Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Messhermit

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Messhermit | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

Messhermit is an intractable POV warrior concerning the article Alberto Fujimori. Unwilling or unable to accept other peoples' points of view, he inists that only his version of the facts are correct and dismisses all documentary evidence contrary to it as "biased". In addition, he breaches wikipedia etiquette in trying to enforce his views.

Description

Messhermit started contributing to Wikipedia in November, 2004, and has made some 75 edits. While he could potentially become a useful contributor to Wikipedia, he urgently needs to learn how to resolve editorial conflicts with users with whom he has ideological differences in a constructive, respectful fashion.

Together with another avowedly pro-Fujimori user, HappyApple ("i am supporter of the best president of all time" ([1] edit summary: "We need your help on this cruzade (sic)"), Messhermit is attempting to whitewash various aspects of Fujimori's presidency in Fujimori article. Messhermit rejects virtually every piece of documentary evidence which contradicts his opinion of Fujimori. He appears unable to accept that other POVs in the world exist and that they need to be represented as well. He insists that his POV is the only acceptable one. In his frequent heated responses, Messhermit skirts precareously close to ad-hominen attacks, insisting his fellow editors know nothing about the subject matter.

In addition, Messhermit frequently turns disputes in Peruvian partisan politics, which has no place on the Talk pages of Wikipedia.

Some of the difficulties may arise from linguistic limitations, but this cannot account for all the problems he has collaborating with others.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. Talk:Alberto_Fujimori In this talk page, we have been examining every contentious edit, one by one. However, every time I supply a citation in support of a assertion he disagrees Messhermit summararily dismisses it. For example, in response to my citing povery statistics and studies of human rights abuses from Peruvian government agencies and NGOs, Messhermit replies:

• Look for yourself and see how NPOV is the Phrase "Dictadura Fujimorista". If you can find a "independe" investigation, fine with me. But the fact that that words are in that article completely disregard them as indepedent. Highly Biased. Messhermit 16:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Viajero, stop using those "Human Rights" "independent" information to support your statements. Those are clearly Highly controvertial and clearly a POV. Messhermit 04:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) [2]

• Once Again Viajero is poorly informed. See how (once again) the phrase (Dictadura Fujimorista) is present in those "investigations"? I believe that at least that source of information is higly POV, and that it doesn't provide an accurate picture about privatisations. The current government has sponsored many of this investigations, but none of them have manage to demostrate something that can be argue against Fujimori. Messhermit 16:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As can be seen in the last statement, Messhermit frequently lapses into Peruvian partisan politics to explain things, something extremely unproductive.

Messhermit also attacks anyone who questions the appropriateness of using the word "terrorist" in a given context (cf, Wikipedia:Words to avoid):

• Excusing those who use Terror to achieve its political goals (Most of the Wolrd would agree that it doesn't matter if they are Right-Wing, Left-Wing, Anarkist, Eco-Terrorist or whatever) is wrong. Period. Peruvians are very concern and don't forgot about what Sendero and the MRTA truly are: Terrorist Organizations. [...] Messhermit 09:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Please, stop telling to us, peruvians how we must call this terrorist, The fact that our civil war is not as widely know as the palestinian conflict doesn't give you any authority to try to appologise those murders. you are acting of bad faith and with a double standar to judge things. Messhermit 15:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, of course that Aministia international will defend them to death, since is their job to do that. I agree with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe when he said that they only care about terrorist and not their victims. once again, this is a patetic effort by yours to rewrite history. [...] Messhermit 15:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is really annoying. Go ahead and try to use that in the Palestinian Conflict, or about the Iraqui Insurgency. Here in Peru we have enought with people like "Lori Berenson" who tries to make us believe that those who use terror are rebels ore guerrillas. Please, As a Peruvian, excusing those who use terror to achieve its polical goals is offending. Messhermit

• So you are saying you should be allowed to use this inflammatory word, but you understand why it's prohibited in matters where you don't have a partisan position? Sorry, but this is exactly why this is a word to avoid. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, so you are saying that I cannot be allowed to use the word terrorist, but in the West Bank Article , The word terrorism is stated 3 times, including the one saying Palestinian terrorism. So just becouse for some (badly informed) people don't considerated those as terrorist, I can't be allowed to stated what most peruvians think about those grups? I believe that that is acting with a double standar and with clearly a POV. Go ahead and try to convince a Colombian that the FARC and the ELN are rebel groups too. Messhermit 09:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The atrocities committed by Shining Path and MRTA from the late 1970s through the early 1990s are well-documented, the Wikipedia articles on those groups, as well as related articles, reflects this, although there is still work to be done. Most fair-minded readers will be in fundamental agreement with Messhermit as to the nature of these organizations without any additional editorializing on his part, but the latter appears to be an obsession with him, as can be seen from the above comments above.

As should be evident by now, Messhermit strenously opposes citing sources ranging from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to the Peruvian government and the New York Times because they publish information about Fujimori which contravenes his narrow worldview.

1. [3] On March 1, I posted a number of fragments from reports in the New York Times and the Peruvian center-left daily La Republica in support of the assertion that many Peruvians hold a negative opinion of the Fujimori regime. Messhermit deleted everything replacing my text with two messages:

• Once Again, I confirm that you are poorly informed, Viajero. Stop fueling this discussion by adding those Highly Biased arguments, that clearly don't have any NPOV idea. THey are quotes of people that hate the former President, and also show their efforts to demonize him. I could load this entire page with information supporting the president, but i will not dout becouse it will only mean to gave you some justification to keep writing nonsence on this page. Those sources also show how you support your statements: POV and opinions of this corrupt Toledo Administration and those who support Terrorist under the banner of "Human Rights". Please, stop using this kind of rethoric and pathetic information. The former president is controvertial, but not even a 50% + 1 of Peruvians call it dictator. PERIOD. Messhermit 16:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and

• Deleted due to irrelevant sources of information and becouse it increase the size of the talk page withouth apporting any reasonable information, just POV "periodistic" articles) Messhermit 16:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This action was a grievous lapse in wikiquette.

A news report published by AP is cited but Messhermit rejects it because it happens to be found on an "unacceptable" website to him:

[I believe it was Reuters, not AP. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)]

• THAT's IT. Using Lori Berenson's Web page to support something??? As a Peruvian, I'm offended about how you can use that as a "independent" source of information. May I remind you that the Toledo Administration already sentenced her to 30 years in jail and that the OEA and another International Court say that her trial was fair enough???? PLease, with this, you have basicaly no idea about what has happened in Peru in the last years. Messhermit 04:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And while he rejects out of hand the sources that others provides, he would prefer that others do his work for him, that we should find sources in support of his arguments:

• And I'm seeing that you don't have a real argument to use against my precious sitation. Read and investigate much about that topic. You will find most of the information that clarify my arguments and ovbiously, reject yours. Messhermit 04:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

More than what Viajero mentions above, I'm very unhappy with Messhermit's personal attacks on Viajero; the following quotations are all from Talk:Alberto Fujimori

• "you have no knownledge of the atrocities that they cause in Peru...You have already proved me that you have no knownledge of Peru AT ALL"
  • Obviously not the case to anyone who looks at the exchange. -- Jmabel | Talk
• "you are acting of bad faith and with a double standar to judge things"
  • I see no indication in any way that Viajero is acting in bad faith. I have asked Messhermit to retract that claim. And if anyone is using a double standard, it is Messhermit, who seems to feel that it it is his right to decide what points of view belong in the article, leaving out those he feels personally offended by even if they are from generally respected sources such as Amnesty International. -- Jmabel | Talk

Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:NPOV
2. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
3. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Talk:Alberto_Fujimori There is abundant evidence on this Talk page. User jmabel has been particularly active in trying to guide Messhermit in the right direction, alas to no avail:

• Messhermit, you seem to be misunderstanding the nature of Wikipedia. It is not a matter of proving that he was a dictator, it is a matter of citing someone reasonably authoritative as saying so, and being clear whom you are citing. And if you have a comparable citation to the contrary, then that also belongs in the article. Where there is a difference of opinion, we try to represent the clearest statements of all sides. Also, being popular does not mean one was not a dictator. The two matters are incommensurate. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:09, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• I see from the discussion above that one side thinks this is simple, and the other thinks it is more complicated. I also see from the edit history that the side that thinks it is more complicated seems to want to deal with it in the article by complete omission. That is obviously not appropriate. We probably need to quote different authorities on which constitutional provisions applied, and let readers draw their own conclusions from who said what, but I cannot imagine a valid argument for ignoring the issue. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Messhermit, I don't see your point here. I assume there is no question of the authenticity of the photo, or of the fact that Fujimori deliberately put himself in the position for it to be taken. Given that, what, precisely, is the argument against using it. "Controversial" can't simply mean "I don't like it". It has to mean that there is actual controversy, based on some principle, such as factuality, editorial standards, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• As for Lori Berenson "even the Devil can quote scripture". If, for example, her site reproduces a document, it is perfectly valid to cite it, just as it would be perfectly valid to cite a document posted on a right-wing paramilitary sympathizer's site. The fact that a Reuters' dispatch is quoted on Berenson's site doesn't invalidate the fact that it is a Reuters' dispatch, unless your claim is that it had been misquoted. There is no rule that we can only quote those who are generally agreed to be nice people. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, Mar 1, 2005

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Viajero 22:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. –Hajor 00:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) (And muchos kudos to User:Jmabel for his efforts to mediate this one.)
2. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute

Description

The matter of dispute is not about the article of the former president itself, but about the sources and about most of the statements that they use to support their "politically motivated" edits. Until the end, I have tryed to reach compromise, but the only thing that User:Viajero can be satisfaied is by banning me and by seeing the article the way that they write it.

Viajero had said I only play partisan politics. That is not truth.

User Viajero is not whiling to arrange compromise in this article. Viajero continued to revert most of the my contributions without eveng bothering to explained why their were wrong. The article was in a poorly and totaly forgotten condition before my modifications were even there. In my first edits on the talk page(since I didn't Vandalize the page), I explained most of my mayor modifications.

But User:Viajero simply catalogate them as irrelevants and reverted to his previous work (withouth giving me enought explanations or explaining them on the Talk page). Unfortunately for me, Viajero didn't show up in the talk page and keep to revert the webpage every time that I tryed to stated something.

While I believe at the begining that most of his colaborations could be ussefull for the page too, I soon realize that he was already modifying other Peruvian-related pages, arranged them in a "politicaly correct" way that only satisfy their own POV.

I'm not champion of POV. I demand that to be retracted. Messhermit

Why this have reach this state

This arrise by the fact that they "prefered" to call "Sendero Luminoso" and the "MRTA" as "rebels or guerrillas", disregarding completely what is the popular opinion of the peruvian people and what the most civilized nations undesrstad by those groups: "Terrorist Organizations". As you can see, this is an attemp by them to stated their own POV under the banner of "that is not a suitable word" to give legality to their attemps:

• User:Jmabel has "allowed" the use of the word "terrorism" 3 times on the West Bank Pages, and once "Palestinian Terrorism". In this article, He has failed (or has not seeing the use of this words) to provide an impartial judgement about the use of this words. Not objecting to the word "Terrorist" and not change that to rebels or any other NPOV word, is just having a double standar.

• User:Viajero is also involve in another dispute in the "Sendero Luminoso" article, were he is trying to impose its own POV to most of the people on the article.

I accuse Viajero of using a double standard, judging things partially and using their own POV in most of those cases.

Viajero said also that I disregard most of the information of "Human Right" and "AP". I totaly respect any independent and well supported investigation. Unfortunately, most of the pages that User:Viajero has been using only show Personal Opinions of Reporters, most of them clearly against the former president. Those a POV, and cannot be used to reach a NPOV on Wikipedia, at least not by the concept that I have of NPOV.

And in those that involve the peruvian government, I have also give them enought evidence to make them qualify as merely POV.

As a matter of fact, I have get a lot of information from pages like the ones stated, but using only arguments regarding the history and events that happened during those times, wich are not questioned by both sides.

Lori Berenson is a very sencity topic for Peruvian Society. That Is why I felt offended when User:Viajero tryed to support some of his arguments with this. I request that this board made an explicit investigation about how "neutral" can be any source coming from the "FARC" or "Al-QUAEDA" webpages, since it was already stated that "even the devil can be quoted".

Also, Portratin the picture of the death terrorist does not help the webpage to achieve any other POV that accusing the former president of being the "mastermind" of those tragic events. I agree that they are extremely controvertial, but is an ongoing event (there is an investigation around it here in Peru) and should not be label so freely. My compromise was to create a special page that can discuss the events of the Japanesse Embassy, wich both Viajero refuse.

As you can see, probably the only mistake that I commit was getting offended by those arguments. I respect the "Human Rights" Assosiations, I respect any Neutral and independent source of information. But Viajero did not respect most of my ideas, only ignoring them and forcing me to apply a defensive possition.

I request the board that if any santion is applied, Viajero should be banned also in order to prevent further problems on this related topics. They have a clearly POV regarding this topics and have clearly failed to attemp to reach a compromise, since they will only be satisfied when their own words are writed in those articles.

Messhermit 03:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

About HappyApple and AAAAA

Regarding about HappyApple and AAAAA, the fact that they don't share Viajero's POV appears to be enought motive to prevent them to express its oppinions on the talk page and any other page.

The fact that HappyApple is an ardent "Fujimorista" (Becouse I know him from several years) doesn't desquilify him to use Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, He is involved in other Peruvian related topics that have nothing to do with this at all.

The Quote that Viajero is using to describing him was writed on a personal page, wich has nothing to do with the article in question or the main motive for this discusion. If they have ever modify the Page, They have done it to prevent Viajero from imposing his own POV.

AAAAA is involved in a case appart with the User:Viajero regarding another Peruvian topic. There is also an Ongoing dispute regarding "Sendero Luminoso" betwen this two parts.

But I Investigate that Viajero and Jmabel are ussualy distortioning several Facts about Peruvian History and also have a common interest in blocking anything that AAAA was willing to collaborte..

Viajero Is using this as a way to censorate both, I don't agree. The Dispute involved only Viajero, Jmabel and me. I request this Board to leave them out of this dispute.

Evidence of disputed behavior

I have put on Black most of the quotes that I considerated them as offensive and higly Biased. This only contribute to create more controversy and not helping the main topic:

Nobady is Judge or Jury

Sorry, I am not interested in debating Peruvian partisan politics in this forum. The facts about Fujimori are well known and documented, and that is what the bulk of this article should contain, as well as a small amount of space for presenting various interpretations of those facts. Politicians are politicians; most of them are corrupt or incompetent, albeit in Peru or any other country. If Peru had a extradition treaty with Japan, Fujimori would now be behind bars, where he belongs, sharing the view of the Callao harbor with Guzmán and Montesinos, and answering for his crimes like the two of them. And if he ever returns to Peru, he will be arrested, no? As for the privatizations, it was well-documented, in the Peruvian media, that of the some seven billion dollars raised by privatizations during the Fujimori era, only one billion ended up in the Peruvian treasury; the rest got spent on election campaigns, bribes, etc. Moreover, many of those state-owned enterprises, like the Cerro de Pasco mines, which I have visited, were sold far below market value to Fujimori's cronies, who have made a forture exploiting them. In a country as poor as Peru, that really is a crime. -- Viajero 21:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• One of the most offensives parts on this article is his intention to portrait Alberto Fujimori as a murder. Investigations have not finished on Peru regarding the culpability of the former president, and I don't believe that using Viajero's Arguments we, in Wikipedia, are giving a NPOV of the Issue.

• Is he Judge and Jury with the power to determinate who belongs to jail and who does not? That is clearly a POV. Does one trip to Peru gave him the power to speek so freely about it? Does he has any prove to qualify my country "poor" or "rich"? Members of the board, I totally disagree with this kind of opinions.

Photos are not relevant for the Article. Must be classify on another topic

Although I realize that Fujimori cannot be held responsible for all the actions of Montesinos, in this particular case, as you may recall, Fujimori took explict credit for the outcome, posing for the press amidst the bodies of the dead rebels. DO you remember those photos? Here is one: http://www.aprodeh.org.pe/mrta/web00.htm

• (DO YOU) Are a direct attack agains my integrity, since it is clearly trying to impose this POV on my person. Those Pictures are part of the truth I have never denied it, The controversy of the peruvian Embassy along with those pictures should be stated on another page.

Acussing me of faking information

Messhermit: the two Spanish-language quotations you gave, where are they from? I believe that you didn't just make them up, but who are you quoting? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

*In a clearly attemp to disregard another set of citations that I used on my defence, Jmabel Tried to gave a distortionated view about the sources of those quotations. The fact that he stated that "it might be made up" are a clear POV. I cited the webpages later. But I found this attemp as a clear attemp to disregard my work.

Treath or Warning?

There are very, very few hard and fast rules in Wikipedia. There are, however, a number of useful guidelines for handling controversial topics, such as terrorism (see Wikipedia:Words to avoid). A substantial number of editors, such as Joe and me, prefer to avoid labelling people "terrorist" for reasons explained on that page and discussed at great length on many Talk pages; namely, that it is not a objective, scientific term and it depends largely on your point of view. My preference is to avoid using it where possible and use the worda "rebel" and "militant", and to speak instead of "terrorist acts", which is less ambiguous.How about simply presenting the facts and letting readers be the judge of whether people are "terrorists"? It is a form of intellectual laziness to simply moralize about these phenomena; it is far more useful to try to understand them. It would, IMO, behoove you to spend less time ranting about SL and MRTA and more time understanding why they came into being. Indeed, SL and MRTA have been erradicated, but the societal problems that led to their creation have not been addressed, and in fact today Peru is demonstrably worse off in many ways than it was ago in the 1970a. So, theoretically at least, it is possible that violent revolution returns to Peru some day. This time you managed to destroy it. Next time, it might destroy you. As for the use of term "terrorist" in Middle East articles, this is and has been an extremely controversial matter for as long as Wikipedia has existed. -- Viajero 14:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• With all due respect, Viajero is showing a double standar to label the Terrorist Organization "Sendero Luminoso" and "MRTA". Those organization have been labeled (by most of the civilized governments) of the World as "Terrorists", and a overwhelming mayority of the Peruvian Population also uses that term.

• The fact that My Preference is already stated on the previous article is not a clearly sign of POV?,

It also show how Viajero only relies on Highly POV information about Peru, since not even here such comparations have been made.

• And the most shocking off all, the las quote: "it Might Destroy you..." How I'm suppose to interpretate that? As a treath? as a Warning? as a Joke?

• Members of the board, I would gladly retract my previous statedment, as long as you can gave a NPOV interpretation of what he mean by that. For my, that was a clearly treath towarf myself and the Peruvian People.

Labeling me as "Neoliberal"

Gross generalization and neoliberal propaganda. Completely unacceptable.

• Since when, members of the board, is permited to label somebody with those terms? The main topic was the privatisations that happened on Peru during the 90's, and I stated thIS:

The Problem with State Owned Companies at the begining of the 90's is the fact that most of them were completely overcrowded by the former Administration (APRA). Messhermit 04:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Do I deserve that kind of treatment? I believe that we are talking betwen adults, not kids.

About "Offensive" remarks made by me

So you are saying you should be allowed to use this inflammatory word, but you understand why it's prohibited in matters where you don't have a partisan position? Sorry, but this is exactly why this is a word to avoid. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• The least appropiated person is talking about this. As I already stated, Jmabel does not have a imparcial attitude towards terrorist, since he has sponsored "allowed" (becouse is still on the article) this word on the West Bank Article. That is a POV and should be notice: the fact that he only wants to read what he believes is suitable for him.

• I base this in the fact that has taken part on the discussion in that Page. USER:Jmabel has not attempted to even suggest to change the use of the word "terrorism" in that article. He si concern in calling the MRTA and Sendero as merely "rebels", but allowing other users to use the word "terrorism" freely? Members of the board, Isn't that proof that he is not judging with the same impartiality

About my previous statements, that are cited above by User:Viajero, I agree that can be controvertial. But I must also said that Viajero in any moment was willing to reach a compromise, and most of his attitude were stated in order to force me to reach that state. I'm a peruvian, And I find sad and in some cases offensive some arguments presented by someone who has not lived the reallity of my country and have a narrow POV about my country History. Effords to siminish the impact that the terrorist acts of Shinning Path or MRTA are simply annoyings, and information that are collected from highly biased Web pages (such as the one of Lori Berenson, an American-Born Terrorist) cannot be used in orther to present a Pseudo-NPOV article.

Disregarding my articles

That is your opinion. That they have no prospered might have something to do with the fact that Peru can't extradite Fujimori.. -- Viajero 02:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That is not my Opinion and they have not prospered not even in Peru. No Judge have reach a veredict regarding the former president and has nothing to do with the fact that he cannot be extraditate. The Japanesse government has merely said that it doesn't have relevant arguments to extraditate. Please, Stop saying that is my opinion. THAT is annoying. Messhermit 04:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Viajero Urges that his article support most of what he is saying. But completely ignoring mines. Is that NPOV? I don't believe that almost all my arguments be labeled as "My opinions". I found it disrecpectull.

About why I deleted those links

regarding this statement that is being useing above against my person:

(Deleted due to irrelevant sources of information and becouse it increase the size of the talk page withouth apporting any reasonable information, just POV "periodistic" articles) Messhermit 16:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that the NYT is Biased or any other Newspapers. If you look at most of the articles, the articles are not investigation, but rather periodistic "opinions". And if the Reporter is against the former president, it will obiously try to demonize him. I remove them becouse this didn't support anything but Viajero's own POV and it also increase unnesesary the size of the page, wich is extremely large.

Conclusions

Members of the board , I leave all my defense in this article and accuse User:Viajero and User:Jmabel of imposing his own Personal POV on the Fujimori Article, and clearly distortioned most of the articles related to the Civil War in Peru during the 80's.

There are no personal attacks by my part. If I have made a mistake, I have apologize for it. The fact that some of my arguments are used against myself are a clear view that they were forcing me to reach that level, and giving them some sort of proof that I'm the trouble maker. I totally dissagre with that and at the end I only look for the main reason that Wikipedia exist: A NPOV enciclopedia.

I already request several other users to help me to reach a compromise in the page, and I already stated a issue to lock down the page to protected from anybody who tryes to vandalice it.

Members of the Board, by this I conclude my defense. Messhermit 03:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Messhermit 03:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, This is my space to defend against your accusations. Do not modify them

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

• I tend to agree with Messhermit. Since I first saw the article about Fujimori, it seemed to me like totally BIASED AGAINST HIM. Although he made mistakes (perhaps the greatest one was to associated himself with Montesinos), I firmly believe that Fujimori did a lot of good to the country. Firs Velasco and then Alan Garcia DECIMATED the economy. Fujimori restored the basic structure of the country to a free country (in economic terms). Peru was and is still a poor country, and has many issues to deal with, but I think that Fujimori, with all people can say about him, did a lot for the people. There was real development: Schools, Roads, reduction of bureacracy, realistic prices, increase in the real taxation income, etc, etc. Other Presidents were pure talk and Fujimori was action. Viajero & Jmabel think that they are doing good by supposedly NPOVing the article. I think that they are helping Fujimori-haters come "victorious" with their point of view. I would really like to see a more balanced point of view and Messhermit, in my point of view, is helping the article. Maybe he needs more experience in Wikipedia, so I think Viajero & Jmabel should give him some slack.--AAAAA 03:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I noticed that i am involved in the article and this is right. I consider myself as a supporter of former president Fujimori, as i see his gabinet during the 90's and his presidency were for over many times succesfully then the dissray of previous presidents since the 19th century. Fujimori was a leader, not born in combat field, he was a teacher a man of science, who saw a country as User:AAAAA said, decimated and he could find a proper solution to this, and he was doing well. On the last years of his presidency a black figure was beganning to appear, Montesinos, who actually was the real criminal he was responsible for all the arguments that Viajero is discussing on the article.
  • I believe User:Viajero and User:Jmabel are trying to ban User:Messhermit by disagree with him about the article on Fujimori, however Messhermit has proves and articles from newspapers to support his arguments. He did not vandalized the article as Viajero did with a picture of Fujimori next to the bodies of terrorist group MRTA.
  • User:Viajero has many contributions to peruvian articles as well, but i dont think so (as he is stranger and foreigner) appropiate to do an accurate article, as his basis come from untrustable and probably missunderstood sources. He did not lived on Peru during the 90's and he also was absent in many aspects of peruvian politics. I believe he always want to stand his own point of view in any kind of article, such as my contributions on Lima article about the metro. I have other contributions as well in other fields such as chemistry as my major and i accept and agree when a colleague helps me , and this is the purpose of wikipedia as i think, a cooperation to made a withstand test of time encyclopedia for generations to come.HappyApple 05:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• First i want to say, i totally agree with Messhermit.
  • User:Viajero has many contributions to peruvian articles as well, (as he is stranger and foreigner) it is obviously he cant do an appropiate accurate article, as his basis come from untrustable and probably missunderstood sources. This user thinks he can do contributions about Peru related articles, but it is not true, because he uses unaccurate sources, and he also disagrees in everything that doesnt share his point of view. Even he has suggested me do not editing the article about Fujimori. I considered this as a treat to my integrity as wikipedian.
• Messhermit has proves and evidence on journals, and newspapers to support his arguments, however when he tries to explain his point of view, this happens, a group of strangers come and try to revert his contributions and even try to modify his discussion , even on this page,

What kind of defense he can gave, if he is being target of frequent modifications and rotten intentions? What kind of defense he has if there is people want to destroy it?. People like Viajero not lived on Peru, 90's was a decade in which Peru struggled to come back to stability.HappyApple 05:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• By the way i have noticed some in particular, that Messhermit cant use the word terrorist to refer the MRTA group, he must use the word rebels, but i have noticed too, in the West Bank article is refered about Palestinian groups as terrorists, if this word is prefered to avoid (terrorist), why it seems to be a double standard to use this word.

I have lived on this country for over two decades, i have saw the destruction that those criminals have made on my country on my city, and i must say they deserve that title, they were people who used terror, to come back rotten ideals of communism.HappyApple 06:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I feel that User:Messhermit is being unfairly railroaded, and that the article on Fujimori is unbalanced against the man, and favorable to the rebels (widely seen as terrorists), clearly failing to achieve NPOV. This RfC should not be about User:Messhermit, but rather about the POV problems in the article in question. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Sam, are you saying that it is appropriate for him to say "You have already proved me that you have no knownledge [sic] of Peru AT ALL" and "you are acting of [sic] bad faith"? And to refuse to consider Amnesty International a legitimate, citable source? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not saying he was right in those statements, but they are no cause for an RfC, and are certainly not personal attacks. Personal attacks are crass, off topic ad hominems, not the accusation that a user is generally ignorant of peru (which could be true, for all I know ;) Also, disputing the quality of a given reference hardly merits an RfC. This is all a distraction from the real problem, namely glaring POV on the Fujimori article. In summary, Messhermit is not the problem here, the promlem is the Fujimori article and its talkpage. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Sam, on your own talk page, you admitted "knowing next to nothing about Fujimori" [4], so I am wondering with what authority you can possibly pass judgement on the qualities of the article. -- Viajero 13:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its easy to notice bias, regardless of ones familiarity w a subject. What I read on Fujimori was POV hackjob. That sort oif slander serves no one. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

I am not "trying to ban" anyone. Viajero started a request for comment on Messhermit's behavior. I endorsed the accuracy of what he said. I am not disagreeing with Messhermit's being allowed to argue his substantive points. I endorsed Viajero's objection to being on the receiving end of personal attacks. Messhermit seems to be responding to that by making personal attacks on me as well, including an absolutely unfounded attack with reference to the West Bank article. If you look at my edits in Talk:Alberto Fujimori you will see that on substantive issues I had about as many criticisms of one version of the article as of the other. I came into this with no animus against Messhermit, but now that he is attacking my behavior, I am asking him either to retract those attacks or formalize them. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I also wish to point out that this RfC is not about whether to use the word "terrorist" in the article "Alberto Fujimori". As far as I am concerned, it is mainly about personal attacks. I believe that Messhermit has made enough of them on this RfC page to prove the point. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Your attitude toward me is clearly partial.

You are clearly trying to make me look to all the other users as If I'm a constant trouble maker. Also I already stated that you have failed to prevent the use of the word "terrorism" in the West Bank Article, Wich clearly shows your lack of impartiality.

The fact that both of you are trying to use my "conduct" as a merely escuse to bann me from defending what I concidered to be right, Is even more un-ethical that my own statements.

As I already stated. Any ofensive action that I have ever made, I have appologise. (I might have made a terrible impression on the WEst Bank Article, but I clearly retract and started to reach compromise).

Aslo, Once again, if you have anything to say, don't do it in my defense. How can I defend If you keep distortioning my arguments? I consider that a clear attemp to evade what I must say. Messhermit 16:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. What I want is for you to stop making personal attacks, and to seek genuine consensus in working on articles.
2. Where does this claim come from that I am "trying to ban" you? I could not be clearer about the fact that I have not suggested that. However, your removal of my comments from this page is unconscionable. As can easily seen by examining the history of this page, Messhermit removed nearly all of my responses to what he said. I am reproducing them here. If these are removed again, my moderation in respect of suggested remedy will be a thing of the past.
3. Messhermit is substantively changing his own remarks on this page after the fact, which makes the sequence of this extremely hard to understand. I believe that edits like that should be done with strikethrough, so it is clear what is being said. In one place above, the word "sponsored", I have taken the liberty of restoring his previous wording, with strikethrough, because I think it is crucial to see that he changed what he said. In the others, I have let this stand, but I object to the practice. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
   • Messhermit seems now also to have deleted, rather than struck through, most of his own accusations against me on this page; others he's struck through. For those who wish to understand what I was responding to see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Messhermit&oldid=10715081 the last revision of this page before his self-deletions. As you can see, there were about half a dozen other accusations against me. I thank him for the retraction, but would have preferred that he use strikethrough, so the exchange would be visible. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel's remarks Messhermit removed

• I am not "trying to ban" anyone. Viajero started a request for comment on Messhermit's behavior. I endorsed the accuracy of what he said. I am not disagreeing with Messhermit's being allowed to argue his substantive points. I endorsed Viajero's objection to being on the receiving end of personal attacks. Messhermit seems to be responding to that by making personal attacks on me as well, including an absolutely unfounded attack with reference to the West Bank article. If you look at my edits in Talk:Alberto Fujimori you will see that on substantive issues I had about as many criticisms of one version of the article as of the other. I came into this with no animus against Messhermit, but now that he is attacking my behavior, I am asking him either to retract those attacks or formalize them. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

1. The issue is not partisan politics, it is (1) Messhermit's behavior and (2) his refusal to countenance appropriate sources when they don't suit his purpose.
2. Those who know my work will presumably find the claim that I am a POV warrior on Peruvian politics absurd, but if Messhermit thinks he has a case to make, I would welcome the RfC. Most of my (rather small amount of) work related to Peru relates to events before 1900. The only thing I can think of that he could be alluding to that makes any sense at all is my insistance in "Sendero Luminoso" as in this article that the word "terrorist" should always be used with attribution, rather than in the narrative voice of the article. I take the same stance with reference to ETA, the CIA, the IRA, the Irgun, and the PLO. I would hope that Messhermit understands that I am not a partisan of all of these groups. Indeed, I am not a partisan of any of these groups. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I have never edited the article West Bank. I have edited its talk page (1) to question the assertion that the term "Judea and Samaria" has any currency outside of Israel, (2) to support the notion that the term "West Bank" should be used starting in 1948, not 1967, and (3) to insist that the same verb ("seized", "captured:, whatever) be applied to the territories taken in 1948 by Israel on the one hand and by Jordan and Egypt on the other. How have I 'sponsored the use of the word "terrorism"'? If Messhermit will not either substantiate or retract this comment, we have an additional point of dispute here: lies. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:32, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

(with reference to "you didn't just make them up")

• Reread what I wrote. You quote me accurately (although the bolding is yours). I stated that I believed that you didn't make up the quotes, and I asked you for your source, because you gave none, and they were useless without a citation. What is objectionable in that? What is distorted? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

(with reference to reiteration of West Bank issue)

• • As above, either substantiate this accusation against me or retract it. --

Jmabel | Talk 04:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel's conduct

In response to my request that Messhermit either substantiate or retract his claim that I "sponsored" the use of the word "terrorism" on the West Bank page, he modified "sponsored" to "allowed". His revised accusation against me is as follows.

User:Jmabel has "allowed" the use of the word "terrorism" 3 times on the West Bank Pages, and once "Palestinian Terrorism". In this article, He has failed (or has not seeing the use of this words) to provide an impartial judgement about the use of this words. Not objecting to the word "Terrorist" and not change that to rebels or any other NPOV word, is just having a double standar.

I think it is absurd to claim that the fact that I've commented on three issues on a talk page makes me personally responsible for the entire content of the article. That said, I will raise the issue there about unattributed use of the word "terrorism". Frankly, I hadn't noticed it. It was probably there before I watchlisted the article, and all of my comments on the talk page have been in response to specific edits, either to the talk page or to the article.

If further discussion of my conduct is in order, start an RfC about me. I will not further defend myself on this page. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clarify: these accusations against me appear now to have been retracted. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been informally resolved

It looks like, in fact, the discussion here has been reasonably constructive and that editing of the article Alberto Fujimori is now moving forward in a manner typical of a controversial topic. I want to say specifically and clearly that Messhermit has, in the last few days, been much more cooperative in working on the article, and while he may not be the most cooperative Wikipedian I've seen, his behavior this last few days appears to me to be entirely within the range of the appropriate and acceptable. In particular, he seems to be refraining from further ad hominem attacks. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:45, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)