From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Case clerks: Ryan Postlethwaite ( Talk) & Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Newyorkbrad ( Talk)

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

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. 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.

Evidence presented by JzG

RfC

An RfC has apparently been running on the article for over three months, since December 2009 - see Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 16 and Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 17.

Edit-warring

[1] tells the story.

Entrenched positions

Debate around changes to the content of the article Gibraltar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is characterised by entrenched positions and combative language, as evidence [2].

San Roque

The dispute over the simple inclusion of the words "San Roque" appears to be both representative and a straightforward collision between WP:TRUTH and WP:V/ WP:NPOV. The flight to and connection with the modern inhabitants of San Roque is mentioned in numerous print sources including those with no obvious axe to grind such as A popular history of Gibraltar, its institutions, and its neighbourhood on both sides of the straits, and a guide book to their principal places and objects of interest, published in 1888 and written by Lieutenant-Colonel George Gilbard, as well as by the significant though partisan Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores of Spain.

See [3], where an editor opines that "San Roque did not exist" - this is arguing the "truth" of the dispute rather than, as is more properly the job of Wikipedia, accurately and neutrally documenting the dispute. The issue is not whether it existed but how to cover the clearly and unambiguously proven fact that the area of what is now San Roque was where the Spaniards went and that this fact is considered significant, not just by the Spaniards.

As a Wikipedian I personally find this entrenched opposition ot the mere mention of San Roque, and intransigence over its inclusion rather than any collaborative effort to include what is plainly considered significant by a substantial number of sources, to be perplexing and troubling.

Self-government

Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 16#RfC: Self-government.

  • [4] changed from "self-governing" to "non self-governing" cited to UN
  • [5] "rv the same POV nonsense", reverted to "self-governing" with no source.
  • Rinse and repeat.
  • I removed the contended section and took to Talk (see RfC cited above)
  • [6] Inserted "Self-governing" cited to equivocal sources
  • Rinse and repeat.

The context here is that there are two competing versions of Gibraltar's self-government status: the UN says Gibraltar is not self-governing, which is asserted by the pro-British side in the dispute to be down to the Spanish insisting that this was done; the Chief Minister stated that it is self-governing, specifically in response to the UN saying it is not; this was used as the basis for an edit war over whether the lede should say "self-governing" or "non self-governing", alternatives such as omitting the reference in the lede ( British Overseas Territory arguably covers it anyway) or "partially self-governing" or whatever were not considered. In particular, "self-governing" was repeatedly inserted despite being opposed by an unambiguous source (UN) and supported only be equivocal sources (e.g. "self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy").

Again, this is emblematic of the dispute as a whole. An "Oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!" pantomime over the WP:TRUTH instead of considering how the verifiable facts could be covered neutrally. Outside commentators all seem to agree that this is not a binary situation but one with a continuum from colony to self-government with all the reliable sources in more or less unanimous agreement that Gibraltar falls somewhere between the two, but nearer self-government than colony. Instead the main parties chose to assert that the lede must say "self-governing" or "non self-governing". Either is, in my opinion, a gross failure of WP:NPOV.

Battleground

See [7] for a more overt example. Wikipedia's article on Gibraltar is apparently being used as a battleground, fighting for / against the external sovereignty dispute rather then, as should more properly be the case, documenting the dispute.

Justin A Kuntz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • [8] "fuck it, I quit. The fascists bastards win sometimes"
  • [9] asserts "bullying"
  • [10] "Franco would be so proud of you
  • [11] "Seems that settling old scores and minimising the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government for a POV agenda is more important than writing quality articles. "

Single-minded focus

The article Gibraltar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a focus of a number of editors who whose most recent several hundreds of edits focus almost exclusively on Gibraltar and other contended British Overseas Territories, including:

Of these the first two are effectively single-purpose accounts, as are some others not listed (including some drive-by IPs several of which appear to geolocate to Spain or Gibraltar). This contributes to a hothouse atmosphere. Editors who have attempted in good faith to establish compromises between opposing extremes have been resisted and attacked (such as Justin A Kuntz's diatribes against Richard Keatinge ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at [12].

Evidence presented by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

Gibnews engages in POV pushing

Gibnews's soapboxing is chronic 2005 through 2007 2007 to the present day. He sees himself as a defender of Gibraltar in on Wikipedia and thinks there is a Spanish conspiracy to use WP in order to further Spain's claim. [13]

The article carries a very pro-Gibraltar POV which he makes almost impossible to address through sheer stubbornness. It took a huge amount of effort to get the words "annexation by Spain" toned down [14]. He removed Gibraltar from Wikiproject Spain [15] stating "Gibraltar is not Spain" and refused to have the project icon (a Spanish flag) on the talk page [16]. He wants to censor all mention of San Roque (founded by the Spaniards who fled Gibraltar after the British capture and who continue to this day to see themselves as the real Gibraltarians). [17] [18] claiming they were "thieves" [19]. Here [20] he dismisses the fact that Gibraltar is on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

WP:CPUSH describes Gibnews to a tee.

Gibnews has COI issues

(Redacted by Ryan Postlethwaite with request to pursue via email).

I emailed ArbCom with the full evidence on 13th March 2010 per [21].

Gibnews undermines WP:RS and WP:NOR

While Gibnews is very happy to use his own suite of websites as sources, he rubbishes clearly reliable sources put forward by others, and thinks that merely living in Gibraltar or talking to his Gibraltarian lawyer is a substitute for finding reliable sources. Aside from the POV matters, this is a problem because his incorrect beliefs combined with his extremely stubborn nature mean it's hard work to get errors corrected. I have found this behaviour the most frustrating of all.

  • Gibnews was adamant that Gibraltar is a "UK Overseas Territory" rather than a "British OT". His evidence in the face of a multitude of sources [22] was "I checked with a lawyer who says that the correct form is UK Overseas Territory, because 'British' is meaningless... There is a lot of confusion about the subject and I researched it for a TV programme recently, note that was research not original research." There is not one shred of truth that "UK OT" is correct and "British OT" incorrect, or that British is "meaningless". [23]. He later backed down after contacting the FCO himself who proved me correct, but I was left wondering why he made those lawyer/TV programme claims in the first place.
  • I tried to address the incorrect statements on the Gibraltar Pound written by him [24] [25] Based on the notes in his wallet ("Like any other Gibraltarian, I can consult my wallet and look at the currency"), and clearly unaware of what a currency board is, Gibnews claimed that the Gibraltar Pound is a "mythical currency" and wanted the article to reflect that utterly incorrect view. He even is continuing to claim this in his evidence below, and yet has not ever provided a single source to show his view is not OR.
  • Gibnews once put forward as a WP:RS a quote from encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/8713/Gibraltar.html [26]. This is one of those Wikipedia ripoff sites, and ironically the words he was quoting to me was merely his own that he had added to the Gibraltar article two years earlier. Unfortunately, rereading my response from almost 2 years ago, I let my glee at discovering that get the better of me [27].
  • after a series of RSs were put forward [28] in support of a particular wording re self-government, Gibnews announced they were all "out of date" and told us all to read a page on his website containing a primary source [29] the interpretation of which was pure WP:SYN.

Gibnews persisently reverts me and accuses me of vandalism

Virtually every single edit I have made since I came to the article in 2007 got immediately reverted by Gibnews and usually labelled as vandalism. (I am also "banned" from his talk page [30]) "rv RH fatwa" "rv vandalism" "rv pov edit" "rv - nonsense unsupported by any reference" (note I had put the supporting refs in the edit) "rv repeated mindless vandalism". His view of my edits: [31]

Justin’s incivility has been getting worse to the point of total unacceptability

Justin is extremely abusive towards User:Imbalbarnoz [32] [33] and is always claiming his comments are "tendentious" [34] or assuming bad faith [35] [36] or that he's unconstructive [37] [38] [39] or that he has an agenda [40] [41].

Attempts by me to calm him down were fruitless [42] [43] [44].

Other notable incivility - [45] [46] [47] This is particularly bad - [48]

He turned on User:Richard Keatinge who arrived as a mediator. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

If consensus appears to be going against him, he starts accusations of a tag team [56] [57]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A statement about my impact on "the troubles"

I was on self-imposed exile from the Gibraltar article from 7 August 2009 to 24 January 2010 [58] when I left after yet another attempt to reach consensus with Gibnews and Justin failed [59]. The situation at the article got no better after my departure, and if anything it continued to degenerate - mediators came and went and even an admin ( User:JzG) was blocked for edit warring - something I still haven't managed in over 3 years of editing - all while I was absent. My point is that the root causes of all the problems in this article space are due to Gibnews and Justin who frustrate everyone who comes by and this all would still have ended at ArbCom whether or not I had returned. The diffs provided by Narson on me are hardly the sort of material to end up at ArbCom and came months after the dispute was in full flow.

Postings relating to Gibnews' COIs

There have been a lot of claims on the Workshop page about my handling of COI matters, notably without a single diff. In case it helps anyone, here are the relevant threads:

  • 10 Feb 2010 Things begin when I post on WP:ANI about Gibnews's two legal threats [60] [61] re gibnews.net
  • [62] Gibnews (not me) takes gibnews.net to RSN
  • [63] I take gibnews.net to COIN after Thryduulf points out its existence and says COI matters should be dealt with there
  • [64] I take gibnet.com (not gibnews.net) to RSN, someone suggests Spam Blacklist
  • [65] I take gibnet.com to spam blacklist following the suggestion at COIN
  • [66] Final thread on ANI which led to ArbCom

The only posting relating to this which I regret and which I wish I could withdraw is this [67] silly and petulant response to Gibnews' post after I said I was returning to my self-imposed exile. I stand by everything else I said. I utterly refute any claims that I was doing this purely to harass Gibnews - everyone agreed with me on gibnet.com and many agreed with me on gibnews.net (those that did not did so on the basis of Gibnews' responses which my COI evidence suggests were not wholely truthful). So I politely ask anyone who suggests I was engaging in harassment to provide diffs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Responses to others' evidence

Response to User:JzG
The suggestion that I have a "single-minded focus" is without basis. I have worked on British Empire (which I took to FA status [68]), Dutch Empire, Italian Colonial Empire, Portuguese Empire and History of Macau. I have, for long periods, left the Gibraltar article space and only returned this time round after an editor pleaded for help. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Response to User:Narson
that is a misrepresentation of the intent of my comment on Justin's talk page. I replied to your post on my talk page at the time after you wrongly said I was "baiting him" [69] and I also replied on Justin's page [70]. The first time round you may have misunderstood, but since I corrected your misunderstanding, you should not be taking it out of context and continuing to misrepresent it here. This was a plain old-fashioned bit of humour which failed to lighten the mood. When looking into this, I hope the arbitrators examine my other posts on his page [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Further response to User:Narson
I feel that you should declare to the arbitrators your on-Wiki friendship since 2007 with Justin [77] [78]. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that per se, but it means you have a tendency to view Justin's bad behaviours through rose-tinted spectacles. For example, you've been telling him to calm down since 2007 2007 2008 2010 2010 which suggests Justin has always had issues with his temper, not just at Gibraltar. Yet you wouldn't guess this from your evidence here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Response to User:Pfainuk
as I commented on your talk page, I think it is only fair on all the parties involved if you substantiate your claims with diffs so the arbitrators can examine the evidence first rather than second hand. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Response to User:Gibnews
your claim that "RH removed the lot claiming it was 'self promotion'" with respect to your 2006 addition is a mistake. From the material you added then, I only removed the section on the VoGG [79] and then thought better of it and reverted myself half an hour later [80]. (This demonstrates why diffs are so important). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Narson

There has been hounding on both sides

As well as the above mentione actions, there have also been campaigns waged to harass members. This culminated in the blocking of Ecemaml for breaching WP:OUTING against GibNews (as can be seen here). This was continued by RedHat who continued to make references to mistaken beliefs about GibNews' real life (as seen here).

Red Hat has often raised temperatures rather than lowered

Despite being asked not to post on talk pages as he winds users up, he continued to post messages that were liable to windup the parties involved, contributing to the negative atmosphere despite the seemingly benign nature of the comments (an example: here, some grave dancing here, some sarcasm and moral righteousness here {I will delve further back tomorrow when I get a chance. There are some doozies back then as I recall}.

Despite uncivil behaviour on Gibraltar, Justin makes quality contributions elsewhere

Justin has stepped across the line on the Gibraltar article, the reasons behind this are for others to fathem. However he has produced quality edits on other BOT articles, including the Falkland Articles (as can be seen from the barnstars on his userpage located here).

Evidence presented by Gibnews

I read the comment The article carries a very pro-Gibraltar POV

That says it all. Is Gibraltar any more pro-Gibraltar than the article about France French?

As a Gibraltarian I find It describes it very well. A lot of good work by many editors has gone into it. When I first looked at it it said that Gibraltar was a drug smuggling .pirates den on stolen Spanish soil. Should Gibraltarians be banned from editing these pages so that they reflect a foreign irredentist view of the territory? NOT if Wikipedia is to be a serious resource]

Something needs to be done about the constant pushing of a foreign propagandist POV about Gibraltar by an organised group of editors, and disruptive practises.

Gibnet.com as a reliable source. This site contains a large number of reference documents about Gibraltar, plus home pages for a number of organisations. Rather than simply discarding it, I have asked for suggestions on how to improve it so that editors who want to eliminate content based on documents there have no excuse. Although I have repeatedly asked for suggestions and assistance in this there have been no positive response.

It is he only place where the ten year campaign for Gibraltars participation in EU elections is documented, with press releases and supporting documents from the parties involved.

Proposal of compromise In the recent disputes on the Gibraltar pages I have proposed good compromise wording to end the disputes over San Roque [81] and the self-government issue. [82] Both were adopted and show that I can work with others to achive compromise.

I have always tried to resort to discussion over differences, for example removing details of the IRA incursion - a major event in Gibraltar history [83] This was met with abuse accusing me of 'acting like a teenager on myspace' [84]

I also proposed a moratorium [85] whilst this case is in progress as other editors were making substantive redactions.

I have tried to produce good content, engage in discussion and achieve consensus, others have not helped and I admit a weakness of being provoked and set up.

Where edit wars have occurred I have asked for admin intervention and the pages affected to be locked, which was done.

Overall I think I have demonstrated a positive attitude. -- Gibnews ( talk) 11:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Responses to others' evidence

RHOPF

He objects to the use of the phrase 'annexation by Spain' - yet that remains Spanish Government policy towards Gibraltar.

  • Gibraltar is on the list of UN non self-governing territories, It is, however, manifestly self-governing. A paradox except that the UN has not revised things since the sixties and Gibraltar became self governing in 2007.
  • San Roque founded in 1706 by the Spanish who left Gibraltar in 1704 are they the 'real Gibraltarians' as RH argues. [86] when the term was coined post 1800. Look at the Timeline
  • 'UK Overseas territory' That was how it was described by the UK Foreign Office, the competent authority. After the FCO conceded that was not the legal title, I conceded and did not argue about it further.
  • 'The Gibraltar Pound' GIP does not exist except as an iso code, but RH STILL will not accept this. It was phased out in the eighties and replaced by the pound sterling. Its another old argument. There are no GIP notes and all bank accounts are in GBP

His mission on the Gibraltar pages, and elsewhere have been to repeatedly confront me personally. wp:harass

  • Politics - He claims I am 'involved in Gibraltar politics' citing This The campaign was mounted by the SDGG I have never been a member of that group although agreed to ask for the right to vote, I continued to do so until we got it. It took ten years because Spain objected at every stage. I added a short mention of the VOGG, a non party political pressure group active in Gibraltar, along with the Womens association and the Gay rights group etc. RH removed the lot claiming it was 'self promotion' Other editors have extended the coverage. I am not a member of any Gibraltar political party

This editor goes out of his way to taunt me, I have asked him politely not to post on my user page. He still does. Yes he wound me up to say that what he said here repeated outside wikipedia could result in legal action. It was a tactic to get me blocked which succeded.

He reguarly removes sections from the Gibraltar page because 'he does not like them'. Even if sourced and of international significance like the ECHR judgement on the IRA shootings, which even Irish Republican editors accept as NPOV.

He has campaigned to get gibnews.net and then gibnet.com banned. One contains Gibraltar news, the other has useful reference documents.

He has also tried to get me banned claiming sockpuppetry and that I am a permenantly banned user, this is a lie.

  • I am the registrant of MANY websites. I do not necessarily control their content

Example: history.gi - the content is written by a history graduate who does not edit Wikipedia.

RH seems to think that every website I am involved in is tainted and unreliable. - This is a personal attack.

  • I 'rubbish' websites when they are manifestly wrong, eg the CIA factbook, I've submitted corrections which they have used. Gone is the Gibraltar railway (last seen 1946) and a lot of outdated nonsense.

At present I have little time for researching and providing diffs, however please look at [87] as an example of vandalism by this editor and in connection with his personal war he found it necessary to remove the mention in the links section to gibnews.net which is a current Gibraltar news website as much as any other and more than gibfocus.gi which is not being updated. [88] wp:duck describes the situation.

His attempt to discredit the website gibnews.net as a reliable source failed [89]

-- Gibnews ( talk) 03:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Cremallara

I see he accuses me of 'vilifying' the historian George Hills. His book about Gibraltar in the sixties which was notably unsympathetic to the Gibraltarians. I have simply pointed out that he was half Spanish, born in Mexico lived in Madrid and was a close friend of Franco. This may account for his views.

Passing him off as having a 'British' POV is a fraud. [90]

He further raises the issue of my involvement in the website gibnet.com As repeatedly stated, the content on that site cited on Wikipedia is not mine. The attempt to discredit the site has been forum shopped around Wikipedia extensively because the information there is FACTUAL but does not support the Spanish view.

Specifically, the legal opinion there on the waters is written by a lawyer, I am not a lawyer. The Map is from the House of Commons Library reproduced with permission, and the quotes from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea website and from the House of Commons Foreign Affairs committee.

Yes I have asked frequently on what can be done to make the site less liable to fraudulent accusations of bias by the cabal of Spanish editors here. There have been no suggestions. This site has been around for many years and is well respected.

Richard Keatinge

I am surprised he endorses the 'evidence' of Cremella which is simply an attempt to silence a Gibraltarian editor editing a page about Gibraltar.

He further attacks Justin who has shown himself to be the only impartial and resolute editor involved in these discussions, and has opposed the cabal very effectively at the expense of a lot of his valuable time. -- Gibnews ( talk) 20:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I am amazed to read: In the course of the San Roque wars, Gibnews came up with this diff in which he introduced the phrase "left peacefully" for San Roque etc. This was not directly sourced and is not acceptable as a description of a trudging line of refugees, reduced to homelessness and destitution by a riotous conquest.

The Spanish occupying of Gibraltar had to option of staying and pledging allegiance or leaving under the peace treaty they signed The majority decided to leave, most likely because they correctly feared further military action to retake Gibraltar. They left in an orderly fashion taking a large number of their possessions and artefacts. They were provided with food and water for six days march. The description is appropriate.

My wording described what happened, and was an attempt to achieve a consensus. -- Gibnews ( talk) 20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Pfainuk

I'm indebted to him for pointing out this discussion. Reading it shows the lengths that some editors have gone to to sanitise the wording used on Wikipedia, with one accusing me of controlling the Panorama (Gibraltar newspaper) website. After a lengthy discussion the term prevailed. But its now been removed. -- Gibnews ( talk) 20:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Imalbornoz

He refers to

  • exodus of the greatest part of Gibraltarian villagers in 1704 to San Roque

This shows his bias. The word Gibraltarian ONLY refers to the current population of Gibraltar and not the Spanish occupiers who freely left in 1704, nevertheless Imalbornez has stated on the talk:gibraltar page that if the UN decolonised Gibraltar it must be given to the decendents of these people! Such is the contempt he shows to the people of Gibraltar which is consistent with the Spanish position of regaining the territory irrespective of its inhabitants wishes.

This is consistent with the cabal of Spanish editors of which he forms part of who want to rewrite the history of Gibraltar to deny the people of the territory their rights - this amounts to cybergenocide. I explain the rationale for the use of that term on my user talk page. Although to some it may sound excessive, it is the reason the dispute over Gibraltar exists and why we are here. A failure to understand this underlying principle could produce the wrong result from this process.-- Gibnews ( talk) 10:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Cremallera

For years two users have blocked many editions in Gibraltar-related articles with a combination of circular argumentation, indiscriminate reverts and constant incivility. I cannot stress enough the word constant. Personal attacks have ranged from perennial accusations of POV pushing, nationalism, trolling, tendentiousness, meatpuppetry and tagteaming to fascism, including a permanent (and explicitly stated) assumption of bad faith and a very divisive inclination to qualify opposing editors by their putative nationalities.

The diffs are arranged chronologically as of the latest mediation attempts (September 2009, when Irbisgreif tried to mediate, and eventually gave up due to Justin's and Gibnews' behavior).

User Justin:

Despite the noble intentions he declared after Atama surrogated Irbisgreif in the mediation process, Justin has:

  • Erased other editors' comments in the talk pages. Made extensive use of the edit summaries to insult his counterparts [91],
  • Accused his interlocutors of "Trolling". [92], [93].
  • Described an editor as a "wind up merchant" to the mediator [97].
  • Accused the "Spanish editors" of "meat puppetry", making "facetious remarks", "tag teaming" [98], [99]
  • Has made unwarranted reverts. Edit summaries as usual: "Ridiculous entry" [100]. "Rvv & rs cited material" [101] (in spite of the article being uninterruptedly unreferenced since 2004 and included in the category "articles lacking sources" since September 2009. In this case, the disputed statement was the sole -and, I repeat, unsourced- addition of user Gibnews to the article [102]).
  • Accused others of "cherry-picking" (up to 5 reliable) sources. "Tendentiousness". "Wikilawyering". "Ad hominem attacks". "Disruptive editing". Giving prominence to (5) secondary sources over (1) tertiary sources is an "excuse". [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109].
  • Presumption of misuse of dispute resolution processes [110].
  • "Nationalist agendas". "Half-arsed ill-informed half-cocked and half-baked admin intervention that gives admins a bad name" [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116].
  • Stated his opinions as facts which have to be accepted without further evidence: "Include the fact that the UN defines self-government according to an obscure and arcane definition", "the UN C24 list uses an odd definition as to what constitutes self-governing" [117], [118]. When called upon to it, this is dismissed as "bullshit" and a "fatuous argument" [119].
  • Accusations of censorship: "it is a case of censoring the lead because some people (viz. the dissenting editors) wish to skew the POV of the article" [120].
  • Other users are: "Spanish nationalists"; "disruptive"; "browbeating people into submission"; writing "tendentious crap"; "offensive"/"patronising" [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127].
  • Attributed "POV agendas"; pandering to a "fascist notion"; "you should all be ashamed of yourselves" [128].
  • "Congratulations, Franco would be so proud of you". "I don't see any difference between you and that Fascist fuckwit". Pursuing a "fascist racist agenda" [129], [130].
- "The facists bastards win it seems".
- "Its shameful that a supposedly democratic Spain should be carrying on that Fascist Fuck Franco's crusade but lets be honest about it, its macho fucking Spanish pride. (...) Fuck the lot of them".
- "It has never been about improving the article, its a single minded campaign to slant the POV on the Gibraltar article".
- "Its not about improving the article. He's worse than the idiots who vandalise, because he is so single-minded about it and hes working the system".
- "Now if you're blocking Gibnews for legal threats, Red Hat should also be blocked for a) winding him up and b) knowingly bringing false information to AN/I (...)".
- "Frankly you're being a petty little shit".
- "I bare my buttocks in your general direction".
- "You have an agenda and wikipedia is the platform you chose to use; it isn't about writing an encyclopedia. I will never apologise for saying that, because you and I both know its true. I regret some of the things said in the heat of the moment that is all. My intention is to quit, if you wish to follow Red Hat's agenda of making it a block you go right ahead. I bare my buttocks in both of your general directions".
  • After 17 days of retirement, the editor returns with his usual discourse and reverting what seemed to be a stable consensus claiming it was an "imposed solution" by Richard Keatinge, and complaining about another editor who "stagnated the (talk) page with reams of tendentious arguments". [146], [147]. For the record, here's the difference in the talk page with and without this user contributing there:
- 14 January-1 February: 439 intermediate revisions.
- 11 February-1 March: 80 intermediate revisions. Coinciding with his retirement.
  • Further accusations of "POV pushing" [148].
  • Asking "really you think being facetious and a dick is helpful?" [149]. Please, consider these diffs as well [150], [151], [152] to disclose if it was a lighthearted comment.
  • More on "tendentious arguments" [153].
  • Yet another bad faith presumption and dismissal of questions by accusing the enquirer of exactly that [154].

User Gibnews:

  • "Tendentious Spanish editors who wish to impose a foreign POV". "That may be the official Spanish Government line but its a rather nasty racist POV" [155], [156], [157], [158]
  • Alleging odd reasons to justify the omission of text (a concept being "very offensive") [168], [169].
  • Attribution of a "vexatious attitude" to other editors [170].

Further comments (on evidence submitted by other users):

Concerning the issue of Self-government JzG states,
"Instead the main parties chose to assert that the lede must say 'self-governing' or 'non self-governing'". While I largely agree with his draft above, I do not concur with this specific conclusion. Certainly, the issue was extensively debated and three positions (not two!) were proposed: keeping the words 'self-governing' in the lede; denying the self-governance, also in the lead; and obviating it, in favor of a more detailed account of the available reliable sources in the 'Politics' section of the article. Ultimately, the first and the third options gathered the most support. Here we can read a further attempt at conciliating these positions to boot.
Justin's alleged 'half-Spanishness',
"I am accused of being racist and anti-Spanish. I am in fact half-Spanish, do I need to respond any further?" Heck, yes. By all means. I read and care about what you write not what you are. Please, stop using this as a means of discharge over and over and over [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188].

Evidence presented by Pfainuk

I intend this to be a general set of comments and observations more than evidence per se, hence the lack of diffs (though doubtless you'll see diffs for much of this from others). I hope that it is useful.

My own background here is that I was formerly a long-term editor of Gibraltar-related articles. My main focus has always been the Falklands and SGSSI. I was involved in this particular dispute at the beginning - but one day I fell behind in the discussion and didn't particularly feel like catching up. I still have Gibraltar-related pages watchlisted, and I have responded to RFCs, but I don't actively read or contribute to the talk pages.

Gibnews is a good content editor. He knows his stuff. But he's stubborn and it's difficult to get anything into Gibraltar articles without his approval. He tends to state the same argument repeatedly without considering other evidence: see this old discussion on a relatively minor point. He also has a habit of arguing - openly - based on his political POV. This rather undermines his own arguments and the arguments of those who agree with him.

Justin is a prolific editor on the subject of the Falkland Islands in particular. Though the Falklands are another BOT subject to dispute, I find that discussion on Falklands topics - including with Justin - tends to be a lot healthier than on Gibraltar: even as the RL dispute flared up again recently, we have had rational debates on the topic. Justin crossed the line on Gibraltar, but it would seem bizarre to prevent Justin from editing on the Falklands (as some in the Workshop propose), where he gives so much with so few problems. The fact that Falklands articles are like this seems to me to argue that Justin is not causing the problems at Gibraltar alone, as others would have you believe.

There is significant bad blood between Red Hat on one hand and Gibnews and Justin on the other. We all know it - it's plain to anyone who's seen them interact. The reasons are six and two threes. Red Hat often disagrees with both Gibnews and Justin and has a habit of baiting them - see Narson's evidence for details. Red Hat baits Justin in particular, and Justin gets angry. Is this Arbcom fodder? If it's causing the problems on that talk page, then yes IMO.

On to Ecemaml. Gibnews and Ecemaml have been at each other since long before I joined Wikipedia (in 2006). The general pattern seems to be that Ecemaml finds something that he considers pro-British and tries to replace it with something that Gibnews considers pro-Spanish. Or someone else does, and he agrees. Neither side gives ground. They discuss, but positions are the same after three months as they were at the beginning. Justin and Gibnews get particularly frustrated, and Ecemaml and others, though civil, don't exactly try to cool things down. There's no compromise, no attempt to reach a mutually acceptable position. Ecemaml and Gibnews are equally guilty of this.

Imalbornoz and Cremarella I can't really comment on as I haven't read enough of their contributions.

The issue here is not San Roque or "self-governing": this dispute isn't fundamentally different from many previous disputes. It's just more intense and more long-winded. Red Hat may have largely sat out of this one, but when he's there his presence is problematic. Obviously, if you remove everyone on one side of a dispute you'll get relative peace - but you'll also get a POV article, which misses the point.

Finally, Richard's attempted mediation was well-intentioned, unsuccessful and ( given that he'd stated a preference) probably ill-advised with hindsight. But we don't shoot people for making well-intentioned errors. Atama has been very much more successful. Pfainuk talk 17:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Red Hat has now demanded - politely, OK - in three separate places that I start adding diffs to this. He's even trying to get a motion passed against me (never mind that I've not actually called for any blocks or bans). It's not an entirely unfair request and I'll try and take a look over the next couple of days.
But if you want an example of how Red Hat irritates people, makes them feel hounded, this is one. I don't spend my every waking hour in front of Wikipedia. There's a good reason why I have less than 5000 edits in over 3½ years on Wikipedia. Yes, here it's a small thing, but coming back to my computer and finding this demand in three different places - finding he's proposed a motion against my comments without giving me any opportunity to respond to his concerns - doesn't exactly go down well.
In any case, I've already pointed to Narson's evidence when discussing him. Narson has provided diffs and said he'll see if he can find more. Pfainuk talk 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
A bit more. WikiProject:Gibraltar is relatively unused because of the circumstances behind its creation. Basically, it was created following a dispute about the WikiProject:Spain banner which lead to the talk page being full protected for a month in 2007. Gibnews has boycotted it ever since. While one hopes that it is useful, it was not created out of any actual demand.
On the loss of User:Tyk (Té y kriptonita). Tyk's main contribution was this discussion, where he argued that an extremist position should be stated as fact. Obviously this was rejected by most editors. And if that caused him to leave, I'm not sorry for it. Pfainuk talk 17:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Atama

I'll try to make my evidence short and quick. Justin is away for an indefinite period of time due to family issues and may not be able to respond in these arbitration proceedings at all. In fact, I suggested to him that if the medical emergency that occurred in his family makes it difficult to participate in Wikipedia, that even while this process is ongoing his family should come first.

I told him I would not be an "advocate" for him, and rather would only "keep an eye" on things. I'm not trying to garner sympathy for him. My only evidence I'd want to present is this statement at WP:ANI, in which Justin had apologized for the most inflammatory remarks he made (presented by Guy in the "Battleground" section of his evidence above). He did and I believe still has regret over making such heated remarks, though it's worth noting that while making his apology he continued to point fingers at others' misconduct. I do think such an "explosion" is uncharacteristic of Justin's participation in Gibraltar-related discussions, as in my opinion he hasn't sunk to that level of incivility either before or after that particular outburst. That's not to say he hasn't been uncivil in general, though.

I only present this evidence for the sake of completeness, because as I said I don't think Justin will be present for this, and I don't think anyone else would have presented that apology. -- Atama 頭 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Justin A Kuntz

  1. I have PTSD and earlier this year really struggled with my condition. Changing medication has stabilised my mood but I did behave uncharacteristically leading to at least one explosion in frustration. That incident has been repeatedly highlighted as evidence of my unreasonableness; it is uncharacteristic. Not only have I apologised publicly and unreservedly, I note those involved did not disclose this. It is very difficult for a former serviceman to acknowledge a mental health issue; at least some of those editors are aware of my condition, I will leave it to their conscience whether they now acknowledge it.
  2. My father recently had a major heart attack, he was primary carer for my disabled mother. I am now caring for both of my parents, managing a full time job and juggling a young family. I doubt very much I will be contributing as regularly as previously. Editors have exploited my predicament to push for me to be blocked whilst I am unable to defend myself.
  3. My main interest remains the Falkland Islands. An area of considerable tension and potential for conflict, yet I manage to edit without either. A number of Argentine editors I consider friends and have the confidence in me to ask me to proof read their articles and suggest improvement; at least one sprang to my defence when I was accused by JzG. I would ask if this is symptomatic of the rogue editor that I am alleged to be?
  4. I am accused of being racist and anti-Spanish. I am in fact half-Spanish, do I need to respond any further?

I intend to provide evidence in bullet point form and return when able to substantiate with diffs. This may take some time, so I would appreciate patience.

Cremallara, Imablbornoz and User:Ecemaml have disrupted Gibraltar for a considerable period of time including personal attacks and constant bad faith accusations. This has continued for such a long period of time that other editors have become irritable and irascible in response. No excuses for my bad behaviour but I ask that it be considered in mitigation.

Certain information peripheral to Gibraltar is sourced but its inclusion is debatable. In response to a quite reasonable question whether such information is included, the response has been.

  • It is sourced, you must include it.
  • Accusations of censoring the article to suppress the Spanish POV [189] (Note Date!)
  • Accusations that less important events are given more prominence [190]
  • Calling an editor self-deluded or suffering from self-delusion [191]
  • Edit warring to try and impose solutions [192] [193] [194] [195] See also relevance of [196] and [197] and [198]
  • Canvassing other editors of a similar viewpoint to skew the discussion on the article [199] [200]
  • Communicating off-wiki by email [201]
  • Dismissing contradictions in the sources [202]
  • Flooding talk with source extracts rather than trying to reach a consensus [203]
  • Sarcasm [204] A note to not point out sources for policy [205] [206]

Opinions have been expressed both on the talk page and off-wiki, indicating a distinct POV agenda, as well as a rather perverse interpretation of UN resolutions that at best could be described as WP:OR but are in fact symptomatic of an entrenched irredentist agenda in Spanish politics. [207]

Other editors have acknowledged this behaviour at AN/I but thus far no significant action has been taken. I have put forward several suggestions that would have avoided the need for arbcom intervention had they been implemented. I still think arbcom intervention is premature

Other unhelpful behaviour includes:

  • Seeing WP:DR as a means to impose content; Imalbornoz needs education on the consensus process as he see DR as imposing content; arbcom doesn't consider content [208]
  • Dismissing compromise suggestions [209] multiple examples
  • WP:OUTING of editors, to the point of it becoming harassment.
  • Lobbying for arbcom intervention, then presenting misleading evidence
  • Repeatedly linking User:Gibnews to the banned editor Gibraltarian, in the full knowledge previous investigations have cleared him [210]
  • Cynically manipulating discussion at AN/I to push for a block of Gibnews [211]
  • Seeking blocks of the “opposing side” to remove them from discussion [212]
  • Forum shopping to have sources removed to later remove content as “unsourced” [213] Table showing 6 simultaneous forums.
  • Non-apologies such as I am sorry you were offended by my ”joke” [214]

I would like it to be acknowledged that I have sought to resolve matters with editors [215] [216] [217] [218] (Rebuffed) [219] [220] [221] [222]. I would also acknowledge Ecemaml is a good editor elsewhere but an early conflict on Gibraltar coloured his view of Gibraltar editors. However, as an admin on the Spanish wikipedia his problematic behaviour is doubly disappointing. Similarly I believe that Cremallara can be a good editor in future. I'd like to see Imalbornoz edit elsewhere before I make any further judgement but this far he has been an WP:SPA who has consistently advanced a POV agenda seeking to eliminate or minimise the devolution of Government in Gibraltar. This I believe is for POV reasons and to use Wikipedia as a platform.

Richard Keatinge put himself forward as a neutral arbiter. That was welcomed but I draw attention to the fact that he in fact escalated tension with a misguided attempt to impose a solution [223]. He further raised tension with bad faith accusations [224], comments that were goading me [225] [226] to elicit a response and by joining in an edit war to impose his preferred solution [227] [228] [229]. In bearing in mind his claims of a “weary consensus”, it should be acknowledged that several editors have subsequently acknowledged they felt bullied into accepting it, and he ignores other editors who disagreed. Blaming one editor [230] leads me to conclude his judgement as a mediator is flawed [231].

JzG similarly intervened in a manner that escalated tension and led to his own block for edit warring [232]. He blames others [233], mainly myself, for that and his comments about me smack of retaliation [234] [235]. I draw attention to the fact that I asked the blocking admin [236] to lift the block and rescued the article he was working on when he was blocked [237] [238]. Please note that he has failed to acknowledge that in his evidence. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Responses to evidence

Due to the word count restriction, responses to evidence can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence#Responses to evidence from Justin A Kuntz.

Evidence presented by Ecemaml

Gibnews engages in incivil behaviour in a constant fashion

  1. Racist comments ("Whatever they left and they never came back. Except looking for employment, food and to steal things as they still do today [refering to the Spanish population living in the vicinity of Gibraltar]" [239]), ("I just rather hoped that there was an emerging intelligent generation in Spain [..] wishing to engage in cultural genocide" [240])
  2. Constant verbal abuse against those that does not his POV (" the views expressed by some wikipedia editors are no different to those of Franco", " as Spain has no success in the real world, there seems to be a concerted attempt to attack Gibraltar here. It is reported that secret funds had been used to pay Spanish journalistic circles to create a favourable awareness to Madrid's claim to the Rock.", " The people were not Gibraltarians [refering to the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar in 1704] they were Spanish cowards who ran away from their crimes and future conflict"), " there is ample evidence on the talk pages etc Ecemaml shows up with an agenda of promoting Spain on related Gibraltar pages whenever there is tension"

Gibnews engages in constant soapboxing

  1. An example: "Gibraltar is more than 'a rock' it is the home of 30,000 Gibraltarians who are still being harassed by their neighbour in relation to a 300 year old irredentist claim and although being attacked in cyberspace is preferable to hot cannonballs, its still not what I think Wikipedia should be about" [241]
  2. More examples (quite recent): [242], [243], [244]

Gibnews engages in open POV pushing

  1. Absolute denial of NPOV as a given POV should be simply ignored (" I don't understand the validity of inserting a flawed Spanish POV about Gibraltar when Spain has absolutely no involvement in the affairs of the territory", " Despite being someone who does not live in Gibraltar and who is not Gibraltarian [does it matter?], Justin expresses the wikipedia arguments better than me").
  2. Removal of POVs on the grounds of being "racist" [245]
  3. Wiping of any mention to Spanish persons related to Gibraltar here. Considering that Gibraltar has had a long history even before the British conquest, I introduced some notable Spanish guys born in Gibraltar before its conquest in the section devoted to notable people born in Gibraltar (see here. My edition was immediately removed on the ground that it was a " ridiculous entry" (Justin). Gibnews was even further trying to speedy delete the persons listed (see here, here and here). I list here the coments and reasons given to remove articles and mentions to these people ("orchestrated attempt to disrupt that and other articles on Gibraltar", "sort of harassment tactic continually used by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar", articles being created to "provoke a dispute", "for the purpose of starting an edit war", "a tactic of disruption, edit warring, talk page posts to escalate tension" or "for the reasons of being pointy"). The whole issue deserved the following comments from uninvolved editors as " a deliberate effort to remove all evidence that Gibralter has ever had any connection with Spain". Other incidents deserved an assessment of the form " Justin and Gibnews are determined to establish beyond all doubt that Gibralter is British - hence repelling the Spanishes". A further summary on Gibnews POV pushing can be seen in [246]
  4. [247] [248] (mind the comment)

Gibnews engages in POV pushing by including false information in wikipedia

  1. Gibnews has promoted unknown organizations presented as reliable sources (see here... remember it's the same organization whose "report" is introduced here). This organization has one two presences in the Internet, its web site, a single page, and the gibnet.com page here, the one being introduced by user Gibnews in here), which happens to be a total invention (see this) or both things. There is one interesting thing: the "head" of such Historical Society seems to be T.G. Phillips, the head of a law firm in Gibraltar [249]. Possibly he has nothing to do with Phillips&Co [250], the lawers of gibnews.net [251]. This false information has been in wikipedia for three years [252]
  2. Gibnews has sort of obsession with George Hills. As he didn't favour Gibraltarian POV, he is shown as a "close friend of Franco", even if that statement is a pure invention of Gibnews [253]. That false statement, introduced by Gibnews, remained in Wikipedia for three years [254].

Gibnews engages in breach of WP:RS and WP:COI by means of web sites that he controls

Gibnews manages gibnet.com, a site that he includes as source in wikipedia (list of gibnet.com info added by Gibnews: [255]). In the past, Gibnews has openly claimed to be the webmaster of such a web site (see here: "a more reasonable explanation is that Ecemaml is funded by the MAE The Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs [..] Perhaps he might include a section on how much the Spanish Government pays journalists every year to spread false stories about Gibraltar [..] This message posted by the webmaster of www.gibnet.com who has no idea who Gibraltarian or Ecemam1 might be on 5-DEC-2005"; although the diff is from an IP, 212.120.227.226 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), the analysis of its editions, the timing and this edition: "As regards payments by Spanish Government see [256]. I've been editing the page on Gibraltar communications for some time but now have a username." clarifies the issue); to control the edition of the web site (see here: "If you want to translate it into English I'll add it to my website along with an explanation of WHY its nonsense"); or its owner (see here and here: "I am the owner of the website www.gibnet.com"). A list of the use of such covered self-published information can be seen here (interesting to see how a self-published doc is presented as a " legal opinion") and here. Recently he recognizes that he has asked for advice on how to enhance it [257]

At the same time, he pretends he only designed the site [258] and has nothing to do with the site [259], but it's pretty obvious that he controls the content the site publishes, as he describes in [260]

Justin A. Kuntz engages in POV pushing by WP:OR

  1. Compare this edition pushed by Justin ["In the chaos after the surrender, the behaviour of British sailors (despite the effors of their commanders to maintain order) and a fear of reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch sailors meant that few inhabitants dared to remain"] with User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar#Exodus of Gibraltar (notably 1)
  2. See Talk:Gibraltarian_people#Page_numbers. It's interesting to note that the mith that evil Spaniards expelled Minorcans from his homeland has been in wikipedia for years (the pattern is interesting: Gibnews introduces the false information [261], RedCoat [262] and Gibmetal [263] spread it in good faith and Justin provides faked references to support Gibnews anti-Spanish propaganda). 3 years of false information in Wikipedia.
  3. See [264] and the [265]. In no place it talks about the Spanish government.

Further evidence

Further evidence was refactored by clerk Ryan Postlethwaite to bring it within the 1000 word limit. The additional evidence can be found at User:Ecemaml/Arbitration_evidence.

Evidence presented by Richard Keatinge

I endorse Cremallera's remarks above

I endorse his well documented statements - thus I hope saving everyone's time.

Response to Justin's comments

Justin accuses me of:

1) a misguided attempt to impose a solution [266]. I'd describe it as an attempt to push through a consensus in an area beset by intransigence.

2)bad faith accusations [267]. I see no such accusation.

3) goading [268] [269] to elicit a response. I was trying to elicit a clear statement of what Justin actually meant.

4) joining in an edit war to impose my preferred solution [270] [271] [272] Sadly, that's what it turned into. I had hoped that reverting Justin would be sufficient.

5) I claimed a “weary consensus”; Justin says several editors have subsequently acknowledged they felt bullied into accepting it, and that I ignore other editors who disagreed I know of one editor who felt bullied, but diffs would help to give Justin's other assertions more weight. I repeat that, until Justin's return, we had achieved a settlement that allowed us to move on.

6) Blaming Justin for reigniting a dispute [273] leads Justin to conclude my judgement as a mediator is flawed [274] I am not perfect, nor do I regard other editors as perfect, and I will listen with suitable respect to Newyorkbrad and any other admins who care to comment on my actions. But I repeat that Justin's incompetence and ill-directed activity have in my view made possible consensuses into endless edit wars. With Justin, no progress has been possible. Without it, we can get somewhere. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Examples of compromise made by other editors, not reciprocated by Justin

In the course of the San Roque wars, Gibnews came up with this diff in which he introduced the phrase "left peacefully" for San Roque etc. This was not directly sourced and is not acceptable as a description of a trudging line of refugees, reduced to homelessness and destitution by a riotous conquest. Justin's comments continued to be unhelpful, combining incivility with the widespread problem of trying to work out exactly what he's actually trying to say. I changed this to "without further violence", which is still in the article as I write. As this phrase is, arguably, original research, it was only introduced or accepted in the spirit of compromise and as an olive branch to the nationalist point of view. This olive branch may have helped to bring about the consensus, such as it was, on the inclusion of San Roque. Justin's departure was probably more helpful, because on his return he removed the mention of San Roque but left the olive-branch text.

To repeat, Justin seems to be in an unfortunate frame of mind in which he reverts, insults, and misses the point indefinitely, and these behaviours have achieved amazing success in blocking progress on this page. While he remains, so will the insoluble problem. However, I have good hopes that, without him, we can move this article onward. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Imalbornoz

Context: Dispute is about overwhelmingly sourced issues, defended according to WP policies and guidelines

As a context of behaviours (not asking for a ruling on content) it should be noted that the content under dispute is overwhelmingly covered (mostly by British sources). Admittedly, they can be considered “sensitive” issues for Gibraltar nationalists, as they have been used by Spanish irredentists to support their claims [275]. But this does not detract from their verifiability and notability (much larger than several undisputed issues):

  • “self-governing” vs. “non self governing or self-governing except...” [276]
  • “atrocities during the capture of Gibraltar” [277]
  • “exodus of the greatest part of Gibraltarian villagers in 1704 to San Roque” [278] [279]

Some British (Richard Keatinge and TRHoPF) and non-nationalistic Spanish [280] [281], [282], [283], [284], [285] (Cremallera, Ecemaml, myself) editors have defended inclusion of these sourced issues (i.e. it’s not a case of “Spanish nationalists” POV pushing). We have done it civilly and focusing on content and sources most (we're humans) of the time for months, in spite of Gibnews’ and Justin’s behaviour and attitude. Please compare the nature and number of diffs from both “sides”.

Justin’s prejudices and abusive behaviour has worked in detriment of WP’s content and processes in the Gibraltar article

Justin shows extreme prejudices and bad faith assumptions on other editors

Some examples: [286] [287] [288]

Notice WP:PA “racist”, “fascist”, “fuckwit”..., but especially the prejudices implied.

Justin’s prejudices often can incapacitate him for editing and for discussion within Wikipedia policies in the Gibraltar article

WP:RV: He reverts sourced content by default, some examples (there are more): [289] [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] [298] [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304] [305] [306] [307]

WP:AGF, WP:WQT and WP:DUE: Uncapable of discussion within policies (not only since earlier this year):

notice that 1) I only was civilly asking as I didn’t manage to find the info in the book he provided as a source. 2) He first didn’t mention any particular part of the supposed source and afterwards he mentioned a Chapter that didn’t contain any information related to what it was supposed to support. 3) I provided and cited sources for an alternative theory. He didn’t apologise but removed my comments.
  • Mentioning a benchmark that proved that an issue he kept removing was overwhelmingly more sourced than other ones he insisted to keep was considered by Justin... an accusation of bad faith presumption [308]. Not only this time but many other times, dragging the discussion for several months [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] [314]). Later he accused of “cherry picking” in spite of overwhelming evidence.


WP:DR: Repeated episodes of Justin rejecting several means of dispute resolution (e.g. mediation): [315] [316] [317] [318] [319] [320] [321] [322] “Either way I suggest this discussion has sputtered to a natural end”

WP:AGF: Some examples of Justin repeatedly accusing of disruptive and tendentious editing:

Justin has occasionally shown superficial symptoms of repentance, but returns seemingly missing the point and not mending behaviour

  • Justin apologised after one particularly evident episode of incivility, but even in the apology itself he kept accusing and offending and assuming extreme bad faith:

Gibnews’ POV seems to make him disregard or not understand WP policies

Mainly, he has disrupted the discussion, avoiding talking about sources and content, and repeated comments like “you are a Spaniard trying to stop democracy in Gibraltar and invade it” or “The Gibraltarian view is the truth, other views are wrong”: [360] [361] [362] [363] [364] [365])

See other summaries for further diffs and examples.

Nonetheless, in spite of all his nationalism, he’s been more eager to reach consensus than Justin.

Justin’s and Gibnews’ behaviour has caused abused editors to leave discussion for months

  • TRHoPF decided in August to go back to his “self-imposed exile” and exit the discussion because of the “inflamed” reactions to his comments [366] [367]; he had been absent for several months for the same reason, and he did not return until several months later. His final recommendations after leaving reflect what “exiled” non Gibraltar POV editors feel about the atmosphere in the Gibraltar articles [368].
  • Other cases of non Gibraltarian POV editors getting in the Gibraltar articles and leaving after some abuse: Ecemaml [369], Té y Kriptonita [370]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.



Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence&oldid=1137488943"