 doesn't reflect the opinion of the historians but his own opinion regardless how absurd it is. DISRUPTIVE EDITING.

On 18 juli 2009 MarshalN20 wrote [167] about a “massacre in Valparaíso” and “only to face more problems with Chile”. The massacre were 2 sailors of the “USS Baltimore” and the other is simple POV. The reference of course doesn’t exist any more.

The reference was http://www.h-mexico.unam.mx/cgi-bin/resenias/ver_texto.cgi?id=5 It doesn't exist any more.

Again, the orthodoxy in that issue is the book of David Healy, "James G. Blaine and Latin America". Never cited by MarshalN20.

Evidence 12 proves: Same as Evidence 11

1. In [168] ‘’Just as he is gaming the system, we have to use the system's rules and punishments to get him to stop.’’
2. He broke the 500 words rule of the Arbitration Committee
3. He broke the greater limits (700) the Arbitration Committee allowed him
4. He broke the topic ban with edits in the Chile-Peru Football rivalry
5. He broke the topic ban with edits in the WotP
6. He despised his own promise not to edit articles related to the War of the Pacific “for a time”.

Evidence 13 proves: MarshalN20 mocks the rules of Wikipedia

He attacked Keysanger in the Spanish Wikipedia where they had never before interacted: [169]

AlvaroArditi or anybody has never edited the article nor raised claims in the discussionpage of es:Monopolio peruano del salitre. There has been nothing. But between 28Dec2016 and 02Jan2017 MarshalN20 instigated [170] Alvaro to say something against Keysanger. He got it in [171] and [172]. Now, in the English Wikipedia (!!!) there is a problem about the article in the Spanish Wikipedia. Thanks to MarshalN20.

Evidence 14 proves: This inquiry is not really about Keysanger’s behavior. It is about MarshalN20’s behavior.

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]

Evidence 15 proves: MarshalN20’s battleground mentality hasn’t changed since the Argentine case.

Evidence 1 and 2 deals with MarshalN20 manipulation of text and sources of the article Peruvian nitrate monopoly. Evidence 3 worked out the manipulation in the article about the 1873 Treaty Peru Bolivia.

This evidence focuses on MarshalN20 response to my invitations to resolve the question in RSN and then the Formal Mediation, which is the road recommended by the Wikipedia Community.

1. On2016Dec01At1456 [176] I invited politely MarshalN20 to the RSN
2. On2016Dec01At1856 [177] In MarshalN20's first contribution, he insulted me as harassing, not write according to the guidelines, he is ignorant of them, but rather he consistently refuses to accept, incompetent, open partisan stance. There he ended his insults and then it followed what actually should be the beginning of a content dispute. He knows that and write Having said all of this, I can properly reply to the points made by Keysanger: ....
3. On2016Dec01At1927 [178] I asked for respect and to keep the rules of Wikipedia ...
4. On2016Dec01At1932 [179] .. and to remove the insults
5. On2016Dec02At1727 [180] MarshalN20's response was everything that I have written about Keysanger up to now has been done in the nicest possible of ways. All of it is true and backed up by his own actions.
6. On2016Dec03At0104 [181] a volunteer asked to moderation and focus on the issue.
7. On2016Dec03At0122 [182] the volunteer closed the discussion .

My next step was to bring the case to Formal Mediation. I invited MarshalN20 three times to resolve the quarrel regarding Causes of the War. First, March 2016, in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Undue weight and original research in the Causes of the War of the Pacific, MarshalN20 declined. Then a second that failed because formal reasons. The third time was in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Causes of the War of the Pacific (2.), MarshalN20 accepted but he insulted me four times:

1. On2016Dec05At1605 [183] borderline
2. On2016Dec15At0215 [184] borderline
3. On2016Dec15At1531 [185] harassment
4. On2016Dec16At0439 [186] borderline

The volunteer closed the request because I insisted to delete the insults.

As far as my intelligence understand, the spirit of RSN is "forget insults, cool down, focus to the elemental problem and resolve it". But MarshalN20 doesn't do that, he does the contrary: he insults the other and begins to discuss editorial conduct, and the contributor.

Evidence 16 proves: MarshalN20 is unable of collaborative work.

Here MarshallN20 sent a hidden message about Keysanger's personal integrity.

What is the message?

We can seek the answer in the following postings:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]

MarshalN20 tries to offend, intimidate, humiliate, annihilate his adversary. This observation has been also made by uninterested editors [190].

Evidence 17 proves: MarshalN20 is gaming the system and the consequences are hurtful for Wikipedia.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.