Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk | contribs) at 12:18, 12 March 2010 (Reverted edits by Justin A Kuntz (talk) to last version by Amorymeltzer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD (Talk)  Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Mailer diablo (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 16:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page.

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Statement by EyeSerene

There has been a long-term dispute on Gibraltar-related articles (mainly Gibraltar itself, but also to a lesser extent History of Gibraltar, Disputed status of Gibraltar and possibly Self-governing colony). The dispute revolves around Gibraltar's status* and claims of both pro-Gibraltan and pro-Spanish POV pushing. I came relatively late to this via an ANI thread (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Gibraltar, November 2009), but have noticed similar threads appearing at ANI with depressing regularity. Searching the archives for AN and ANI returns 41 matches; discounting the duplicates and false positives, by my (rough) count we still have more than 30 threads dating back three years. The latest is here (current as of 5 March 2010) archived here (amended 08:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)); as can be seen, recent developments have included WP:OUTING issues over WP:COI concerns. Partly due to this privacy concern and partly due to the long-running and apparently intransigent nature of the dispute, I feel this has now escalated beyond what can be dealt with at ANI. I ask the committee to consider taking this case on, if only to clear the decks in this area to allow productive editors to contribute without every edit becoming a battle. EyeSerenetalk 13:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to my unfamiliarity with much of the dispute's history I have listed the involved parties above pretty much indiscriminately based on article and talk page contribution. Many of those parties have and still are trying to work productively to reach consensus, so no implication is intended by my inclusion or omission of a name on the list. I ask that both the listed editors and the members of Arbcom, should they accept this case, forgive my lack of precision.

*For those not familiar with the subject, Gibraltar is a British overseas territory in the Mediterranean claimed by Spain.

Note 2: I've just been informed that a previous arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian, was heard relating to this area. However, because it deals specifically with one editor I don't think it affects anything I've written above. EyeSerenetalk 13:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justin

This filing is rather premature, it can still be sorted out at AN/I, if there is a will to do so.

Also a number of simply innocent bystanders have been caught in the crossfire. Its got nothing to do with Gibmetal77, Narson or Willdow. None of whom have caused a problem.

I would also tend to exclude Richard Keatinge, as although some of the things he has done has made the situation worse he sought to mediate the dispute. I'd also tend to exclude Cremallera as in the main, I think he was an innocent who got caught up in this. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that there have been repeated attempts to link User:Gibnews and User:Gibraltarian. They've been repeatedly investigated and found to be false, I question why it has been raised again. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

Please, please take this on, including anyone that wants to be part of it. There are serious and long running problems in this article space concerning POV and COIs that need to be aired and adjucated beyond what other dispute resolutions can provide. These have boiled over into interpersonal spats making constructive editing and adherence to policies impossible. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to request for more information by Newyorkbrad
  • (1) improper user conduct vs good-faith disagreements - improper user conduct - behaviours need to be changed. Let me know if I should provide details. It's now impossible to have a "good faith disagreement" on the page as you are always assumed to be acting in bad faith.
  • (2) disregard of consensus vs inability to reach a consensus - it's impossible to reach consensus that a consensus has been reached - ie both are a problem
  • (3) further dispute resolution short of arbitration - there is more than a "dispute" going on here. The article is under the de facto control of one, lately two pro-Gibraltar editors (one of whom is Gibraltarian and active in Gibraltar politics in real life) who use it as a platform to "defend" Gibraltar in cyberspace, and I and another editor have WP:COI concerns in that regard.
  • (4) remedies - I would like explored the idea of topic bans, plus a permanent ban on use of the suite of websites that one particular editor has set up as sources or external links, if the COI allegations are upheld. (Note: providing the full COI evidence will WP:OUT the editor concerned, but without seeing it the full extent can't be understood.)
NB I would welcome having my contributions scrutinised as a part of this process.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pro-Gibraltar editors I refer to above are User:Gibnews (who has the alleged COI issues) and User:Justin A Kuntz. The statement by Gibnews (since modified [1]) is a perfect demonstration of why we need this arbitration: he has just confirmed my words above about him using the article as a "platform to "defend" Gibraltar in cyberspace". This has been going on for too long now (since the end of 2005). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richard Keatinge

Per Red Hat I feel that authoritative arbitration is the only way forward here. I have no previous connection with this page or Gibraltar itself, but I responded on 9th December 2009 to a RfC from Atama (following failed mediation and months of argument). I tried to push forward a peace process, and after much covering of old ground we seemed to have a weary consensus and to be able to move on. A revert war ensued, and subsequent discussions have gone round the same old circle again. Nationalism, incompetence, the Last Word, straightforward personality differences, irritation, and incivility have all played their parts in this waste of time. I will say that I feel there is one and only one editor whose improvement or absence is essential to enable the discussion to progress. All others, however strong their opinions, seem open to rational debate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gordonofcartoon

I've added myself as an outside editor who has had recent contact with Gibraltar article topics via WP:COIN. I strongly support arbitration, on grounds of the time this has been going on and all the previous attempts at solving it. As others have said, the surface problem is the extreme toxicity of discussion - collapse of good faith, general sniping, etc - that a long-running dispute has led to. But under that, there's a deeper problem that these articles' agenda is entirely controlled by a core group of users so locked in a regionalist dispute that it drives away any uninvolved editors; it's just too much hard work to get involved. With some regular participants of this dispute, I have no faith in their ability to see outside their bias and work by Wikipedia policies of verifiability and neutrality. There are also unresolved COI issues (which, much as I think they should be investigated, have led to overzealous investigation skating on the edge of WP:OUTING). But overall, having looked at previous discussions, I'd rate the core driving problem here as aggressive pro-Gibraltar regionalism and civil POV pushing and tendentious editing to that end. I don't see pro-Spanish regionalism as significant; I'd characterise it more that the pro-Gibraltar faction treats any source outside its worldview as pro-Spanish. I guess this could viewed as "good faith" in that it's a genuine perception of the subject, but if it permanently disrupts attempts to achieve WP:NPOV, it's not compatible with Wikipedia whatever the motive. I highly recommend Digwuren-style sanctions, and in some cases topic bans per WP:GREATWRONGS-style advocacy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - looking at the diffs provided by Ecemaml, this situation is more appalling than I thought. Gibnews trying to expunge from Wikipedia notable historical individuals from pre-British Gibraltar is astonishingly overt bias. I'm even more decided that a topic ban would be appropriate. Come on you "Recuse" guys - what is arbitration here for, if not to handle situations like this where everything else has been tried? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Narson

First of all, PfainUK (named above) is away from the computer for a few days so won't be able to respond (he dropped me an e-mail). I think there are pros and cons to this case being taken on. What incivility there is comes from, in most, the frustration over the inability to move forward. There are a couple of editors who constantly drift over the line and at least one editor whose actions do so on a semi-occasional basis. Certainly issues like the WP:OUTING campaign are of interest to Arbcom, but things like the discussion over the content isn't. And there is a question over how much of the former is due to the latter. I tried to mediate the dispute over christmas, though this quickly failed as the moratorium broke down and we went back to old accusations being dredged up by some. Ultimatly I fear the consequences of Arbcom would be, overall, to the negative. Admin can easily correct behaviour that goes over the line (as has been seen with Gibnews and Ecemaml) and the recent 0RR or 1RR on the article should be allowed to run for a while and see how it works. Thereare also editors who I consider to have some good potential should they be directed into wider involvement in the project who I fear would receive a brutal treatment at an ArbCom intervention. I remain relativly confident I have little to fear from ArbCom involvement, but would still urge the ArbCom to wait. If they do chose to run with it, I fear this will just add more drama to an already daft situation. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add that anyone saying that either 'side' (Really, this side thing is so not helpful, but I must bow to peer pressure in using it) is blameless and one side is responsible for everything or for the vast majority is entirely wrong. This is a pox on everyone's house and those who come here thinking they are blameless and the other side will be smited will more than likely get the odd bit of smiting themselves. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cremallera

Hi there. Thanks for the pointers Newyorkbrad, they've been helpful. To set a starting point somewhere, since October 2009 there have been 2 mediation attempts, at least 3 Requests for Comment, a 'moratorium' as previously stated by Narson and several AN/I threads, to no tangible gain. Frankly, nothing in the current climate makes me foresee a different outcome in the event of conducting further dispute resolution processes other than authoritative arbitration. The tone of the debate has always been uncomfortable, ranging from perennial and mostly one sided incivility to some of the most blatantly abusive personal attacks I've seen in Wikipedia (I raise some diffs in which I am not an involved party to illustrate my point: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). No, I really wouldn't bet on informal dispute resolution anymore. Per Gordonofcartoon above, I'd suggest applying discretionary sanctions. Cremallera (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, when I speak of 'mostly one sided incivility' I am strictly refering to users Justin the Evil Scotman and Gibnews, who are indeed responsible for the vast majority of WP:NPA violations. It is not my intention to imply that the rest are faultless. Cremallera (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by gibnews

NPOV means describing things fairly not giving foreign irredentist propaganda an equal say about Gibraltar.

There has been a sustained attempt to cover up things, and to minimise the developed nature of Gibraltar's self-government because this threatens the Spanish claim based on the assertion Gibraltarians are not the genuine people of Gibraltar and have no say in their future. These are promulgated in the Spanish media today. (google 'Landaluce Gibraltar')

I have spent an unhealthy amount of time in the last year trying to keep the Gibraltar and associated articles truthful.

There has been a dishonest attempt to get me banned.

  • user:ecemaml has a long history of trying to make the articles more favourable to the Spanish position hopes to repeat his success in getting user:gibraltarian banned. He was blocked for extensive stalking of me in the past and recently for abusive behaviour. Otherwise, he is a good editor and an asset to wikipedia apart from pages on Gibraltar.
  • user:RHOPF has from his first involvement been confrontational and of late has tried to get me banned from editing using any methods available including lies that I am a sock. He has attempted to get two websites gibnet.com and gibnews.net used for cites banned simply because I helped set them up. This has involved extensive forum shopping. There is no suggestion that the third party content referenced on these sites has been tampered with. He has further removed large chunks of established content because 'he does not like it' his actions have been disruptive and abusive. He is now attacking on the article Gibraltarian people.

EXAMPLES

  1. Removal of the section about the conclusion of the IRA incusion. (even the Irish Republican editors accept this was OK)
  2. Removal of the two line mention of the death of General Władysław Sikorski in Gibraltar
  3. Removal of the section about Gibraltar winning its EU legal case on regional selectivity (Note: this was opposed by Spain and would have crippled the economy, the GoG considered it important enough to have declared a public holiday.)

Ban these two dissruptive editors from pages related to Gibraltar and normality will return. --Gibnews (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ecemaml

I support the arbitration of this case. IMHO the situation has deteriorated to the extreme in the last year. However, the roots of the problem may be traced back to late 2005. Here you have some samples of what has been going on for years:

  1. Racist comments aganist Spaniards [8]
  2. Constant verbal abuse against those that does not follow a given POV ([9], [10], [11])
  3. Use of reversion as editorial tool (example fully described here)
  4. Countless conflicts (it's worthless to see this, as here there are no Spaniards involved)
  5. Insertion of false information to discredit sources (see here and compare to this)
  6. Absolute denial of NPOV as a given POV should be simply ignored ([12], [13]).
  7. Constant soapboxing ([14], [15])
  8. Misrepresentation of other editors' behaviour to discredit them ([16], compare this with this, not an example, I must admit)
  9. Productive and good faith editors being thrown away of these articles (as Asterion or ChrisO).
  10. Use of web sites managed by a given editor (gibnet.com) as a reliable source. Gibnews has openly claimed to be its webmaster ([17]; although the diff is from an IP, 212.120.227.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the analysis of its editions, the timing and [18] clarifies the issue); to control the publication of contents ([19]); or to be its owner ([20], [21]. Examples of its use are [22], [23], [24].
  11. Promotion of unknown organizations presented as reliable sources ([25]... the same organization whose "report" is introduced here) which happens either not to exist (see [26] and being a total invention (see this) or both things. Coordination in the use of such unreliable and, worse, invented, sources is obvious (see here)
  12. Absurd edit wars. The one described in [27]. Considering the history of Gibraltar some notable Spanish guys born in Gibraltar were introduced in the section devoted to notable people born in Gibraltar ([28]). My edition was removed as it was "ridiculous". Gibnews tried to speedy delete the persons listed (see here, here and here).
  13. A serious undeclared conflict of interest by one of the participants in this case. It has not been declared and can be not only a COI but a case similar to that of the Scientology in which Scientology members coordinated their actions to bias the Gibraltar-related articles. In this case, prominent members of organizations heavily involved in the political activity of Gibraltar and with virulent anti-Spanish agenda are taking part in this case. I've provided privately the info to the ArbCom. It's important to notice that such COI (or organized action) is one or the root causes of all the improper behaviours listed below.

My proposal is: banning of editing the articles listed by EyeSerene for two weeks; strict enforcement of 0RR; inmmediate block of anyone verbally abusing any of the participants, their countries or nationalities; inclusion of gibnet.com in the black list and one year block of the editor undeclaring his COI. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Imalbornoz

1) About "issues of improper user conduct": IMO, the problem is not confrontation between pro-Spanish and pro-Gibraltarian editors. But mainly a case of some specific editors (Justin and Gibnews) ”protecting” the article in some "sensitive" (from a nationalist Gibraltarian POV) areas way beyond what WP policy would support, sometimes showing an aggressive attitude (e.g., User:Justin A Kuntz has thrown very offensive insults –see below-, reverted several times my comments in the article talk page, accused of sock- and meat-puppettry...; User:Gibnews has threatened with legal action; on the other hand, IMO they were driven by the tension in the discussion and apologised afterwards). These behaviour and attitudes tend to drive away less involved editors and result in "sensitive" areas being tilted towards a Gibraltarian nationalistic POV: it has taken -so far- SEVEN months just to try to make slight changes in only THREE sentences. As a result, outside users interested in Gib will probably be getting biased info. Some examples regarding attitudes (evidence of behaviour too lengthy for now):

2) Mostly, it has been inability to reach consensus.

3) I'm an optimistic person, so I think that mediation maybe could work. But it’ll require a long and strong effort (maybe more than any normal mediator is ready to dedicate). Also, I think that some very POVed editors (Justin and Gibnews) should get some feedback about their attitude. Probably, arbitration has the highest probability to solve the problems.

4) I would agree with discretionary sanctions.

I would thank very much the involvement of arbitrators and their feedback to all involved editors (including me) about their attitude and behaviour. Thank you very much.

(downsized to < 500 words) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Willdow

I've been watching the Gibraltar page for around five months and have more recently tried to find a final solution to these disputes (as have many before me). I don't think that the whole page is being owned by a few, as I have made edits to this page in the past, uncontested (albeit quite small edits and alterations). It's quite clear here though that there is no good faith amongst editors. Recent contention in particular has been whether to mention a nearby town, and whether Gibraltar is self-governing due to conflicting sources. These are simple matters, grossly complicated by assumptions of Nationalism by pro-Spanish and pro-Gibraltar editors (there are definitely two "sides") . The paranoia leads to nothing but bitter arguments and personal attacks. If each editor was reported to the letter of the law for what goes on in the Talk Page, I'm sure that most would have been blocked at least a few times if not more. I think a consensus could possibly be reached, but there needs to be some kind of VERY strict overseeing of this to ensure the long winded bickering doesn't break out again. Time and time again I have asked people to stay on topic and give very short answers, but essay after essay blots out serious discussion and everyone is back to square one. If you take a peek here you may see what I mean ("Lets state our preference and briefly why. Shall we say 50 word limit to avoid this dragging out?") A few replies are short and to the point, then the usual deviation and lengthy blah blah blahing comes back. I think this article just needs someone to take it by the scruff of the neck whilst discussion takes place (and some sort of article protection to avoid vigilante editors or socks taking things into their own hands. WillDow (Talk) 09:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/2/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

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.

Enforcement

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar&oldid=349410618"