Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar
Hi, I'm sorry to raise a new issue on Gibraltar-related articles, but this time it's seems the most weird situation I've lived in this wikipedia.

Possibly you're not familiar with Gibraltar-related topics. So, I'll try to provide some information in order to make the issue understandable. The issue relates to the section Demographics of Gibraltar. When reviewing the whole article (there's an ongoing RfC) I found the following text: By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. Other groups include Minorcans (due to the links between both British possessions during the 18th century; immigration begun in that century and continued even after Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens ) Sardinians, Sicilians and other Italians, French, Germans, and the British.

You'll possibly not see any surprising statement, but I did. Well, as I've been reading a number of books on Gibraltar, I've got very familiar with this topic. The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I knew they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence.

Well, in this point I could have included a fact template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to get the right information. I took one of my books and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (no Maltese, but Jews and Spaniards). So, I included the following text: By 1753 Genoese, Jews, British, Spanish and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population.

You've possibly noticed that the original text did have references. However, it referred to a one of the nationalities (the "Minorcans", from Minorca) and not to the whole sentence.

For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, reverted my edition with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I reverted, explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New reversion by Justin, with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that Demographics of Gibraltar does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753).

So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. It's not a secret that Justin and me are "opponents" in a mediation process. However, I don't know where this stupid edit war comes from. I could guess that it's because I've introduced the banned word in Gibraltar-related articles ("Spanish"). It wouldn't be the first time. It took several days, and only because third-parties supported it in an ANI, to introduce Spanish guys in the section on notable people born in Gibraltar (you can see it here). On the other hand, the section I've removed has sources in the Minorcan stock (curiously that's the only "nationality" with an explanation), and I've done it since Minorcans are not mentioned in the 1753 census. The reason of that mention (and sourcing) can be seen in here (it took months to remove an story entirely invented by Justin on how perfidious Spaniards had expelled Minorcans upon the devolution of the island to Spain; I say it took months because the story begun here).

Well, possibly I'm a little bit paranoid, but I hate wasting my time with stupid things like this one. I'm not here to destroy other people's work for no apparent reason. I obviously challenge the current status of many Gibraltar-related articles (as I think they have an obvious anti-Spanish bias), but the issue I'm raising has nothing to do with any dispute, but with an obvious mistake that must be fixed. I wouldn't like to know that these incidents are part of a tactic to, as openly suggest, get rid of Gibraltar-related articles. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well this goes back a long way, right to the very first time I interacted with Ecemaml.

As an example, I would bring to your attention my first interaction with Ecemaml. I give a clear edit summary explaining the reason for my revert of his edit, does he take that comment in good faith? No he does not, he immediately reverts ignoring the comment see. And again and again. Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see. And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see. Further Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, he really should have known better than to edit war over a content dispute. After a long history of needling, admittedly by both sides, I thought this is stupid, why don't we just stop this draw a line under it and made that suggestion on his talk page. See.
 * Ecemaml sees all Gibraltar related articles as biased and since he started editing those articles, the tension and fractious nature of the edits has increased. What he forgets to mention is that I am in fact half-Spanish, hence the repeated accusations of an anti-Spanish bias are not only irritating but deeply hurtful.  The story about Minorcans is invented, I worked with other editors to develop the article to its present form, I simply hadn't noticed that one article was missed.
 * To be honest I'm just tired of butting heads all the time, I kind of feel this is a tactic to chase editors from Gibraltar articles. Trouble is it seems to be working as two serial contributors to Gibraltar articles have already left.  Justin talk 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * seems to be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. He is treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and his continued postings here are unhelpful. He is an administrator on es.wikipedia.org, but his behaviour here seems to have become disruptive. It looks like his intention is to WP:BAIT User:Gibnews and User:Justin A Kuntz by constantly picking fights with them and bringing content disputes over niggling details to this noticeboard. Leaving aside the standard of his english, he seems to have started writing on this wikipedia simply to push a Spanish nationalist point of view on Gibraltar-related articles. If this continues, a topic ban on Gibraltar-related articles might be needed. (Why did he not use WP:AN3?) Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mathsci. First of all, sorry for not having followed this discussion. Sometimes real life bursts into the wikipedia and a wikibreak is unavoidable. Family matters have kept me away and I must ask for your understanding. Just for the sake of understand your statement. Which is the point I was trying to prove. I've been said that many times and at the moment, nobody has been able to point out to such a point. In this specific issue, what is disruptive from my side? I understand that in articles with different point of views, conflictive editions are unavoidable. But, I can't understand (and I haven't understand yet) why perfectly sourced editions are removed leaving information factually wrong? The only reason to raise this issue here is because this edit war is absolutely stupid. Details are, as you appropriately point out "niggling". But the fact that my work is gratuitously removed is what brings this issue here. Come on, the information currently in the article is false. There were no Maltese guys in Gibraltar in 1753. This is not an edit war on divergent interpretations of a fact but a plain sabotage, not only against me but against the very Wikipedia principles. Again, please, which is the point I'm trying to prove. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, you're referring to "continued postings here". Considering that I was brought here when Justin provoked another edit war (when I tried to "make another point" including some notable Spaniards in the article of a town that was Spanish for several centuries), I can't see which continued posting you're referring to.


 * Agree --Gibnews (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mathsci, this is the second time I've read you pointing Ecemaml to WP:BATTLEGROUND policy recently. Well, I've read the aforementioned policy and it refers to certain attitude which I can't see Ecemaml indulging in. He hasn't broken 3RR lately nor has he restorted to personal attacks but rather. Finally, I don't know how exactly challenging unsourced statements could be deemed as disruptive behaviour. On the contrary, he has added referenced material instead. Don't be so fast in singling him out for his "nationalist point of view", nor in advocating for a topic ban, please. Thanks.--Cremallera (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * seems to have formed a tag-team with Ecenaml, with the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern of editing on Gibraltar-related articles. They no longer seem to have discussions in Spanish on their user talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of argument is that?! Do you naturally suspect of people capable of speaking Spanish, or you've been taught to it? Have a nice day. --Cremallera (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can this please stop being made into a race or national issue? All it does is put people off. Content disputethat consisted of two reverts? Hardly ANI level. Justi needs a trout that he doesn't have to hit the RV straight away, if things are wrong then consensus will form around that. Ecemaml needs to realise this isn't other wikipedias and he /does/ have to talk to people and can't just go off on his own when he knows it will be controversial. Lets stop making assumptions based on nationalities. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you serious, Narson? "he /does/ have to talk to people". You possibly know that Justin has a different way of interpretation of communication among wikipedists :-DDDDD --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very serious. Justin is not acting perfectly and appears to be rther cross, though I can understand this as he is involved inwhat has become a battleground, one of the reasons I left any active involvement in that article was because I could see where it was going. However, as imperfect as Justin's behaviour is, statements like Rv: your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone stand out in the edit history of the article. You knew you were being controversial, you knew that primary sources will be controversial, you knew that there are many interpretations....yet you decided and declared that you had, in essence, a divine right to make that edit. You cannot use Justin's loss of temper as an excuse when you appear to be either deliberatly stoking that temper or, as I'd prefer to assume, blindly stamping around wthout understanding or caring how your actions can cause friction. When the points are raised on the article calmly and rationally, they can be followed and opinions given. As it is now, that talkpage is barely useful and I commend Imalbornoz, Justin and whoever else was involved for managing to get something resolved. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to raise a few diffs to ask an opinion, ,,,,. There does on the face of it appear to be a spot of co-ordination of activities among three editors on Gibraltar.  I could provide more as it goes back a long way and it does regularly feel like I'm being tag teamed on Gibraltar with a good cop bad cop routine.  Although I could just be getting paranoid.  Justin talk 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that we are using those quotations (that you tried to delete) in the RfC, which are the co-ordination? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So answer the question [while we have some tea]
Just answer this question. Why was the information supplied from the source on the 1753 census reverted. Do not say anything about Spanish editors, points of view or anything at all about the motives of the poster. The validity of the information is not affected by the motives of the poster. Just say why the information somehow doesn't belong in the article. If there is no reason not related to Justin's mistrust of the Spanish, then it should be put back in, and Justin told to stop this pattern of behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * His 'mistrust of the Spanish'? It is nice to see AGF is taking it in the ass so early in the Wikipedia Day. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The figures for the 1753 census are here. They are 597 Genoese, 575 Jews, 434 British, 185 Spanish, 25 Portuguese. So what is in the article is not quite correct. It probably is better not to use this particular date, which has no special significance. The book of Sir William Jackson is still in the references. However, the book of Edward G. Archer gives a far more detailed breakdown of the history of the settlers in Gibraltar, post 1704, which is correctly summarised in Demographics of Gibraltar. Choosing the 1753 census was arbitrary, since there were many other censuses (eg 1721). All that is needed is a brief list of settlers. I have no idea why this content dispute has been brought here, when the sources are easy enough to check. Statements about the 1753 census are somewhat irrelevant when Archer's book contains full details on demography, which has evolved in the last three centuries. Mathsci (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any harm to use the census data if it doesn't overload the article, but I think the Spanish contributor has misread the sentence he objects to. The category 'Spanish' plainly should not be included, as the sentence is describing the incomers who arrived after 1704, not the Spanish part of the population.  I think however that the article should mention the comparatively large number of Sephardic Jews who inhabited the area during the 1700s.  No mention at all is made of them, even though they outnumbered the Brits during the 1700s, and vastly (factor of 10) outnumbered the Portuguese. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads, I don't think your line of argument is particularly helpful. In articles about places with a long history, there is normally a section on demography. It has to give a brief account of the various waves of immigrants. (Marseille is a more significant example.) For Gibraltar that includes of course various categories, including Spanish, Jews, Maltese, British, Genoese, etc. These are all discussed in detail in Demographics of Gibraltar and the book I cited. I don't understand your remarks about the Spanish, who were expelled but gradually returned in small numbers. This is clearly recorded in the sources, which you should probably read yourself (if only to learn how to spell Gibraltar). The edits you're trying to defend connected with the 1753 census are a red herring. The census and this date have no particular significance in the history of Gibraltar or its demography. The book of Edward Archer contains all the necessary data that needs to be summarised, possibly in a historical way, (In Marseille, rough dates are given for the waves of immigrants, such as Italians and Armenians.) Of course the Jewish population from Morocco should be mentioned: prior to to the British occupation in 1704 they would have been burnt in Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, some of what you wrote might not have been particularly helpful either, but lets try to keep going shall we. The Spanish editor misread the sentence By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population by not noticing the word new. Hence he was trying to demonstrate that Gibraltar (did I make a typo - really I try to avoid being rude about spelling errors myself. I just don't think it's helpful) had a Spanish population, when no-one was denying this, he just thought they were. This is where all this POV pushing (which is happening) gets one - everyone mistrusts everyone else's motives. I find it odd that the sentence I have quoted mentions the Portuguese but not the Jews - according to the census data there were about 10 times as many Jews as Portuguese in the area at the time, but it is only one sentence, and the Jewish community in Gibraltar has it's own article. I wasn't making any other point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You might not have much experience with writing articles on Mediterranean towns with a long history, even tiny ones like Gibraltar. It is WP:UNDUE to mention a specific census. What is required, and is not quite in the article at the moment, is a concise summary of what for example can be found in the book of Edward Archer. There are sections on all groups of immigrants in that book over the last 3 centuries. Your own statements about statistics are irrelevant because they are one snapshot and are your personal interpretation from a primary source. The Archer book devotes many pages to the Jewish presence (I gave a summary above). You are making inferences based on one census from a primary source: that is not how wikipedia is edited as I'm sure you're aware. A good source exists, a short and accurate summary should be made and that is about it: the task is to locate reliable sources and to transfer an abridged version of their content to wikipedia. Like Marseille, which I edit, it is a Mediterranean town with a long history and a strategic location. I would expect the articles to be written in a not dissimilar way, even if Marseille is several orders of magnitude larger than Gibraltar.  Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, Elen, thank you for taking the time in discussing this. I'd just point out some issues. I agree with the statement on the triviality of mentioning a specific census. There are plenty of information available for giving a comprehensive summary of the evolution of the population in Gibraltar for three centuries. That's what the article should include. I agree with it. On the other hand, and answering to Elen, I did noticed the word "new". The issue is that this Spanish population was "new", not the previous. Finally, Mathsci, agreeing on the necessity of having a good section on demographics, the issue remains: considering that your statements on the way to describe Gibraltar demographics are right, why should the article say that in the 1753 census there were Maltese population in Gibraltar? I remember to you that it was the issue I'm raising. The motivation of Justin to simply revert something that he simply does not about is beyond my understanding, but you've claimed that I wanted to make a point. So, in the end, fixing a mistake is making a point, and reverting it to a factually wrong version is OK. I don't understand it. Really. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Narson. I don't think Justin has made any secret of the fact that he believes the Spanishes a couple of Spanish editors are POV pushing on Gibralter articles because of the political situation on the ground. Sometimes he's right, sometimes I think that the information belongs even if it is being put in by a potential POV pusher.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see User:Elen of the Roads is back with the presumption of bad faith that anything I do is based on racial motives. As it happens on the Demographics article, I worked with a Spanish editor to improve a poorly referenced piece of work.  At the time we updated the main Gibraltar article but I guess it became confused with the combination of two sources poorly referenced.  Funnily enough the same Spanish editor has made another suggestion to revise the current section getting rid of the dates.  Bizarrely given my mistrust of anything Spanish I agreed straight away it was the way to go.  Now I have previously dealt with your bad faith presumption, given my racial origins its a bizarre accusation that I'm biased against myself.  Justin talk 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if you were biased against the entire Spanish nation, just a couple of Spanish editors that you do consistently say are POV pushing (which I think they sometimes are - I'm by no means supporting them all the time). I will strike/refactor my comments, as clearly they can be misunderstood in a way which is not my intention.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that this has been resolved amicably by Justin, User:Imalbornoz and others on Talk:Gibraltar. Just a glance at Demographics of Gibraltar, the Archer source and what was in the current article on Gibraltar showed that something was not quite right. I think also the sourcing and content of the not unrelated article History of the Maltese in Gibraltar could be improved at the same time. Mathsci (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't. Factually wrong information remains in the article. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: it doesn't explain why reversion is used as edit tool, something that Justin hasn't explained yet.
 * Your own behaviour still seems problematic and arbitrary. You continue to dispute niggling points by cherry-picking from sources. It's better to take a good secondary source and systematically summarise what's in it. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mathsci, I've asked you some questions above and you are now answering. Furthermore, you keep on with gratuitous statements about myself that I'm beginning to find offensive. I'd like you to rectify them not because I'm offended (I'm not) but because they're not based in anything. I've got two strong handicaps in the English wikipedia. The first one is my obvious unability at using English. That's an obvious problem since I'm not able to express with the same accuracy my thoughts that with my mother tongue. The other is that I'm used to Spanish Wikipedia policies and tend to think that they're the same here. For instance, I naturally talked in Spanish with Spanish-speaking people until I was warned that that was strongly discorauged. Another policy that is totally different from here is that you're not allowed to make unsupported statements such as "Your own behaviour still seems problematic and arbitrary" unless proper and evident diffs are provided. The insistence in doing so is obviously asimilated to a personal attack and may lead to the block of the person making unsupported statements. As I've explained many times, my main concern here was a good faith edition that fixed obvious mistakes (stating that Maltese people was in the Rock in 1753 is as stupid as saying that there was a large population of Arabs in Marseille in the fifth century). Regardles of how bad the previous edition already was (you're right when you say that picking a specific census is pointless... mind that such a specific census was mentioned in such an edition) the fact was that it included factually wrong information. I used the first secondary source I had in order to fix it. From that point on, two unjustified reversions were performed. You've failed to explain why I'm being problematic and, especially, arbitrary. That's something that I'm waiting for. If you're not able to explain why, you'd better drop your gratuitous attacks.


 * You've also made other arguable statements about myself (such as trying to create a battleground... it would means a pattern of behaviour which requires to be true more than your lighthearted assessment, especially considering all my editions in this Wikipedia or the articles I've created) or directly false (such as me continiously coming here, when this the first time ever I've raided an issue here). Finally, you've also complained about my usage of this board instead of using the one on 3RR. The only reason to use it was that this was not the first edit war started by Justin in the last times (the first one was duly raised here by his mate Gibnews and I haven't seen any complain about it), so it was not an edit war but a pattern (if you want we can talk about the petty verbal abuse by Justin —you can simply read this ANI section—, the way in he forbids communication with him, small wikihounding, or how he sniffs my talk page for making spurious canvassing accusations). It's this pattern of behaviour what I'm trying to address.


 * Mathsci, I don't want to argue with you, but I'd ask you a balanced assessment and, especially, to drop your offensive statements, which I obviously don't share although I don't see bad faith in them, just a rushed analysis. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when was improving an article with inline citations and formating per MOS wikihounding?  And since when was asking someone politely to stay of my talk page, because they use it disruptively, verbally abusive?  Or suggesting that people use the talk page to discuss article improvements, rather than userspace, because that leaves them open to accusations of canvassing or collusion?  Are we to believe that only my behaviour is problematic?  Interesting.  Justin talk 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "because they use it disruptively". Can you provide a diff or is it just another verbal abuse as you obsession in calling me "a vandal"? "Or suggesting that people use the talk page to discuss article improvements"? I can't see in here any "suggestion"? Can you? Can you explain why did you editted an article (Spain) you haven't edited ever, curiously to modify my editions? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. Now nationality isn't a factor here. It comes as a relief, to say the least, because I was growing increasingly uncomfortable to read the term "Spanish" repeatedly qualifying some editors/opinions (which usually happen to disagree with Justins'/Gibnews' point of view). As far as I remember, I've never described myself as a Spaniard. I do speak Spanish. I speak English as well, je parle Français aussi, e io capisco un po' di Italiano altrettanto (quantunque io non lo parlo). And yes, Justin, I know already that you are "half-Spanish". You say that all the time to avert accusations of bias but, as you might know "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta". Gibnews and yourself are both British (and at least Gibnews is from Gibraltar). However, I've never pointed that out as relevant data concerning our debates, because I value your opinions, neither who you are, nor where you are from. I suggest you do the same, because proceeding otherwise smells like racism to me despite your alleged meta-ethnicity.
 * As for the reverts thing, whilst I've not participated in this discussion and I hold no opinion concerning the right approach to describing Gibraltar's demography, that certainly wasn't the way to go. Moreover when taking into account precedents like this one. Ecemaml's editions were referenced correctly, and a discussion in the talk page was in order. --Cremallera (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right I see, so is dragging up something from the past that was already resolved helpful in moving forward? See .  Something already explained at length.  As regards my mother, no I usually bring it up in response to accusations of racism, usually of an anti-Spanish bias.  The issue of race has only ever been raised to try and discredit the viewpoints of anyone that disagrees with certain editors, its not helpful and is designed to portray anyone disagreeing as unreasonable.  Its offensive and I'm tired of it.  If you don't want it raised, I suggest you have a word with the people who raise it as a red herring.  I would also suggest you refrain from the bad faith attempt to spin it as an issue I raise, when you know that I don't.
 * Further, did you feel changing the date of WW2 was a helpful edit, or edit warring to keep the change? Diffs ,. If you were to perhaps equally condemn that sort of disruption, then to be blunt about it, you'd have more credibility.  Just to make the point also, that if there was less of a confrontational attitude and turning everything into a battle, use of the talk page then people might not be so hot on the revert button.  Just a thought.  Justin talk 00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not stalking neither Ecemaml nor yourself. So, I'm unaware of most of your editions here. However, in defense of my credibility I'll point out that I've addressed him whenever I've felt his comments inappropriate, in concordance with your remarks (!) or even looking forward to your participation in the debate. As for Ecemaml's alleged vandalism concerning WW2 dates, he explained his edition to you in the talk page, and you've read it already as shown by your response which ends stating "Purely for information, my main area of interest is the Falklands and the Falklands War, funnily enough I can manage to work together quite nicely with the Argentine editors there". That was rich. Are you half-Argentinian as well? Whatever. Finally, attribute me "bad faith", lack of credibility, a confrontational attitude and the like, I'm getting used to it. But please stop addressing *any* editor by his putative nationality. Thanks. --Cremallera (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alleged vandalism, no. Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism and the explanation was lacking in credibility or reason.  I see the point about not raising the red herring of nationality has clearly gone straight over your head as you've done it again.  I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation.  I may respond inappropriately sometimes when wound up.  Again if you don't want nationality raised, then suggest it isn't raised so often as a red herring. :"Are you half-Argentinian as well?", the word is Argentine, no.  Somewhat ironic to raise it in such a confrontational manner given your subsequent comment.  Don't you think?Justin talk 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer concerning the word 'Argentine'. You'll excuse me. I am not really that used to labelling contrary opinions by the alleged nationality of their holders, their assumed bad faith, credibility or 'vandalism' records yet. It is quite naïve to expect me raising the 'red herring of nationality' without extensive evidence available, for you to just dismiss the whole issue by stating "I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation". Both Gibnews and yourself have repeatedly... 'described' the opposing editors. Their 'inferred' nationality, inter alia. Please, refrain from now on. It may be amusing the first time, but it is a bit racist thenceforth. --Cremallera (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newsflash, I'm not biting. Justin talk 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism". Yes, that would have been vandalism... if true. However, I never changed the date of the start of the WW2 as you know and as I explained to you (you keep insisting on that in spite of knowing it's false and in spite of having received a duly explanation). For the sake of clarity and for avoiding your usual personal attacks, I'll explain it again (only for you not go on lying). I thought (and think) that 1940 is a better date for "the periodification of the history of Gibraltar" than 1939, as 1940 was the date of the evacuation of Gibraltarians, creation of the Force H, suspension of the City Council and mass-scale fortification of the town... I won't explain it again, although I know that you'll go on lying by saying something as stupid as that "I changed the date of the start of the WW2".

On the other hand, as you hasn't been able to explain yet why factually wrong information must remain in the article (besides your usual small talk, you've failed to explain why you use reversion as edit tool), I'll restore the sourced information that I introduced, along with the reference provided by Mathsci (and removing Spaniards and Portuguese, since its mention seems to be "problematic"). Of course that the section needs to be improved. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out the information in that section starts in 1939 and it is specifically titled WW2, the date you changed was the date of the start of WW2. I don't find your explanation in any way convincing, particularly as you edit warred to keep it and since you only provided this explanation later it has all the hallmarks of something you came up with it after the event; you didn't mention it at the time.
 * Equally I've restored the sourced information for the ethnic groups you simply excised from the article, which you could have done. Often successive edits separate sourced information from their cites but as was pointed out to you, you could simply have referred to the Demographics of Gibraltar article and fixed it.  You chose instead to cut out swathes of text, that removed useful information from the article.  You were of course referred to that article, why you chose to ignore that suggestion to instead start an AN/I thread is a mystery to me.  As is claiming to improve articles by removing information rather than correcting the source.   That would probably explain the comments here, which acknowledge the POV nature of a number of your edits, not to mention your combative and confrontational style.  Anyway this is wasting my time, so this will be my last comment.  Justin talk 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Justin, please don't call Ecemaml's good faith edits vandalism. He had a reason for the edit, and while you may have disagreed, and he may have even been wrong, but it's a far cry from intentionally trying to make the article worse, which is the only definition of vandalism we use on Wikipedia. Calling someone in a content dispute a vandal because you think they made an error can be very offensive. I know, and you know that I know that you have a very valid difference of opinion with Ecemaml on the article, and that you get frustrated at times (as does he) but you do yourself no favors by making false accusations. --  At am a  頭 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You know I respect your opinion but come on, changing the date of the start of WW2 is vandalism, pure and simple. I don't find the posthumous justification convincing in the slightest.  WP:DUCK springs to mind.  This wasn't a content dispute, I can't see how changing the start date of the conflict to an utterly arbitrary figure can in any way, shape or form to be a constructive edit.  We'd have ban hammered an IP editor making the same change.  Justin talk 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of "he didn't change the start date of WWII" are you not getting here?Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part of the diffs showing that he did aren't you getting here? ,. Anyway I'm gone, this is getting ridiculous.  Justin talk 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That paragraph isn't saying that WWII started on that year. The paragraph is saying that Gibraltar residents were evacuated during WWII. They weren't evacuated until 1940, so technically Ecemaml was correct in the change. Not to mention, you reverted a fact tag and a typo fix when you reverted Ecemaml. If I were to assume bad faith in you, as you are with Ecemaml, I would call you a vandal for intentionally reinserting a misspelling in the article. That's certainly closer to vandalism than what Ecemaml did. --  At am a  頭 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF does not require suspension of disbelief. Missing a spelling mistake and a fact tag doesn't insert misleading information into an article.  That paragraph sets the scene for Gibraltar in WW2 and changing the date, changes the start of the war.  The two are not comparable and if you feel that what he did was constructive, then I have to say that I strongly disagree.  You have your opinion, I have mine and it seems on this they won't be reconciled.  Justin talk 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinions are opinions, true. But you are falsely stating that Ecemaml had declared that World War II began in 1940. He didn't. Just as he didn't vandalize the article. Your dogged insistence on fals accusations regarding editors you are in an ongoing content dispute with are troubling. You are correct that AGF does not require suspension of disbelief, and honestly my assumption of good faith on your part is becoming strained. I'm not going to "agree to disagree" on an issue like this, because you're bordering on personal attacks against Ecemaml with this campaign of yours and that's intolerable. I'll compromise on one thing; if you want to believe in your own mind that Ecemaml is a vandal, go ahead, nobody is trying to be the thought police here. But if you continue to assert that in writing, it's going to make things difficult for you eventually. --  At am a  頭 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Up above Ecemaml makes the utterly false allegation that I tried to get his extensive list of quotations in userspace deleted. They're actually a copyright violation, what I did was to ask for an expert opinion because I was concerned it could cause a problem and I asked someone who knew more than me first for their opinion, when my fears were confirmed I also asked them to explain it to Ecemaml as if it came from me, I was pretty certain it would be taken the wrong way based on a presumption of bad faith.  Seems my expectations were rather realistic.  What I find interesting is that I don't see you tackling Ecemaml for his bad faith presumption.  I note that you're not leaping to my defence.  Equally when he states that I am lieing there is not a murmur of comment from you.  Then he states that I'm wikihounding him, verbally abusing him and spurious accusations of canvassing.  Not a peep.
 * Now when I have been wrong, I've apologised unreservedly and you've seen me do it. When Ecemaml has crossed the line, his "apologies" have been along the lines he is sorry that I misunderstood his comments.  Again just to make the point I have not heard a murmur of comment from you.
 * For the record I also stated that by changing that date he effectively changed the start date of WW2.  I have never declared that Ecemaml stated that WW2 started in 1940 but that is what his edit effectively did.  Now I may have gotten careless with my language or did not make it plain enough but thats what I meant.  I don't find his explanation convincing because if you look at that section the first 3 events took place in 1939, starting with the construction of the runway.  For me it just doesn't add up and requires suspension of disbelief to accept.
 * What is also interesting to me is that twice Cremallera attacks me of accusing me of using my background to avoid accusations of bias. It seems race is frequently brought up as accusations of racism paint anyone opposing an edit as unreasonable and its an attempt to shut down debate.  I've not seen anyone leaping to my defence there either.
 * So, I apologise unreservedly for honestly stating a strongly held personal opinion based on the evidence before me. I promise I will never again state a strongly held personal opinion in writing again.  Justin talk 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again
Justin keeps on with his unusual behaviour. Following me, reverting my editions with no apparent purpose. His last edit war is as stupid as the one described above. Several days ago, I introduced a table and a chart in the article Demographics of Gibraltar. The table included the figures of population through the censuses of Gibraltar since its sovereignty transfer in 1713. Censuses are not periodic (at least in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) and the information provided is sourced. Justin keeps on removing the information on the table on the grounds that "duplicates information". Given that the chart does not include figures, either on the exact population figures or the census dates (it's only a lines chart) such a pretension is rather implausible, especially considering that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia ("There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page"). Possibly it's me being arbitrary. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ecemaml, you seem determined somehow to disgrace Justin on WP:ANI by continuing to quibble in as public a way as possible about very minor points. Justin is not following you: you are editing a page in which he has participated, which is presumably on his watch list and which he has mentioned in this thread several times. The table you created duplicates the already existing graph. It serves little or no purpose. Your behaviour seems to consist in finding ways of making tiny changes to Gibraltar-related articles, of little or no consequence, but making a huge issue about their importance. Perhaps it's time for you to start editing in a more constructive and less provocative way. You can always add a point to the graph if you think a piece of data is missing. (I had to do a similar thing with transcontinental countries on the large map at the beginning of Europe.)
 * It might also be an idea to translate the article into Spanish for es.wikipedia. (So far it's only been translated into French,) Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, it's nice to hear you again even you keep on with personal attacks that I don't personally think I deserve. You state "Your behaviour seems to consist in finding ways of making tiny changes to Gibraltar-related articles, of little or no consequence, but making a huge issue about their importance", but that's a little bit contradictory. The edition I'm talking about is mine, both in the table (I took it from one of those secondary sources you mention) and in the chart. So if the chart is kept is just because it's of some consequence. You also state "The table you created duplicates the already existing graph". But as said, that's not right since the chart does not include the information about the figures of the census and their dates (which are not periodical). Consider also that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. So, at the end, it seems that my "little or no consequence edition" is not duplicated at all. My editions, you're right, are not of importance. But they simply take time to write and it's frustrating to get them removed with no reason, as it's the case. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There were no personal attacks. You don't quite seem to have got the hang of en.wikipedia yet. Bringing little content disputes here is a total waste of time. For future reference, the jargon here is "edit" rather than "edition". I hope that helps. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also on there: Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. We had a similar issue in Formula One areas, we are just not a repository for any old fact anyone gathered. There is a debate to be had over which way is better, but both is just unnecessary clutter. Worth pointing out that the table you are introducing is also wrong as we use different notations than the continent in English (The table says there were 27 and a half, roughly, people in Gibraltar in 2001). Also noticd that the graph is also wrong due to use of decimal place. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information". Yes, Narson, you're right. However, I can't see how the table that creates the chart fits into any of the items the policy you mention describes (is it "Long and sprawling lists of statistics"? I don't think so). Such "old fact anyone gathered" are from current secondary sources (that is, I didn't took the censused and made original research) and give accurate information about population in the different stages of the Gibraltarian history. On the other hand, not only the table, but also the introductory text (mind that the policy states that "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader"). Finally, the policy is clear: "consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". On the other hand, you're completely right on the decimal place. I'll fix it. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I put commas instead of points in your population graph File:Población_de_Gibraltar_(1725-2001).png on Commons. I hope this is OK. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, please, don't use commons to make a point. You've made a mistake by replacing the image (instead of simply uploading a new one), but I assumed good faith. However, given your refusal to fix it and your pointless comments that showed that you simply have no idea about how commons works, I tend to think that you were actually trying to make a point. Don't do it again, please (and don't assume that it's the work of we the admins in commons to fix the mistakes of the users). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then we disagree. I do not believe every fact ever about a place is encyclopedic. There is a job for editors to not just literally edit the copy, but also to oversee and monitor content. If you found a secondary source (Maybe an unofficial biography) that said that Churchill wore different coloured pants on each day of the week, it does not matter that it is sourced we would take an editorial decision not to include such trivial information (At least I'd hope we would!). Now, this is not such a clear issue, but having a graph and a table is too much. The graph is probably best as it provides the info in a quick to check format, it also appears to be the method preferred by most. The table is just providing the same data as the graph, merely presented in different ways. I am not saying no content at all, I'm saying stop adding the same content repeatedly in various styles. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Narson, I obviously disagree :-) but as having such information is considered useless, I won't insist in it (that is, I won't waste my time in this irrelevant issue). I'd only notice one of your arguments ("If you found a secondary source (Maybe an unofficial biography)"). The issue is that I'm not considering an unofficial biography. On the contrary, any text on the demographics of Gibraltal quotes the censuses figures. On the other hand, although I agree with you in your statement "The graph is probably best as it provides the info in a quick to check format" (I made it!) it provides information that the graph misses. Finally, I find it useless unless there is an introductory text (which also has been removed). However, as previously said, I won't waste more time in this issue. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we just kill this drama fest
Please? Justin talk 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse Please could this thread be archived by an uninvolved administrator? No administrative action is required here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NO Justin and Narson are POV-warriors at USS Liberty Incident with a nationalist fringe position backed with accusations of anti-semitism. The discussion page there has been set to prematurely archive, which I've tried to re-set but will doubtless be reverted. New visitors need to be able to see what they've been up to and stop their games everywhere. 86.159.187.87 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? I'm a nationalist Brit and a nationalist Israeli? And it is my fault on what a discussion page is set to archive at? Sounds like a butt hurt block evader to me. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC
I've started on RFC on these articles here. Justin talk 20:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)