Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

To wait
1) Just a note that at least two parties to this case are currently engaged IRL (Pfain e-mailed me to say he was away on holiday, not sure if he is back and Justin has a family emergency that, obviously, trumps Wikipedia) but I would like them to have their say. If we can wait for them to have an opportunity to have their say (and to hear from all parties, air clearing is important) before proceeding, that would be ideal. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Just as a matter of correction, I'm not actually named in this arbitration - but as someone who was previously involved in this dispute and who remains on the fringes of it (I stopped editing the article regularly in July and since then haven't contributed much outside answering RFCs), I felt it was plausible that I might be added while I was away. I am now back from my holiday. Pfainuk talk 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin may not be able to participate. He said on my talk page that he has to care for a sick mother "every night". I replied that family comes before Wikipedia. He hasn't edited since, whether it was because of my advice or not. As a result, he may be away for an indeterminate amount of time, and it would be unwise to wait for him if we don't know when, if ever, he'll return to editing. --  At am a  頭 00:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Kind of torn here, not my information to reveal. I'll speak to Justin and if he is ok, I'll explain why he is away from the computer. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 01:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, did so in my evidence tonight. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No accusations without diffs
2) There are a lot of ingrained assumptions about people's motives, actions and interpersonal dislikes among the editors here. Rather than regurgitate them in the form of generalizations so arbitrators can only read a second hand (sometimes third hand) version of events, all accusations should be accompanied with supporting diffs so arbitrators can make their own mind up and the accused party can respond specifically to them. If you are unable or unwilling to find a diff supporting your claim about another editor, you shouldn't be making it, especially if you are proposing an injuction or a ban on them on the basis of that behaviour.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Ecemaml (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

No editing
1) In order to keep temperatures cool during this arbcom, all named parties are to refrain from editing the Gibraltar related articles or their talkpages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed - -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to encourage editors to think very carefully before they edit, and in particular think through Writing for the opponent before touching the keyboard. Given that I'd positively encourage active editing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree and already have done so, I will provide diffs if necessary but I have already repeatedly urged parties to disengage. RHoPF appears to have initiated conflict on Talk:Gibraltarian people, calling for other editors to join in on Talk:Gibraltar.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This type of statement is exactly the problem with the Gibraltar space. Arbitrators, please take a moment to read the discussion there .  We were having a normal and civil discussion (I even asked the editor I was disagreeing with if it was OK to take the issue to the NOR board), yet merely by contributing to the talk page I am accused of "initiating conflict" (notably without a diff).   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, Justin, after agreeing with this are you today (26 March) getting into an edit war at History of Gibraltar ?  (Furthermore, your edit war today at Falkland Islands  suggests that it may be correct to expand the proposed topic ban to all BOTs, not just Gibraltar).  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you complaining about it after you failed to support it? And you wonder why I accuse you of stirring shit when you come around....guess what? Stirring shit. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 00:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of the double standards evident in Justin's posts. I'm accused of "initiating conflict" merely by posting on a talk page, yet Justin deems it OK to engage in an edit war, despite having agreed to refrain from editing this space.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Double standards? User:English Bobby our resident member of the English Defence League, whose sole contribution is to wander round wikipedia changing British to English and insulting me on my talk page.  And an editor apparently trying to initiate a further nationalist conflict.  Notice I haven't bitten, quite surprised nonetheless that you'd try and raise this as an issue.  I'm quite happy for my edits to be considered on their merits in that respect.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not a "member" of the English Defence League and i find it quite personal and offensive how you keep trying to use my alledged political beliefs to justify you attitude to me. I also find it funny that i'm being accused of being a SPA by someone who seem's to spend all their Wiki time arguing with people or insulting them.--English Bobby (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Off-Arbcom Canvassing of Arbitrators Prohibited
2) The air cannot be cleared here if editors are attempting to undermine legitimate complaints put forward to ArbCom by canvassing arbitrators off-ArbCom . This should be prohibited, and parties should stick to providing evidence in the form of diffs in their own "evidence" sections.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed - If you stop your persistant attempts at outing/harassment, then I will have no need to openly seek intervention. The request was made openly on wiki and not via any closed or private method. If you are unhappy with being called out again for playing fast and loose on the fringes of our policies, stop doing it. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (reply to Narson and JzG) Both of you are grossly and unfairly misrepresenting the situation. All I ever wanted was the COI allegations to be examined and then either dismissed or dealt with.  Everyone, including you both, have been far too willing to jump on the "outing" bandwagon while being completely unaware of the full extent of the COI concerns.  I have now, for both your information, just sent the COI evidence to ArbCom privately over email after Ryan Postlethwaite asked me to do so.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Rather more likely would be an injunction to stop you trying to out Gibnews, or possibly a block for the persistent attempts even after policy has been brought to your attention. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited. Wikipedia is not a battleground, our purpose is not to settle external disputes but to document them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. In order to do so, editors should be allowed to work in that direction. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. The neutral point of view is not necessarily the average of two conflicting points of view but it is more likely to lie in the middle than at either extreme. The conflicting parties seem to be unwilling, in many cases, to accept anything other than their preferred POV. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I don't disagree but would suggest you actually look at what parties are suggesting, how one party seeks to minimise a viewpoint rather than explaining it to our readers. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited.  Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does 'gamging the system' include putting up massive walls of text full of often repetative? That is equally harmful to participation and creating an editing clique on the page. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Narson, could we have a diff to show what you mean by "massive walls of text"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we have rather consistant 2,000 byte statements which are constantly following one another, I found one where in the space of a few hours someone made 4+ 2,000 byte edits, resulting in a wall of text, though this constant churning of 2k+ stuff is better than what we used to get such as this 5K combined edit, things like this rather epic series of 8 edits, all by one editor, resulting in over 8K of text by my calculations, you might notice some of the stuff from that second one being repeated in the first edit. It was of course worse during some of the RfC with edits like this 10K behemoth not being totally out of place, coming as it did 4 days after this big boy. It even got to the stage wher eparties believed 4K edits were minor. Bear in mind that between all of these you have a rather constant stream of 2, 3 and 4k statements coming out. It is crazy the walls of text that talk page produces and frankly at times forms a huge barrier to involvement, essentially trapping the engaged parties in a bubble. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see what you mean, these are indeed large edits. However, they are also well-researched, relevant to the topic, and give a coherent and courteous account of good encyclopedic arguments. I have found myself that certain editors have left coherent argument so far behind that it is often necessary to restate a complete case. This does require quite a lot of text.
 * Personally I don't find these edits an obstacle to participation, though I'm sorry if you do. I suggest strongly that they are suitably decorous and that they should not attract criticism, except insofar as they indicate the serious obstacles to improvement of the page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They are an obstacle to participation, they have strangled at birth several RFC. Nor are they necessary when it is already acknowledged that an edit is sourced and the discussion is whether it is peripheral or not to the topic.  They are the equivalent of shouting down one side of a debate, particularly when they are accompanied with cries of censorship and suppression of the truth that must be told. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Posting "walls of text" can be annoying, I agree, but as Richard says, the text contained sensible and relevant points, not to mention sources. I did not find them an obstacle to participation in this latest debate at all.  At most, posters of such "walls" should be politely asked to keep it brief.  Failing to do so is hardly ArbCom material, now is it?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: When the point that an edit is sourced is conceded, what purpose does it serve to continually post walls of text after being asked to desist, other than to close debate down?  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The size of the text posted was not the problem - if anything it was a reaction to your filibustering.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which neatly illustrates one of the problems, a legitimate question on relevance and asking to consider the argument is dismissed as "filibustering", and the direct question is ignored. Please address the question. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There are plenty of examples of any productive discussion being derailed by massive walls of text, equally RFC being derailed with massive walls of text intended to influence outside comment but instead derailing any hope of outside comment being useful.  The lynch mob mentality being displayed here is indicative that some really don't understand their own role in creating deadlock and the degeneration of relationships on this article.  Simply blaming one editor as the devil personified tells me that really they don't have any perspective that they are just as much the problem as anyone else.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial process
3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

javascript:insertTags('Imalbornoz (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)',,)

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of dispute is, specifically the long-standing dispute over sovereignty between the United Kingdom and Spain.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support that the locus is Gibraltar. Oppose that specifically it is the long-standing dispute over sovereignty: specifically the locus is certain historical facts (atrocities in the capture of Gibraltar and the exodus, after the capture, of the population to a place called San Roque) and the self-governing status of Gibraltar (according to UN, the UK House of Commons / UK Government, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and several secondary sources). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No party has disputed that Gibraltar is of British sovereignty, in fact it has been assumed by the non-Gib "side" as a matter of fact without any problem:.
 * Regarding self-governing status: "it has not been yes it is!""no it isn't!". No party in this ArbCom has ever said that only the UN POV ("Gib is a non self-governing" territory) should be presented (e.g.: ). In fact, the non-Gib side has said that either all significant POVs should be in the lead, or none at all (and then explained in detail in the Politics section): here is where the dispute was unfortunately started by myself and here you can see a straw poll where exactly these two positions are defended by the non-Gib "side" (a bit too long but I hope this helps to show the "big picture"). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the MEGV period of the debates? They were very much of the sovereignty is not British due to X or Y viewpoint (what I would dub an extreme standpoint). I'd also add that part of this is a debate over the assumption that the UN is NPOV (as opposed to simply a notable POV). I must say, part of the reason I don't like 'sides' is this concept. I might disagree for totally different reasons to Justin or Gibnews or I might agree where they disagree, but by putting it into sides it allows people to just address the extreme comments from either 'side' without dealing with moderate swing editors. Myself and GibNews agree on very little, for example. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to talk about "sides": I was just responding to Guy's comment on two "sides" (Spanish and British), and trying to prove that there wasn't a "Spanish side" pushing a "Spanish POV on sovereignty". I hope Narson agrees on that. Narson is also right when saying he has been a much more reasonable editor than Justin or Gibnews. Regarding MEGV, I hope Narson agrees that s/he is not part of this ArbCom case or of the current dispute. Finally, I hope Narson and Guy can agree that no party here has disputed the sovereignty of Gibraltar. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so convinced there isn't a spanish POV being pushed, Imal. I do not believe in the concept that 'Oh this part of the UN agrees with us so it isn't our POV, it is the NPOV' which seems to back up part of it. I'd also say that while MEGV isn't a part of it, to ignore the history of disputes on that page ignores how we got here today. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * From evidence. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again we see an example of Imalbornoz asking dispute resolution to make a judgement on content. He really doesn't understand how this works.  In answer to his comments, the talk pages are littered with examples of people trying to explain the process of how Government works in Gibraltar to him, he never listens, he simply comes back with quotes as a "wall of text" and editors throw their hands up in despair. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar article
2) The article on, along with and related topics, has been the focus of sustained conflict between supporters of two points of view, divided along nationalist lines.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Disagree that it has been divided solely along nationalist lines. Both I and Richard Keatinge are British (I am half Spanish by blood but am culturally British).  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But the conflict is between supporters of two nationalist points of view, that is the point. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is wrong. You had a very short-lived involvement with the article (12 posts on the talk page, 6 article edits all in the space of just 2 days in January 2010 (see ), whereas I have been editing there for better or for worse since 2007.  There are certainly British Gibraltarians who side on the pro-Gibraltar lines and Spaniards to take issue with the pro-British POV, but there are other editors like me, Richard, Narson, Pfainuk and lately Gordonofcartoon who do not make edits on the basis of nationalist POVs.  You are jumping to too many conclusions.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Up to a point, Lord Copper... I would describe the conflict, on the whole, as between a nationalist point of view (British, embarrassingly), and an encyclopedic one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Evening. I tend to agree with the asserts above. Spanish nationalistic rants have been a minor concern. Atama below cites an example by Fireinthegol, whose comments at the most amount to a 1% of the total, thus not exactly being representative of anything -not to mention that he isn't even a party in the arbitration- (see revision history statistics of the talk pages:, , ). Other than that, I cannot agree with any comment vaguely stating that there have been 'attempts to push a Spanish POV'. I reject as a premise that endorsing extensively referenced issues
 * -Such as the population of Gibraltar fleeing (as opposed to 'leaving peacefully') after the 1704 siege, surrender and ulterior sacking of the town;
 * -The majority of refugees settling San Roque and this being relevant to the article (per vast coverage amongst secondary sources);
 * -Pre-1704 Gibraltarians being indeed Gibraltarians (per any dictionary and secondary sources);
 * -Or the degree of self-government in Gibraltar being a controverted issue (here's a diff exemplifying 3 out of the 4 debates I've just mentioned);
 * constitutes 'Spanish nationalist POV pushing'. In my opinion, the automatic assumption that the mere dissent of position A makes you a supporter of position B (even if you happen to live in B, as we've been repeatedly reminded of by Justin and Gibnews -see evidence-), is wrong: on the one hand I deny being a 'Spanish nationalist', and I sincerely don't think that neither Ecemaml nor Imalbornoz are. We've been labeled as such so many times and for so long that I find myself in the predicament of proving my innocence. So be it: Spanish nationalists are not prone to make this kind of statements, , , , . On the other hand, further editors lacking an apparent nationalistic axe to grind such as The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick or Richard Keatinge have attested pretty similar positions on the sole basis of sourced data. Cremallera (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Firstly, nationalism (or not) is not nearly as relevant as the behaviour (and its impact on WP) that is caused by it. Anyway, I agree with Richard Keatinge and Cremallera. There have not been two nationalist sides, only one side of the relevant contributors has shown a nationalistic position in their edits. Spanish nationalistic editors have participated, but not significantly according to the evidence provided (see edit summaries). Furthermore, none of them is a party in this Arbcom. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Narson's statements are not founded in any evidence. It's Kaftkian to have to prove my own innocence. Is there bias in the participants in the case? For sure. Are they trying to overcome it in order to stick to the wikipedia principles or are they using wikipedia just to push his agenda? In my case, I don't consider myself a Spanish nationalism and as such I've done my best in counteracting such tendencies. If you're familiar with the incident of the Perejil Island, wich Spain and Morocco claiming they had the sovereignty of this islet, you can seen that I've proceeded to make it sure that the Wikipedia shows it as a disputed territory and not as a Spanish one, as the Spanish nationalism portraits: here or here. In the Spanish Wikipedia you can see that I proceeded in the same way: with regard to Perejil Island, here with regard to Ceuta, clearly stating that there is a claim on the city by Morocco (similar edition in Melilla); or here. I also created this image, replacing the mention to Perejil as Spanish. So, which are the sides then? --Ecemaml (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * From evidence. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to Richard, I'd note that there is certainly an element of Spanish nationalist POV pushing on that article. The position taken by the Spanish 'side' is not, IMO, more likely to be ecyclopædic, than that taken by the British 'side'. Pfainuk talk 11:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pfainuk. It's up to the evidence to determine which "side" is a bigger problem (if that even matters) but to say that there has been no attempt to push a Spanish POV doesn't seem accurate. See this discussion, where Fireinthegol had said, "that reference is an opinion by a Gibraltarian, meaning that Spanish have multiple opinions about Gibraltar issues, and that does not mean that are valid references, because they are the interested and obviously biased factions". Dismissing a source because it is Gibraltarian is about as nationalist as it gets. That's one of the more extreme pro-Spanish POV statements, but it shows that the nationalism isn't just on one side. --  At am a  頭 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Atama, but I disagree. We're not here talking about sides, but about the behaviour of several people. Showing the editions of a user that has made 30 editions in the talk page of Gibraltar only proves that he has engaged in POV pushing. Compare it with the 900 editions by Gibnews, which are either soapboxing or POV pushing (or both). Trying to say that all have engaged in POV pushing is just a way to justify to those that have actually POV pushed. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the description of Fireinthegol's edit on Disputed status of Gibraltar, quoted by Atama, as nationalist POV pushing. I should perhaps have added that I have contributed to, and am talking about, only the Gibraltar page and its talk page. I am also limiting my comments mainly to editors active since I first read that page, 9th December 2009. Richard Keatinge 12:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz
3) has edit-warred, engaged in tendentious editing, has been uncivil, has engaged in battleground behaviour.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Justin has shown a remarkably unhelpful behaviour pattern in the course of my brief involvement with this article, wasting immense amounts of time. A couple of brief examples of edit warring: at this diff Justin reverts a consensus discussed to death (that San Roque should, per all relevant histories and guide books, be mentioned briefly as the destination for refugees from Gibraltar in 1704, and at this diff Justin moves from an exhausted consensus to full-scale edit war.


 * Tendentious editing: should Gibraltar be described as self-governing, tout court, in the lead, when there are multiple impeccable sources describing the limits (mild/only for emergency but real) to its powers of self-government? In this diff Justin reverts despite discussion to his version.


 * Incivility: User:Imalbornoz has been the main victim of late (a particularly tolerant and civilized victim of undeserved attacks), such as this one on his talk page. Fortunately many such comments are childish enough that they are worth laughing at, but they are never helpful.


 * Here and here Justin turns Wikipedia into a battleground. For all I know some editors may support the Spanish claim to Gibraltar. But it is not obvious to me, nor do I find that such an attitude has led to recent trouble at the Gibraltar page (I'm aware of such problems elsewhere though not with any cited editors.)


 * Without reprising reams on unproductive discussion, I note that Justin's comments frequently are unhelpful in that they do not actually form any coherent response to the issue. Just one example, at my talk page Justin indulges in a rather nonspecific rant "Really? J'acccuse. Well not really but you might want to ponder that lumping everyone into the same camp of narrow nationalism, whilst it may be a convenient excuse to stop listening and ignore what they have to say, may not ring true. And the more you unfairly do so, the more vociferously and vigorously they will protest about it. ". He provides a diff to a comment of mine in which I made, I think, possibly helpful and non-accusatory remarks. Justin's comments so often seem to be generally accusatory, without progressing any discussion, and I feel that this lack of competence is responsible for much of the profitless verbiage on the discussion page and much of the irritation expressed towards Justin. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I also note that not all of Justin's edits are unhelpful. I hope that the current review will help him to become a more useful editor in due course.


 * Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, we really should be posting here. 'Comment by others' seems to be for people other than the parties. As a matter of response to Justin's comments below, I'd like to point out a couple of things: firstly, it is extremely unfair to state that 'all sides behaved inappropriately' and pretend that this is an accurate description of what has happened in the talk pages for the last months. We are speaking of identifiable editors here, and I do think (and have provided a hundred diffs to substantiate my claim) that the behavior of two of these editors, namely Justin and Gibnews, is simply unacceptable. Any of the insulting comments they've been dishing out on a daily basis equals or usually exceeds the worst comments made by any other editor. Not to speak of the really blatantly abusive ones.
 * Secondly: here's Justin accusing Ecemaml of edit-warring to the mediator . Oddly, himself was the one who violated 3RR, but wasn't blocked for it. Cremallera (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Richard and Cremallera. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * From evidence. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All sides have behaved inappropriately, to single out one editor from many suggests a lack of rational judgement. It also fails to acknowledge that Richard's own behaviour in joining in edit warring to impose a solution is just as unacceptable.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of points to note about Richard's evidence. A) the edit I put into the article was a compromise suggested by User:Atama, not my preferred edit.  B) I initiated a discussion on talk C) Two other editors Gibnews and Narson expressed disquiet at the way it was imposed and D) Richard edit warred, it takes more than one editor.  If Richard wanted me to clarify what I meant by what he refers to as a "rant" (assumption of good faith?), I would have done so and do so now.  I was simply referring to the fact that he accused me of suppressing mention of San Roque, an untrue accusation that I vociferously and vigorously disputed.  IF he'd addressed the argument I put forward rather than simply making a bad faith accusation as an excuse for ignoring it, I would have responded differently.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As by the evidences shown. Maybe all sides have behaved inappropriately. The question is to which extent and if systematic or sporadically. In Justin case, it's been to a great extent, as proved by evidences. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ecemaml I will just point out once again, that in the past I could have reported you and had you blocked for edit warring but I didn't. I don't except in extreme circumstances call for sanctions against other editors, something you are aware of from previous discussions.  I won't be proposing any sanctions or findings of fact, I'm more interested in getting this foolish dispute resolved without anyone losing face or facing punishment for past misdemeanours.  I do find it extremely disappointing that so many editors have taken advantage of a single period when I was not in the best of mental health to push for sanctions against me.  Particularly in light of your earlier message on my talk page, you know the situation I find myself in.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews
4) has edit-warred, engaged in tendentious editing, has linked to websites with which he is connected and has failed to follow the guidance on conflicts of interest.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The evidences are clear. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * From evidence. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions
1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.  Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose - Vague blanket 'laws' are always far too open to abuse and create drama. The object is to reduce. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You've a lot of work ahead in removing these sanctions from other areas, then. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff happens. Arbs need to be wary of judicial creep and because they did something before does not mean they must continue to do so blindly hoping it will transform -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - this may go a long way to improve the approach of certain editors. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think something along these lines might be helpful, as has been proved in dealing with other contentious areas. EyeSerene talk 13:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, from WP:ARBMAC but standard for most such cases now I think. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Narson your "softly softly" approach (eg when you suggested Justin should simply get some sleep after another round of personal attacks  ) does not work and if anything sends the wrong message that it's OK to have tantrums.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At least one of those diffs is in no way a personal attack, Red Hat. They are someone clearly getting confrontational and so I told them to back off and they did. I will gladly make that 'mistake' over and over again. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Narson, telling someone who is getting confrontational to back off is no mistake, it's a good thing to do; pleas accept my thanks. The mistake is doing the same thing again when it's failed before, as, with Justin, it has. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz
2) is banned indefinitely from articles on British Overseas Territories and their politics, broadly construed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. Having thought some more, I think all Justin needs is some enforced time out to cool down. I suggest a 6 month topic ban for the article space and a return after that on a probationary basis.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Far too over the top. Smacks more of revenge than a solution. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Justin is a valuable wikipedian --Gibnews (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support 6 month ban. Justin has been extremely destructive and wasted huge amounts of time, but may learn. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add that return should be on a probationary basis and after he has shown an administrator that he has some understanding of how he has been so unhelpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support 6 month ban in Gibraltar articles, and on parole afterwards. He does not seem to realise how wrong what he has done is. I don't vote regarding other articles, as I have no evidence about his behaviour elsewhere. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. This is far too far per Narson - particularly given Justin's constructive work on articles on other BOTs. Pfainuk talk 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no need for him to be restricted from working on Falkland Islands articles. Replace "British Overseas Territories" with "Gibraltar" and I'd have no objections. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews
3) is banned indefinitely from articles on British Overseas Territories and their politics, broadly construed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Would support if dropped to a time limited, as I'd like to see what GibNews could do outside of Gib articles. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I have created and participated in other articles, if topic banned I would lose interest in the project, as if gaming the system prevails it suggests to me that its fundamentally flawed if particular interests can prevail over accurate reporting. --Gibnews (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I would hope to see Gibnews productively employed. Gibnews is well-informed but intensely nationalist, and I support his return if and when he can make clear to an administrator that he understands what Wikipedia is not, how to use  secondary sources, and appropriate use of his own websites. It will also be important to avoid nationalist insults. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support 6 month ban in Gibraltar articles, and on parole afterwards. Support indefinite ban in case he persists in his attitude and behaviour afterwards. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indef is certainly too far. Pfainuk talk 10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement
[standard enforcement would apply]

Civility
1) Civility is a core part of wikipedia and without it editing cannot proceed. Quality edits are never an excuse for exceeding the bounds of civility.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) Editors remain an asset to wikipedia and if they may be productive in other areas, Wikipedia's duty is to salvage them if necessary by disengaging them forcefully from the area of conflict.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Unnecessary and tangential. The committee already uses topic bans rather than site bans precisely because of this, it does nto need to be stated not least because it is not relevant to this particular case, which is solely concerned with edits to a single topic area. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree it's unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't a rehab clinic.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Direct and Indirect
1) That the incivility is the fault of both 'sides' of this conflict, either directly or through passive-agressive actions clearly designed to force reaction


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing comes even close to the abusive conduct of Justin A Kuntz and Gibnews. Show me otherwise with diffs in the evidence page. Cremallera (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this finding. Statements like this should not be thrown around without supporting evidence in the form of diffs. It's very easy to make accusations but you need to show your reasons for thinking this way. Furthermore, the exercise of reading past conversations in the cold light of day to gather diffs can give you a new perspective.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No significant evidence has been provided to prove that the side trying to include overwhelmingly supported issues (the UN's position, the exceptions to Gibraltar's self-government, the atrocities during the capture of Gibraltar -which have been opposed for a very long time but are fortunately now included-, the exodus to San Roque...) have any significant fault in the incivility: mostly, they have been using enciclopaedic arguments and trying to appease the other "side". In fact, it has kept a pretty civil behaviour and a cool headed attitude in spite of all the abuse it has suffered. On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence of the other side acting with incivility (Justin and Gibnews) and not trying to tell uncivil editors that what they were doing was wrong (most unfortunately, all other editors on this "side"). The expression "passive-aggressive actions clearly designed to force reaction" is especially unfair and not supported by any sources...-- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on ones reading of the diffs, Imal. And I would suggest that one side presuming they are the reborn Jesus come to save us all rings a little untrue. Though of course, I also accept I have not perhaps been as overt as I should on this, I have told Justin repeatedly that he has gone over the line and was lucky not to get blocked. I have proposed he be removed from the Gibraltar articles. I do accept my judgement is somewhat clouded because I know him and know the value he can bring, as well as his personal circumstances. I have also, repeatedly, stated that I do not support GibNews and find his constant soapboxing a large turn off. There are people pushing for certain things who do it as a points scouring exercise on the spanish side as well though, which is not you Imalbornoz, but they do help poison the well. GibNews is wrong to respond as he does, but people do seem to manage to say things they know will set him off. I also thing a large part of it is process and attitudes. If you look at what was said about walls of text/references, I do agree with Justin. Posting large walls of texts is not an argument, it is a large wall of text and is often a barrier to communication rather than an aid, so some part of it (but by no means all of it) is misunderstanding from that. So yes, in that vein I will cut this off, but perhaps people should consider their own actions as well as seeking to blame others, I know I will be. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidences have been shown that prove that the behaviour of Gibnews and Justin has been the same (not even close) to the one by any other involved person. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No diffs have been produced that seriously support this. I have the impression that Justin at least has felt that comments which seem to me perfectly civil and relevant are intended to provoke him. This is part of the problem and not an excuse. Richard Keatinge 09:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support - this is accurate. Pfainuk talk 13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It is accurate, the fact that some don't see their own conduct as part of the problem is symptomatic of the deadlock. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Disengagement
2) Many of the involved editors are productive outside of the Gibraltar area and so should be encouraged to focus energies there.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I would voluntarily agree to this anyway, I have found editing on Gibraltar to be deeply unpleasant to the point where I am not certain I wish to continue to be associated with the project. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be quite happy to not edit the Gibraltar pages, if someone ensured that the content was not trashed and rubbish like Gibraltar being the #1 producer of CO2 introduced. Until quite recently the Spanish wikipedia said that Gibraltar was caputured by English pirates and I fear the en. article would quickly redefine it as a colony on stolen Spanish soil (as it is widely described in their media) --Gibnews (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

One year
1) Users Gibnews, Red Hat of Patrick, Ecemaml and Justin A Kuntz are topic banned from articles directly relating to Gibraltar for a period of one year. Those editors so banned are not to contact any other parties about those articles for the period of their ban to solicit an edit or to promote discourse.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you including me in a topic ban? You have provided no supporting diffs for that.  I wasn't even editing in the Gibraltar space for much of the current dispute - I returned less than 2 months ago  after a five month self-imposed exile  and Justin continued his incivility while I was gone, so I can hardly be blamed for that.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it always simmers along on that page, you just toss the gas bottles in. Combined with the petty attempts at outing and the blatant nonsense about Gibraltarian, I see your presence as being massively outweighed by the negatives you bring along with you on that page, but at the same time I firmly believe you have proven yourself in other areas to be a quality editor and so should be encouraged, by force if necessary, to go and work there. My initial thought was to topic ban everyone who has edited there this far but figured that ws a little broad (no matter how much we would all enjoy a holiday) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the evidence page, I was entirely absent from August 09 to January 10 while Gibnews and Justin continued in their behaviours and the latest dispute festered. I have on occasion let my frustrations get the better of me with a couple of barbed comments here and there, but nothing even remotely close to the kind of nationalist abuse rolled out by Gibnews and Justin. My frustrations are a symptom rather than a cause of the problems that led us to ArbCom. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As shown by the evidences, Gibnews and Justin does not seem to have other interest in Gibraltar that imposing their agenda. My track of contributions to Gibraltar-related issues proves it's not my case. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Again Narson tries to make excuses for the behaviour of Gibnews and Justin by trying to make it equal to that of mine. Especially when no evidence has been shown. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could stop pointing to Gibnews and Justin as an excuse for your own poor behaviour. I'll be honest, I've no idea what your oppose vote is about. It does not parse. -- Narson ~  Talk  •
 * Comment: In spite of the requests for providing diffs that support your statement, you keep on dodging the issue. I don't understand why. --Ecemaml (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Strong Oppose Change to exclude small things, like spelling, grammar, and the like, and this makes more sense. Ham  tech  person  02:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1RR
2) For a period of 1 year from the conclusion of this case, Gibraltar shall be subject to a 1RR, though any person must first have been warned of the 1RR in the same manner as the 3RR.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, both as an alternative and as a stand alone. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1RR is far too easily gamed. Editor X makes a change, unilaterally or with a majority backing, editor Y who has an interest in keeping the article as it is unilaterially decides they don't like it, reverts it, then you are stuck.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is no more easily gamed than 3RR, it just reduces the length of the edit wars to one revert per editor per 24h period, and means editors will have to keep reign of their emotions more carefully for that second revert will cost them a block. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a problem, though, in that the British POV has a small and consistent group of supporters whereas the alternative (either Spanish or attempts at NPOV) tends to involve only one user at a time, due in no small part to the toxicity of the dispute which rapidly drives off anyone who is not here to Right Great Wrongs. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * And what about vandalism? Ham  tech  person  02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are a tiny number of Gibraltarian editors who seem to get scared off by the army of organised tendentious Spanish editors. The population of Gibraltar being 7% that of Spain. The other editors I know are students who have other more important things in life to do. However, Wikipedia needs to reflect the correct situation not the one an outside uninvolved country would like imposed. --Gibnews (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment
2) Any editor blocked for harrassment (including outing) or incivility relating to other editors on the Gibraltar pages will be subjected to, in addition to any other block for their harrassment, a 3 month ban from the Gibraltar aricles.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, both as an alternative and as a stand alone. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, especially considering that the alleged outing of Gibnews was not so (as the evidences provided to the ArbCom will prove). --Ecemaml (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This seems like a good idea if it is made clear such a ban will run consecutive to any block. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Parties need to disengage. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Soapboxing
1) There has been rampant and long-running soapboxing on the Gibraltar talk page and associated article talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Core Wikipedia policies have been ignored
2) WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V have been been ignored in the Gibraltar space to the detriment of the quality of the articles in question and the reputation of the project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Gibnews has a conflict of interest
3) Gibnews uses Wikipedia in order to promote the cause to keep Gibraltar under British rule, and advancing these interests is more important to him than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, which should describe the history and politics neutrally.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment I refute the this suggestion strongly. Firstly Gibraltar is not 'under British Rule' as it is self-governing. Gibraltar enjoys British Sovereignty which is another matter. In the 2002 referendum 99% of the population rejected any attempt to change this, so my views are pretty typical in Gibraltar in that I reject the Spanish claim to my homeland. As wikipedia should reflect the way things are and not the aspirations of a foreign state, I do not see that my personal views are a problem. However I do find the constant attempt by editors with a pro-spanish agenda disturbing as is the attempt to prevent Gibraltar based editors from editing wikipedia in order to skew the articles. The game plan seems to be ban Gibraltar sources, remove content critical of Spain and stamp on me. It may be that I have not always reacted coolly to taunting by Pro Spanish editors such as RHOPF who has from day one been out to cause trouble. However I have added images and quality content to wikipedia and tried to achieve consensus on difficult issues. Most of my time has been taken up on Gibraltar pages, but being involved in news gathering for various organisation I have access to a lot of original material. Replacing that with 'Gib bashing' Spanish propaganda will not make Wikipedia a reliable source of information. I stand by the contributions I've made to wikipedia rather than the above editor who simply removes content he does not like. Even when its well sourced and appropriate. --Gibnews (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here. The first is Gibnews' attitudes, which are often nationalistic and occasionally uncivil. The second is his possible association with pressure groups, which I have to say I find absolutely irrelevant. If he is in a pressure group, so what? He has been very open about his attitudes - see above. He has, in short, already documented his conflict of interest, and the resulting problems need to be taken on their own merits. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Strongly oppose this one unless new evidence of an actual (rather than alleged) conflict of interest is presented in this case or is confirmed by an arbitrator as having been submitted privately. I've seen this alleged several times and on each of those occasions the accusations have not been upheld. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The complete evidence has been submitted to ArbCom, who are now the only editors in a position to make a fully informed judgement on this. I placed the proposed finding here so that when they have completed their review of it, they can either confirm or deny it.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz has engaged in personal attacks and incivility
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Justin A Kuntz
1) Justin to be topic banned from the British Overseas Territory Gibraltar space for a period of three to six months and to return after that on a trial basis, where any incivility will meet with another six month ban.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As below. Steve Smith (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The enforced time out would be good for his personal life, where he's said he's having a few issues.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Modified from BOT to just Gibraltar based on others' suggestions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I know you two don't get along, but as with Guy's proposal, this throws the baby out with the bathwater. Justin does good work on other BOTs (including the Falklands, which are also disputed and where we do not see the problems we see at Gibraltar).  I also think that banning one side of the dispute while ignoring the other, as is the sum of these proposals, is not going to make for a better article. Pfainuk talk 10:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin's 'crime' is that he is persistent and had helped in trying to prevent the group of editors who have been trying over the last few months to change the Gibraltar article to be more sympathetic to the Spanish POV. He may be abrupt at times but part of the tactics are to wind up editors like him in order to discredit their work. Like myself he is seen as an obstacle in skewing the article away from describing Gibraltar to describing the wholly wrong 'Spanish viewof Gibraltar' We have not always agreed on things but I respect him a lot and he is a valuable wikipedian. --Gibnews (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews
2) Gibnews to be topic banned from the Gibraltar space indefinitely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * "Gibraltar space" requires some definition as there are currently no pages with the "Gibraltar:" prefix; I assume it means all Gibraltar-related articles...and their talk pages? Steve Smith (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Steve Smith: yes, I meant all Gibraltar-related articles and their talk pages, or at the very least all articles relating to its human aspects (politics, culture, history, sport etc). List of birds of Gibraltar or List of mammals of Gibraltar would not be included.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is simply an attempt to stifle input from Gibraltar because it does not suit an agenda. --Gibnews (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal is to ban you, not everyone from Gibraltar. I wouldn't dream of suggesting the other two Gibraltar regulars, User:Gibmetal77 and User:RedCoat10 be banned even though I am often in disagreement with them.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose an indefinite ban. While I think the Gibraltar articles would do well without the key parties to this case (including but not limited to both Gibnews and Red Hat) I do not believe that any of them are beyond reform. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Smacks of retaliation in singling out a single editor. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Joint effort to move Gibraltar to GA and then FA status
3) The process of review by outside editors and the team effort involved in improving the points raised there will help to mend personal bridges while improving the quality of the article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not really a remedy. Steve Smith (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be initiated from the community/editors' end, not from the arbitrators. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose as being outside the remit of arbitration. While improving the article is to be encouraged, mandating the process by which this is to happen is not something the arbcom should be doing imo. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was told it was more likely to get "FU" status when I proposed it on the talk page recently., so perhaps the remedy is that this should not be actively obstructed?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that needs to be a specific remedy. If anyone has been obstructive then that should result in one or more findings of fact and one or more remedies to deal with the obstruction by the editor(s) who have been should be enacted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed principles
Something needs to be done about the Gibraltar articles. I propose a topic ban on user:RHOPF and user:Ecemaml who would more productively spend their time on other interests. The former has been negative in his contributions and the latter is obsessed with introducing Spanish spin into the article about Gibraltar, which is not part of Spain since 1704 and strongly rejects its inclusion into the spanish state.

I also propose that a neutral admin takes an interest in the Gibraltar pages in order to prevent excesses.

Given those twh steps, I expect normality will prevail quickly and we can all concentrate on adding quaality content.

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle} a) topic ban user:rhopf indefinate b) topic ban user:ecemaml indefinate c) admin to take an active interest in the pages until normal


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ecemaml, Gibnews and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick not to interact (1)
1) User:Ecemaml, User:Gibnews and user:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick are not to interact with each other, in any way and in any place, about any topic related to Gibraltar, broadly interpreted, while any editing restrictions imposed on any of them relating to Gibraltar are in force. If at any point any two of the three are released from such restrictions before the third of them is, then the two unrestricted editors may resume normal interaction but both will remain restricted with regards the third until that editor is released from their restrictions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Unnecessary. It is treating the symptom rather than the underlying cause.  Gibnews has since he started in 2005 got wound up by anyone who wants to modify any wording that he has added to the article, period.  Justin just gets wound up by anyone who disagrees with him.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Include Justin too please and also impose a civility/NPA parole on all parties. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Interaction is seen as an opportunity to exacerbate conflict. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ecemaml, Gibnews and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick not to interact (2)
2) User:Ecemaml, User:Gibnews and user:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick are not to comment, in any way and in any place, about each of the other two editors named in this section, nor are they to comment their actions, or about off-wiki websites or other off-wiki matters related to them. This shall include, but not be limited to, WP:ANI, Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and user talk pages. If any one of the restricted users has evidence of a breach of any Wikipedia policies, guidelines or restrictions imposed by the community or arbitration committee, they shall email either an arbitrator who is not recused from this case or another editor nominated by the arbitration committee, who shall, at their discretion, post details of such evidence and/or take other appropriate action on the complainant's behalf. This shall remain in force indefinitely until the arbitration committee feel it is no longer required.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Gibnews: This is quite un-necessary and irrelevent. There is little contact between us and I have asked politely  asked RHOPF to refrain from posting messages on my user page and declined to discuss my financial details with Ecemaml there. This is NOT a dispute where editors have been sending each other threats etc by email. Certainly I have neither sent or received any communications and have no interest in contacting either of the two either on or off wikipedia apart from discussions on article talk pages which although generally unproductive are civil. In any case whatever is decided here is only appropriate to Wikipedia - Should anyone care to harass me outside wikipedia, 'real world' remedies would apply.


 * The key to the dispute is that there is an organised lobby to try and make the pages about Gibraltar more favourable to the Spanish position regarding reclaiming sovereignty of Gibraltar and how wikipedia can ensure it presents unbiased articles. It is not a personal confrontation but a difference in ideology. --Gibnews (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gibnews that this proposed remedy is unnecessary. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. The evidence shows that regardless of the rights or wrongs of the matter, almost all interaction between these users, and comments made by one against one of more of the others produces acrimony and heat that obscures and hinders any progress being made. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Cuts right to the heart of the problem, when raising the same issue multiple times on different forums wastes the energy of the community. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed principles
1) Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is intended to enable editors to come to a mutual decision on content. It does not exist to decide content or impose a solution on content and dispute resolution should not be seen by editors as a means to impose the content they desire. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I support this. Trying to use dispute resolution to impose content is unhelpful to all. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC
2) RFC are a means to obtain external opinion to enable editors to resolve a dispute over content. Editors should refrain from driving away external input by putting up walls of text.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

User Conduct (1)
3) When an editor has apologised for an uncharacteristic outburst and has been sincere in doing so, it is counter productive to constantly hark back to an incident. Editors should comment on the argument not the editor. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think this could be split into a principle of "no personal attacks"/"avoid ad hominem arguments", a finding of fact that one or more editors has made personal attacks and/or ad hominem arguments (if they have), and the arbcom issuing a "reminder" (or something stronger if warranted) to avoid doing so in future. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User Conduct (2)
4) It is unacceptable to ignore a policy based argument on content based upon the presumption of an editors motives. Editors should comment on the argument not the editor. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * What point of evidence does this refer to? I can recall several instances where editors repeatedly said "$POLICY" as a stonewalling effect after their interpretations of policy had been discussed and rejected, but I can't think of an example offhand which matches your description. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is displaying a lack of self-awareness, Justin. After posting this here, you got into an edit war at History of Gibraltar with User:English Bobby.  Instead of initiating discussion on the talk page, you went straight to WP:ANI  where you did exactly what you say should not be done - you commented on the editor and made presumptions about his motives.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To correct on that, I was the one who made the presumptions when I got worked up. It is something I could easily work out based on his edits and based on my experience in dealing with the area IRL, but it isn't something I should have said, however, English Bobby responded by confirming my sarcastic suspicions. As I said on that, it isn't an admin matter but a content one that can be dealt with by users. However it has been a long term nuisance. Really Red Hat, are we at the point of backing up fascists to find a way to attack Justin? There are plenty of easier ways to criticise his attitude on Gib articles without needing to sully yourself. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 01:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hat, you are of course aware that I have in fact sought to deal with English Bobby on the talk page; why you make the false assertion that I haven't is perplexing. I went straight to AN/I simply because he is persisting with the abusive postings on my talk page, so I conclude not unnaturally he is not amenable to discussion.  Nor did I make presumptions about his motives; he has openly stated them.  But this comment of yours is actually symptomatic of a wider problem, where you're selectively quoting evidence to seek sanctions against other editors.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 08:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support That has been forgotten by all involved.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Ecemaml (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Conduct and decorum
2) All editors are expected to adhere to Wikipedia's code of conduct. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly or uncollaborative conduct, such as personal attacks, disrespect toward other editors, uncivil commments, harassment, unjustified failure to assume good faith, using Wikipedia as a battleground, or comments containing unnecessary ethnic or national references concerning editors, all are inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of another editor, if they cannot be resolved directly with the editors, should be addressed in the appropriate forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin: what you're proposing would be a finding of fact, not a principle. Steve Smith (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment I think it would be instructive to note that the issue has been raised at AN/I including proposals to impose restrictions that would have limited conflicted.  Unfortunately proposals have not been taken forward; in part because walls of text meant the thread degenerated into the tl;dr and on other occasions hijacked by a former admin with hurt feelings.  At least in part the dispute has escalated from a failure to address the issues when they're raised.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with NYB that this is one of the main points in this case. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Consensus
3) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment There is an issue here, that some parties seem to view consensus as shouting down the "opponent" or forcing the "opponent" to move with reams of tendentious argument and walls of text. This is counter productive and merely forces parties into fixed positions.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, another important point in this case. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to JzG - Justin is, I believe, referring primarily to Imalbornoz here, rather than himself. Please correct me if I am wrong, Justin.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will simply draw attention to the diffs presented above and let people draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to be drawn into pointing fingers.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 08:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is one of the main issues here. Especially when sort of consensus is being pursued by ignoring what reliable sources say. Consensus cannot be reached at the risk of ignoring the five pillars. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed, and I am encouraged by Justin's uncharacteristic display of self-awareness above. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think you should be honest and add yourself to the involved parties. You have a rather clear dog in this race. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 01:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Narson, JzG is needlessly personalising the dispute. It seems that his block has resulted in what amounts to a personal vendetta against me, I am really starting to feel that he is pursuing a campaign against me.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 08:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Narson and Justin on this.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? I have no idea how many total edits I have to that article, but I'd be surprised if it exceeded a dozen. I made a comment congratulating Justin on having accepted that tendentious argument and walls of text are a problem, and he accuses me of running some sort of campaign against him - in truth I do not need to do any campaigning at all, the diffs in evidence are Justin's undoing, not anything I've said or done. Am I to take it that his comment above was actually just another example of WP:NOTTHEM instead of an honest acknowledgement of fault? That would be disappointing. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * JzG, you praised the disruptive editor User:JCRB as a an example of a wonderful wikipedian, intervened in a dispute without understanding it, got yourself blocked and whilst acknowledging your involvement was minor take the opportunity to call for sanctions against me. I'd also draw attention to when I proposed at AN/I some restrictions to cool things see, the resulting discussion was derailed by your rant  please note the comments from the Argentine editor Darius, a valued colleague of mine.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When considering Justin's comment that JCRB was disruptive, I suggest that arbitrators consider this comment from an outside editor (who is named as a party but has not had any significant involvement) and other comments in that thread, the same thread as the one Justin cites above. I would endorse that position.  JCRB's main contribution to Wikipedia is to push the Spanish POV, not just on Gibraltar articles but elsewhere as well.  In one memorable incident he added names to a straw poll he'd started in an apparent attempt to stack the vote, without those editors' knowledge or consent (note that I actually voted the other way on that poll).  Red Hat quickly (and quite rightly) removed the names, something that JCRB was not happy about.  He's not a party here mostly because he's been less active recently, not because he has not been part of the problem in the past.


 * On the blocking, I agree, Guy seems to have a thing about Justin after that. Guy cites WP:NOTTHEM - maybe it applies to Justin, but if so it's the pot calling the kettle black.  Guy's behaviour surrounding his 3RR block has displayed precisely these traits.  The edit war that saw Guy blocked was a good example of editors edit warring instead of going through the consensus building process: Guy continued to revert after starting an RFC in which he requested topic bans for anyone who disagreed with him - note that he was reverting to a sentence that (inasmuch as it made any sense at all) supported the pro-"non-self-governing" side.  He broke 3RR, was reported and blocked. Pfainuk talk 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is indeed a good example of the way the combatants on the British side in this battle have habitually used Wikipedia's rules and processes to gain advantage in a content dispute (in this case insistence on reinserting an unequivocal statement based on equivocal and contradictory sources). Had I realised, Pfainuk, that your going straight to the 3RR noticeboard with absolutely no attempt at prior discussion, reminder or warning, was intended to form an example in a subsequent arbitration case then I would have saluted you for your remarkable foresight. You are too modest in failing to claim the credit for that little manoeuvre, securing as it did harsher treatment for me than we normally hand out to common vandals (a punitive block six hours after the event with no prior warnings or discussion at all). Well done. I'm not sure it's relevant to the point at issue, mind. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you demonstrate my point. The block was enacted and reviewed by independent and uninvolved admins with minds of their own, who will have looked at the evidence and saw that you were edit warring - just as I did.


 * You seem to claim it was just pro-British editors edit warring. You are an experienced admin - surely you know that it takes two to edit war?  You were demanding that your preferred version had to be the version in the article while dispute resolution continued - and not just that, you requested that people be topic banned simply for disagreeing with you.  I do not see how you do not understand that this is a direct contravention of the principle noted above.  The notion that the dispute and block were entirely the fault of those who disagreed with you is essentially you doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.  WP:NOTTHEM applies to you as well.  Indeed, maybe if you'd followed its advice at AN3, you might not have been blocked. Pfainuk talk 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
4) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I completely agree. I think this is the most important point in this dispute. Specifically, in some cases it has been different viewpoints on a topic (i.e. X is white or X is black) but in some more cases it has been whether to mention or not some undisputed facts (i.e. everybody agrees that X is white, but some say it should be mentioned and some others say it should not be). In these cases, the dispute is more easily derided by personal opinions (i.e. X is relevant, no it isn't). It should be noted that not mentioning certain facts can result in a non-NPOV article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. One of the key points of this case is that some POV are consistently ignored or banned on the grounds of being "foreign" --Ecemaml (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Prefer the more detailed version from the speed of light case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fact versus opinion
5) In drafting articles and especially in discussing disputed article content, editors should take reasonable care to distinguish facts from opinions or partisan views. When the accuracy of a statement cannot reasonably be contested, it is inappropriate in discussing article content to deny that the statement is true, although it may be entirely appropriate to question whether the fact is relevant to a particular article or has been given undue weight in that article. When a statement is a matter of opinion, however, the article should make clear who or what side of a dispute holds that opinion and ensure that competing opinions with reasonable support are also represented.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Note that unlike some of the principles above, which represent standard formulations (albeit reworded and hopefully rendered more applicable to this specific case), this one is more novel. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a key point in this particular dispute. Risker (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Personal opinion I realise but at the heart of this problem has been the inability to recognise that certain facts whilst sourced are not necessarily relevant to all articles. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad - I draw attention to the British Overseas Territories and Gibraltar Pound matters in my evidence on Gibnews. These are also examples of opinions being confused with facts, but they are the opinions of one editor - in other words they are original research.  While I agree with the finding, I'm not sure the intent behind it is to include this kind of original research, or am I misreading it?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general idea. There have been some episodes of confusing opinions with facts and ignoring what reputed sources say. But maybe there have been more cases of discussing whether to include in the article (or in the lead) some facts undisputed by all parties (some parties said they were notable and relevant while some other said they were not). In this case, it is more difficult to avoid opinions on what is notable and relevant or what is not. I proposed that the discussion should be focused on some type of objective measure such as the number of mentions by reputed sources dealing with the topic of the article. I would warmly welcome some guideline on this issue. I believe that not having an objective guideline on what to include or not has been one of the main problems in this dispute. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC) PS: I don't mean that arbitrators say "this fact and that fact should be included". I'm asking -if possible- that they clarify the guidelines for dealing with these disputes about what is relevant and what is not in an article.
 * This is a key point. In the evidences section I've pointed out countless times in which invented facts (at worst), opinions or WP:OR by WP:SYN  has been included and had been in wikipedia in some ocasions for years. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think the core problem is more one of WP:TRUTH versus WP:V, but mistaking opinion for fact is also an issue. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

National territorial conflicts and similar disputes
6) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories. Editors working on articles in these areas are likely to have strong individual views, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds, concerning the disputed issues. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted to contribute, but they should bear in mind that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their views while editing rather than editing neutrally, and take this natural tendency into account while editing and participating in talkpage discussions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Partially Support I think the issue has more been a reluctance to actually address argument though I agree this is driven by nationalism. At least of equal importance has been a reluctance to tackle the issue before it escalated to this point.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. In this dispute, I think that there is at least one case of nationalism and probably some other cases of "suspecting" that other editors have "nationalistic" motivations and therefore some areas of the article should be "protected" from their "tendentious edits" (they are similar cases but not exactly the same). It probably is not necessary, but I would like to add that if some of the parties in a dispute are driven by nationalism we should not jump to the conclusion that the other "side" is driven by nationalism as well. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Nice. One of your best, Newyorkbrad. Hell if I know how to fix it, but that's a masterful summary of the problem alright! Guy (Help!) 20:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Guy, but look at the size of that last sentence! That last sentence needs to be chopped up otherwise it's way too convoluted and detracts from the very useful points that otherwise would be made in this principle. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity and conflicts of interest
7) Wikipedia's policies allowing anonymous editing while discouraging conflicts of interest create a tension that necessarily is imperfectly resolved. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high degree of sensitivity to the competing concerns.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support, even though I realise I am probably going to be found to be part of the tension in this case and may not have applied the correct levels of sensitivity. I would also like to request that ArbCom use this case (and my and Gibnews' conduct) to reexamine how suspected WP:COIs should be handled.  I would also like to request you ask User:Gordonofcartoon's input on this.  He was involved (a bit) with the matters relating to COIs with this case, he is a regular at the WP:COIN board, and he has ideas on how things could be improved.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose One of the nastier aspects of this dispute has been the harassment under the guise of investigating a COI. I don't believe this should be encouraged by giving it legitimacy.  The editors involved have crossed the line in my opinion.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am not a very experienced wikipedian (that's why I have not participated in this area of the dispute), but from what I've seen this is a tricky issue: we must respect other editors' anonymity but at the same time, WP should not be disrupted by editors with very strong conflicts of interest. I agree with JzG below that some guidelines would be very good. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this is trying to say. IMO the right to anonymity trumps CoI concerns (as CoI is not a huge issue on any article with plenty of people), though there are problems when people start tossing around 'facts' about other users and engage in persistant fishing expeditions etc while at the same time using a person's use of their right to anonymity as further excuse to assert more 'facts' about them, despite previous denials. I'll wait to see the remedies linked to this before coming to a conclusion. Ultimatly, if someone's edit about G W Bush is rubbish, it doesn't matter if they are Random Joe or Bob Dole on a well patrolled article, it will be reverted. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple - there are three problems here: (1) linking to your own websites (2) writing about organisations you are a member of but that you haven't informed your fellow editors you belong to (3) using Wikipedia as a platform to push the same agenda that your websites and/or organisations push. There is also another question about when you have effectively waived your right to anonymity.  You can't have your cake and eat it: if you link your Wikipedia identity to websites on the internet, either by choice of name or by stating that you register/run them, that in itself is effectively outing yourself.  On top of that, if you have released your real name on the internet in multiple places, in association with these websites, you have in my book definitely outed yourself in this day and age of Google.  It's like a someone complaining about being fired or expelled for posting stupid pictures of themselves on Facebook - if you didn't want people to see it, you shouldn't have made it public in the first place.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Except A) Some of those websites repeatedly claimed to be his were simply set up by him as part of his work, as I understand it from his explanation, with no ongoing involvement. Despite this the false claims were repeated as a route into discovering identities. B) At least one of the names put to him by...I apologise, I can't recall if it was you or Ecemaml, was wrong and people were told so but then it was still repeated. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 01:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are I assume talking about gibnews.net? According to this post  in 2010 yes, you would think that Gibnews just "designed it" and this post  that the site is owned by a company.  Well, I've just found this in the bowels of the Talk:Gibraltar archive from 2006  About www.llanito.gibnews.net he wrote "(it) is hosted on my server, but the content and views expressed belong to someone else. This one (gibnews.net) however is mine ".  So which is it, Gibnews - did you just design it with the content belonging to someone else and the site owned by a company or is it "yours" like you volunteered in 2006?  That is just the tip of the iceberg, by the way.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to my earlier comment, I don't think this has been drafted at all well. The issue is not the tension between anonymity and COI.  Gibnews' identity is known to several of the editors involved.  They were told they were barking up the wrong tree.  The issue to my mind is continuing to pursue outing, after being told to present the evidence in private to arbcom to avoid that issue.  To my mind that crosses the line into online harassment, particularly when backed with knowingly supplying misleading evidence to AN/I and arbcom and seeking sanctions against certain editors.  That is I believe the issue that needs to be tackled and which has not really emerged here.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 08:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, all the information about Gibnews COI has been privately provided to the ArbCom. As Justin mentions, Gibnews' identity is known to possibly all the editors involved (for instance, he linked to a document hosted in his web site explicitly mentioning that it was the answer that he has received to a complain he had made), so outing is not really an issue here. Again, as Justin has mentioned, and given that he knew perfectly Gibnews' identity I don't understand yet how mentioning real identities of people he knew weren't Gibnews' was an outing warning. On the other hand, TRHOPH has described the issue very well --Ecemaml (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Yes, a continual problem especially with WP:REFSPAM. Some guidelines would be good. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In relation to Justin's comments at 08:26, 29 March 2010, I agree that one of the main issues here has been the persistent insinuation of conflicts of interest, without any evidence being presented (either in public or in private) so that they can be verified, despite repeated requests (to paraphrase bluntly) to "put up or shut up". This is the sort of behaviour that my proposed remedy is (in part) intended to address. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am quite honestly flabbergasted that you have posted this.
 * 1) noone said "put up or shut up" - and even if they had, it would have been impossible to put up without outing Gibnews which would have led to a block for me - that is the Catch 22 which I would like guidance on
 * 2) as an admin who was quick to wade in with suggestions of harassment I offered you the chance to examine the evidence privately over email thereby respecting Gibnews' privacy on WP - you declined saying you were too busy " I do not have the time to review the evidence, but I would encourage you to contact someone who does  to get their opinions as well. Perhaps there is someone experienced at this sort of thing who is a regular at teh COI noticeboard. I stumbled accross this dispute at the RS noticeboard after following a link from a completely unrelated deletion review. I then followed it over to the COI board.'"' (not too busy to come here and level accusations, I see) so how can you come here and say that no evidence was put forth publicly or privately?
 * 3) I repeat it seems to have been forgotten that this started when I was threatened with legal action twice "from the owners" by Gibnews - under the circumstances it is fair enough that I investigate these websites to see who the owners were
 * 4) this only happened in January February 2010 and is not at all "one of the main issues" - the San Roque and self governing disputes had been ongoing for months at that point, prior to my return to the article. The underlying problems with the article have been going on for years (see evidence page).
 * Finally, none of you - not you Thryduulf, not you Justin, not you JzG and not you Narson know the full extent of the evidence. The only people's opinions here who count on this are ArbCom's because they DO have the evidence and are in a position to make a call. So I'd request all of you to comment no further. If I acted wrongly I am sure sanctions will follow. Indeed I have asked for my actions to be examined on this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As noone has provided any diffs, I added a series of links to the relevant COI discussions (plus a diff where I admit I erred) here.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, for your tranquility, the evidences of Gibnews' COI and the way he uses his web sites to pretend that his self-publications (or those of his associates) are reliable sources have been provided to EyeSerene (just to explain why I didn't intent to out Gibnews, even if he's provided plenty of information about his real identity) and to the ArbCom. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is user conduct relating to editing of Gibraltar and related articles concerning the history, people, and status of Gibraltar.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

User misconduct
2) Several editors on Gibraltar and related articles have engaged in poor behavior over a prolonged period of time, including gross incivility and personal attacks and abuse directed toward other editors, tendentious editing, persistent edit-warring, failing to cite reliable sources or relying excessively on partisan sources, and failing to respect consensus. The effect of these editors' conduct has been to produce an ongoing battlefield mentality and to drive other, more neutral editors away from Gibraltar and related articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. The editing atmosphere on the Gibraltar articles has been unacceptable and is going to change radically. The real question in this case is whether this decision sanction at least two individual editors by name and ban them from editing on Gibraltar for some period, accompanied by application of discretionary sanctions on the articles going forward, or whether simply to institute discretionary sanctions and hope that the promise that administrators will be keeping a firm line on misconduct going forward. I am going to workshop the case for now based on the latter approach, but certain of the parties to this case should be aware that this is not in any way a free pass for continued misconduct; if they continue to make the types of comments and edits that they have made to this point, they are going to find themselves banned from Gibraltar and related articles very quickly. Please see also additional comments accompanying the remedies, and please note that I or other arbitrators may propose additional findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need to sanction those who are causing problems. Otherwise, I fear the problems will quickly resurface as soon as the spotlight is off. I place great faith in our administrators, but past entrenched disputes have shown that admins are sometimes hesitant to get involved. So it is best we deal with this now, rather than later. KnightLago (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with KnightLago; in my view, the evidence page shows sanctionable conduct on the part of several editors, and I see no reason to grant what amounts to a general amnesty. Steve Smith (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As per KnightLago. Apply sanctions to the worst offenders, and then observe if the situation to improve before we consider whether to lift or review them. - Mailer Diablo 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with KnightLago and Steve Smith. I'm afraid that not dealing with individual editors might only reinforce their behaviour. I believe we have some very severe cases of lack of self-awareness of "the rafter in their own eyes" (that's a very human thing -maybe even I am one of those cases... although I swear I can't see how ;-) ). Therefore, I think that in order to drive the message home, some specific editors who have shown specific sanctionable conduct should be dealt with specifically. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC) PS: The evidence shows some cases of 1) lack of self-awareness and 2) of apparent repentance followed by repetition of the previous misconduct. That's why, in order to avoid this, I believe it's necessary to take into account 1) findings of fact and 2) sanctions on individual editors.
 * If I can presume to speak for more than just myself, I think from the perspective of an admin responding to future ANI reports, the remedies taken by Arbcom (including who gets sanctioned and for what) will serve as a useful model in guiding how we apply the 'discretionary sanctions' remedy should that pass. Privacy concerns aside, I believe part of the reason this dispute hasn't been satisfactorily managed via ANI is that it's not easy to come in cold, pick it apart, and make a fair decision. For example, X and Y are contesting an article source; X makes a clear personal attack and is blocked, but due to the plausible nature of the claims and counter-claims made the blocking admin may suspect that in removing X from the picture they've enabled Y to bias the article. I'm hoping the remedies will address not only the more obviously sanctionable behaviour - if that had been all there was to the dispute then admins would have dealt with it already - but also decide if there are issues with a subtler form of POV pushing and address those too. EyeSerene talk 12:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To add to EyeSerene's post - another reason ANI has failed and will fail in future here is that it is very difficult to portray the long-running, constant problems at the article, aside from asking "please read the whole talk history back to 2005", which noone is obviously going to do. To get a feel for the subtler civil POV pushing you really need to do that, or have been editing there for a long time.  So I heartily agree with EyeSerene's request to examine these less "obvious" aspects.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recommend the experience, but I have read through (OK, skimmed) the entire archives of Talk:Gibraltar. This has strongly reinforced my feeling that we simply will not be able to make any progress if Justin continues to be allowed to edit this page. His activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination and I see no reason why he should not continue to block progress indefinitely. He needs time out to rethink his attitude. And the rest of us need a breathing space to get on with the article. I support KnightLago, Steve Smith, Imalbornoz, and Red Hat. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This old tom has a fairly thick skin and a healthy sense of humour as you can probably tell from my signature. However, I am getting more than a little tired of Richard's constant accusations of being the devil personified and the cause of all that is wrong in world.  Above is a naked personal attack, in the context of arbcom, surely this must be actionable?  Demonic?
 * I think I'm fairly self-aware that my own conduct has been uncivil and on occasion crossing the line into sanctionable by a block or even a topic ban. I behaved badly and if arbcom feels I should be sanctioned for it, I'm not going to dispute it.
 * I would also say that I don't think this will be an easy case to solve with specific sanctions against individuals. I am pretty self-aware that for a while my behaviour was out of order but equally I don't think others are aware that they are just as much responsible for creating a poisonous atmosphere, or perhaps they are and their conduct has been quite deliberate for a more long term goal.  Bans/blocks on one side will simply clear the field for the POV of the article to be skewed.
 * Thryduulf's comments that everyone has behaved badly. I'd agree with that, we've all behaved like assholes to be frank. But clearly Richard is unaware that his own conduct has problematic, he accuses me of a lack of self-awareness to put this into the context of Thryduulf's comments.
 * A significant problem on this article is covered by the essay WP:CPUSH. There is a particular phrase I'd like to highlight The impatient ones tend to become angry as a result of the seemingly never-ending problems these articles cause, become uncivil, and be sanctioned by the arbcom for incivility.  Some of my behaviour is down to a mental health problem, I have been unwell, very unwell, but I am getting better, though I am by no means 100% there yet.  A lot of the evidence in the form of diffs stems from a period when I was in poor mental health.  Some of it is also down to sheer frustration at the behaviour on the article, examples:
 * At the point of achieving consensus raising a nitpicking query that unravels the agreement.
 * The walls of text from sources, when it has already been conceded a fact can be sourced reliably and the discussion is on relevance
 * Arguing about WP:NPOV and trying to undermine the due weight provision to add information that is peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
 * Quite often it will be put in a civil manner, policy will be disregarded but the conduct always stays the right side of civil to avoid sanctions. Worse a comment will be made that can appear superficially civil, probably defensible as it can be interpreted differently, but the subtle accumulation is to wear an editor down.  Examples of such behaviour include:
 * politely phrased baiting
 * frivolous or vexatious use of process eg the use of dispute resolution is seen as the next stage in achieving the content that the editor wants in the article
 * ill-considered but politely phrased accusations
 * continually returning to make the same point.
 * an inability to accept a compromise edit
 * It is very easy to focus on behaviour and formulate sanctions against editors who have been obviously uncivil. More difficult to deal with conduct that has provoked incivility but is not directly uncivil of itself.  Blocks/bans/wikibreaks will appear to solve the problem but instead simply clear the field for the civil POV pusher to have a field day; something alluded to by Eyeserene.  What it actually means for the project is the ability to achieve its mission goal of a neutral point of view will suffer.  A lot of the call for blocks and bans seem to me are to clear the field.  At least some smack of an element of revenge or retaliation.  What concerns me is that arbcom finds it difficult to deal with this problem, there has been a reluctance to deal with it at ANI and there will be a reluctance to undertake the not inconsiderable task of sifting through the debris of the case to find all the underlying causes.  I am encouraged that others can see the problems on the article, I agree with EyeSerene it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 18:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've correctly caught the gist of my earlier post. I appreciate we're asking a lot of Arbcom to come up with a Solomonic solution, but I think it's important that any remedies address WP:CPUSH if it's determined that has been a factor. EyeSerene talk 19:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Without trying to answer every phrase of Justin's comments, which I will leave to the diffs already in evidence, it may reassure Justin to consider that there are several involved editors who, while accessible to encyclopedic arguments, tend to start from the "British" point of view. Indeed, while I'm working hard for NPOV, I'm one of them myself. I'd like to add sympathy for his mental and family problems, I suspect that I might like Justin if we should ever happen to meet, and I realize that he is not the sole fons et origo of all the problems on this page. Nevertheless I repeat my suggestion: without Justin this project can proceed albeit by argument among some prickly characters who start from different points of view, and with him in his present state, I can't see any prospect. I'm not talking about punishment and I even hope that Justin will come to realize that his positive contributions are appreciated. But for the good of the encyclopedia, Justin needs to take some significant length of time out. I make no further comment on other editors including myself, except that, without Justin, we can get somewhere useful. While he remains active, I really don't think that we can. I look forward to welcoming him back in due course. In a few months, perhaps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * About Eyeserene's and PfainUK's comments:
 * Pfain's comment below is proof that there will be no lack of more reasonable "pro-Gib POV" editors if Justin and Gibnews get a temporary ban. If you look at the Gib talk page statistics you will see plenty of pro-Gibraltar POV but less disruptive editors: Narson and PfainUK (like the last one recognised) but also -for example- RedCoat10 and Gibmetal77.
 * Furthermore, Pfain's admitting that he is usually willing to wait for 4 months in many discussions (until Justin and Gibnews get done with the "hard work") and then reach an agreement, suggests that lots of time can be saved if Justin and Gibnews don't participate (at least not as they have done until now). It also suggests that maybe many non-pro Gib POV contributions have been lost along the way when editors were not willing to endure the abuse for 4 months (and that's something we should try to avoid).
 * For clarification purposes, I propose that PfainUK considers himself one of the "parties": at 181 edits, he is the 6th most prolific contributor at the Gibraltar talk page (not mentioning other BOT articles). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither Pfainuk or Narson should be considered as parties, they could not in any way be described as part of the problem. To try and imply they are a party, when they have done nothing whatsoever outside of wikipedian norms, is disingenuous.  As regards edit counts see, , , , .  I simply point out the editor whose editing in article space is 8% of his total and whose edits focus solely on one topic.  I'm also confident that if you were to ask Pfainuk if I have consistently been prepared to accept the compromise edits he suggests, you'd find him answering in the affirmative.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, being a party doen't mean they have done anything "outside of wikipedian norms" (please notice that I have described them as being reasonable and civil), it just means that they have played an important role in the dispute. Pfain has indeed participated in several disputes in the Gibraltar talk page (see their edit count). Their last edit was in last February 2010, and they has indeed been counted by yourself (as defending your POV) in several straw polls, the last one last March the 3rd. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction Narson votes for the compromise edit proposed by User:Atama, one I'm also prepared to accept.  To describe it as defending my POV and therefore involved is utterly misleading.  What is of note, is the editors who remain unchanged.  The only role either has played is trying to resolve the dispute amicably. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. My point is that there is not a problem of a lack of editors defending a more pro-Gib POV: Narson, RedCoat10, Gibmetal77, PfainUK... (and some others) have defended edits in line with that POV (even recently, see the diff above) besides "Justin the Evil Scotsman" and Gibnews. Therefore, there is no problem of editors being judged according to their own behaviour. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC) BTW, accepting modifications in the wording but sticking to the POV that certain episode not be mentioned at all in the article is no change to a compromise version. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it rather amusing that you seem so happy to toss around the phrase POV while preaching to this ArbCom that you are the grand arbiter of NPOV, Imal. I don't think you have acctually ever asked me for my personal view on Gibraltar and you presume that my opposition ot certain things is based on ill motives. Some might be perhaps, though not consciously, however it is evidence of the perverse nature of assuming bad faith. By assuming it is due to my passport or what flag flies at my local town hall, you never have to address any policy based argument and can simply respond with reams of aggrandised text. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 16:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would never think I am "a grand arbiter" of anything ;-). I have never suspected bad faith from anyone due to their flag -I couldn't care less. In fact, I assume such good faith in you that I've even asked you several times to tell Justin to view me in a better light (e.g.). I am only saying that some editors seem to defend edits in line with the pro-Gib POV more often than not (which is fine, of course) and therefore there is no problem of a lack of editors doing so. You seem to be one of the editors (albeit one of the more neutral ones, I think -which is even finer, of course) who will defend the article from "Spanish nationalists", according to many of the edits you've defended in the Gib talk page (independently of your opinion or your nationality). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as Imalbornoz goes, he strikes me as a very reasonable chap whose only request is that the article have a more balanced POV. I've said it before, but his responses in the face of what can only be described as abuse has been admirable - he's never lost his temper or retaliated in kind.  The only part of WP:CPUSH that applies to him is the "C" for "civil".  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I too agree with KnightLago and Steve Smith, largely for the reasons expressed above by Imalbornoz. A lot (but not all) of the conduct by several of the parties to this case strongly gives me the impression that they do not recognise themselves as being at all at fault. Slightly simplified (there are more than 3 parties here), but it seems to me user A thinks it's all the fault of users B and C, user B thinks A and C are the only ones to blame, and user C believes users A and B are responsible for all the problems, while independent observers think they're all as bad as each other. Just telling A, B and C to behave won't work - they all think they are behaving at present and that it's just the other two that need to modify their behaviour. Without specific findings of fact clearly stating that user A has done X, user B has done Y and user C has done Z, accompanied by specific remedies addressed to specific named users, then I don't see them understanding that they have not been all sweetness and light. This isn't to say that specific sanctions can't be accompanied by general ones, just that general ones are unlikely to work on their own. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What Thryduulf said. See above for examples. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Eyeserene and Justin's points about (as Justin puts it) "clearing the field" for the civil POV pushers are important here. Indeed it's something I think I noted in my evidence.


 * I don't know if I am referred to by the wording "other, more neutral editors", but I can explain the reasons why I left. I knew that the discussion we were having was going to last for months.  That, if previous discussions were anything to go by, we'd end up about four months down the line at a compromise position that I or Narson had suggested at the beginning.  I was bored of it.  Bored of people making the set in their views making the same points over and over again.  Bored of those who would insist that every detail of the POV dispute (or rather, of one side of the POV dispute) had to be put in the lead - or even the first sentence - of the article.  Bored of those who would block even the most basic change to the article, or refuse to moderate their proposed changes in any way.


 * That's the real issue here. Justin admits his conduct has been a problem, but it is as much a symptom as a cause of the problems on Gibraltar articles.  The cause is the editors who, over the course of months, refuse to make even the slightest effort to compromise to reach consensus.  There are such editors on both sides of this dispute - not all of them named as parties to this Arbcom - and it's going to be difficult to resolve for admins that come in cold.  This isn't a problem unique to Gibraltar, and it is something that the community badly needs to get to grips with. Pfainuk talk 13:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To respond to Imal, I think it makes very little difference what my exact status here is. I'm not a party because I am not named at the beginning.  This might have something to do with the fact that I haven't edited the article in seven months and have severely curtailed my involvement on the talk page for the last six.  But I've not exactly kept a low profile during this arbitration.  Everyone knows I'm here, and if arbs have a problem with my conduct then I'm sure they won't shy away from telling me.  If they want to add me, I won't object - but unless they do, I'll stay under "others".  I don't think I have anything in particular to worry about in any case.


 * On my absence, it's not about until Justin and Gibnews get done with the "hard work" - and I rather object to being quoted as saying something I didn't say. It's because when it comes down to it, this is supposed to be my spare time, and I'd rather not spend it arguing the same point over and over again for four months with someone who insists on ignoring it.  And neither side exactly has a monopoly over that particular tactic.


 * I do not consider myself to be a "pro-Gibraltar" editor. The reason it might appear this way is because I don't see any need or benefit in including every single little detail of the history of the dispute in a summary history of Gibraltar - particularly when those details have had no practical effect on Gibraltar.  That counts on both sides - but it so happens that it tends to be the pro-Spanish editors who want such details added.


 * Finally, and most importantly, I notice that he interprets my comment to mean Justin and Gibnews in particular. This misses the point completely.  If Justin and Gibnews are gone, then we'll still have plenty of editors on the other side who are just as unwilling to compromise - indeed Justin is generally among the most willing to compromise on either side.  Unless this actually served to clear the field, allowing pro-Spanish editors a free reign to bias the article, I don't see that that would significantly reduce the amount of time spent in these disputes.  The pro-Spanish side in particular need to recognise that their conduct has been far from perfect on Gibraltar articles as well.  The civil POV push is a serious problem across Wikipedia, and we need to come up with a way of resolving it. Pfainuk talk 12:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, perhaps reluctantly, that individual editors should also be part of Fof and remedies in this case - though these should not be limited to two editors. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions
1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Standard wording, developed in the Israel-Palestine articles case, modified slightly and subject to any updates I've missed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment Just a question about a "genuinely inexperienced editor". Could you clarify please.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 18:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - Just read the link, it's a reference to WP:BITE. Admins, and all editors for that matter, should take care to not scare off newbies if they aren't obviously here to damage the encyclopedia. Who is or is not "experienced" is entirely subjective. --  At am a  頭 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the policy but several editors have claimed to be inexperienced but have demonstrated within a short period of time an in depth knowledge of wikipedian policy and dispute resolution. Pointing this out usually leads to accusations of biting the newcomers.  Assuming good faith doesn't require a suspension of disbelief, so I would appreciate some guidance on this.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then they aren't actually inexperienced and the guideline wouldn't apply. Pointing out WP:BITE in response to someone who is saying that a newcomer is surprisingly well-versed in Wikipedia policy is silly. Sockpuppetry happens all the time on Wikipedia, you can't just pretend it doesn't, and there are people who contribute for years as an IP who finally decide to create an account; those people aren't new either even if their account doesn't show many edits. --  At am a  頭 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Wording issue at "on any editor editing editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people if, despite being warned" - perhaps it should say "on any editor editing in the locus of this dispute" or something, with a link to the Fof. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of discretionary sanctions
2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Standard wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editors reminded
3) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.

In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Side X and who finds himself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Side X and Side Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Side X.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * OK, except sometimes other editors follow them to the less immediately contentious subject, on the basis that they always "edit the broad topic" - sometimes that's a good thing to prevent harm to articles, but other times, it can be counterproductive and create more heat/battles. Admins can become hesitant to intervene probably because they are unsure of whether it's improvement or harassment. Therefore, I'm not sure if the last 2 sentences in the second paragraph go far enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest
4) Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of an article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The last time I proposed something like this, they said it's impossible to expect every user to read this (or effectively be reminded of this); perhaps it should be more case-specific. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued jurisdiction
5) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this matter following the closing of this case, as with any other arbitration case. If the remedies provided for in this decision do not resolve the problems that led to this case after a reasonable time period, then a request for review of the case and potential imposition of additional sanctions may be submitted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * That should be a boilerplate on every case, shouldn't it? Guy (Help!) 17:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does this need to be said? The precedent of Requests for arbitration/PHG (and possisbly others, I just know of that one as it's in the current edition of the Singpost) shows that this is part of ArbCom's remit. Including it here feels like you (either specifically Newyorkbrad or collectively the arbcom) expect that this arbitration will not solve the problems. That is not an attitude that I think befits arbitration, which by explicit design is a process that is only undergone when other methods of dispute resolution haven't worked, the time has long passed for "meh, it probably wont work but we'll try it on the offchance anyway" remedies. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it the other way. "It will probably work, but in case it doesn't we can try something else." --  At am a  頭 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

A general note on my proposed findings of fact
I have proposed findings of fact based on what was provided on the evidence page. I will occasionally do some digging of my own when something is unclear to me (in particular, I read the entire mediation cabal discussion on this, which I won't pretend was the highlight of my long weekend), but fundamentally I base my findings in ArbCom cases on what I'm given on the evidence page. This might mean that somebody's nefarious conduct has escaped my notice and that they unfairly escape a sanction. Too bad: advocacy counts for something here. I've heard it suggested that arbs don't read evidence pages; I read every word and click every diff (though I won't pretend that I read every word of every diff), and parties to cases would do well to consider that. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews
1) has edit-warred and edited tendentiously.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. The evidence here is overwhelming—I don't think Gibnews' behaviour has been necessary to hamstring consensus-building at Gibraltar, but it's certainly been sufficient. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear cut. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Difficult to argue with. Pfainuk talk 22:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think in a case like this, it's clear that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to this effect, but generally, I've found that providing diffs tends to be more productive than not - it shows that some of the noise on the evidence page has been filtered through, along with less serious examples, and also lets others see the more serious examples in the decision itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz
2) has behaved uncivilly, assumed bad faith, and engaged in personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * In proposing this finding, I note that i. Justin has invested considerable effort in trying to build consensus (i.e. he is not guilty of tendentious editing in the least, in my view), and ii. the worst of the incivility took place over a period of several days in early February, for which Justin has apologized and cited a mitigating circumstance (I also take note of Atama's comments and thank him/her for them). Even with this in mind, his longer-term pattern of incivility and assumption of bad faith has made him, at this point, part of the problem rather than of the solution. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially yes, but do we include mitigating factors into this finding as well? - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment I would like to go into this further with you if I may. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I propose that, in order to improve Justin's behaviour and the environment in the Gibraltar articles, a more detailed description of Justin's misbehaviour is provided: From his comments (since months ago and also during this Arbcom) it's clear that he is not aware of his long term bad conduct. Even if he reached an extreme level of incivility in early February, this should not hide that he has been very disruptive since much earlier. I'd like to stress too what kind of "apology" he delivered to the object of his personal attacks (me). Finally, looking at the evidence, in many cases no other editor (not even Gibnews) has reached his level of disruption (as I said, months before February):
 * Nobody else has deleted other editors' comments in the article talk page (notice that he did so in September)
 * Hardly anyone else has deleted so many sourced edits (see diffs in my evidence section -since long ago)
 * Nobody else in this dispute has vandalised another editors' talk page (in September)
 * Nobody beats his count of comments accusing other editors of "tendentiousness" and "disruption" and -maybe- "trolling" (see my evidence section, plus two addtional diffs here and here -notice "troll" and "grow up")
 * Surely he is among the editors launching more repeated unfounded accusations of meat and sock-puppetry (in August, December...)
 * He has included tendentious edits at least as often as anybody else (e.g. see also this, in October)
 * He has rejected consensus texts that even Gibnews was ready to accept
 * Finally, surely nobody else has reached his peak of incivility, and nobody else as apologised "baring his buttocks" and with a "V" as a summary (should that apology be considered a sign of repentance?)
 * Actually, Ecemaml is right that Justin (maybe consciously, maybe not) has given false references to support his edits and (for sure) has insisted even when it was proved that they were wrong (here, also notice summary "bollocks", "I do not wish to converse with you" and "Woo hoo, more contentious arguing crap on the talk page" -in September)
 * I would kindly ask the arbitrators to go over the other diffs in my evidence section again (if it is not too much to ask) in order to check this out. And to consider if it can be more effective for the sake of Justin's improved behaviour to describe in more detail the findings of fact about his conduct. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC) (PS: I've added some diffs from the evidence page for convenience, though I don't know if it is redundant... pls tell me if it is so) Imalbornoz (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes please, I would positively relish the opportunity to go over this. Please also refer to  for the baring of buttocks reference, as you constantly refer to it, I presume the Monty Python reference has not crossed the cultural divide and if you were offended then I apologise.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So I'm not the only one whose attempts at humour have been misconstrued! :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Imalbornoz that a more specific description of Justin's misbehaviour would help him improve his ways. This edit he made a couple of days ago to the WP:CIVILITY policy page  really demonstrates how much self-awareness he is lacking.  Here are three diffs showing Justin repeatedly accusing Imalbarnoz of sockpuppetry     The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that Justin doesn't realise that the expression "bare my buttocks" (no matter how humorous) is completely out of place in an apology for calling someone a "fascist fuckwit with a racist nationalist agenda" or "the lunatic who has taken over the asylum" is another proof of his lack of self-awareness (and maybe inability to put himself in someone else's place). There's also the fact that he completely ignores the "V" (which surely was not humorous at all, but 100% offensive). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times would you like me to apologise? I apologise again for the comments I made whilst I was in a bad place mentally.  I apologise again for the attempt at humour that misfired.  I wonder how many times in future you intend to fling those remarks back in my face?
 * So I'm not the only one whose attempts at humour have been misconstrued! Difference being Red Hat I apologised for the offence caused by the misunderstanding, I explained the humorous reference but didn't justify it with the non-apology "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke"! There is a big difference there and yet you accuse me of a lack of self-awareness having demonstrated an appalling lack of self-awareness yourself.
 * Seeing as you feel WP:CIVIL is important may I ask you both to consider Civility in particular:

It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.
 * Then may I ask again how many times do you want me to apologise, given that both of you have raised it constantly since I returned?
 * Oh and btw yes I would still love to go through those incidents, making sure we consider the comments from other users that precede them. I really, really would.
 * Two of those supposed accusations against Imalbornoz are replies to JCRB, is there anyone who edited regularly on Gibraltar at that time who doesn't suspect JCRB and MEGV are sockpuppets? And regarding the "sock puppet" accusations, when a "new" user raises an issue at 3 separate noticeboards, a mediation cabal request, quotes NPOV policy all the time, and knows enough to go through the history to find editors who may be sympathetic to their agenda and this occurs just after the MEGV/JCRB and Te episodes its not entirely unreasonable to question whether they are in fact a "new" user.  RHoPF wrongly accused Gibnws of sockpuppetry on far less.
 * May I also ask why when I've already agreed it was something I would like to do, do you feel the need to make further posts attacking me? Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 15:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, I've already posted my evidence and I'm afraid we are cluttering this page with personal talk. I encourage you to post any evidence too (either by diffs or by IP analysis) and to not repeat or imply any unsourced accusations. Would it be possible to answer your personal question and explain any misunderstanding you may personally have in your talk page? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I feel a whole lot more comfortable doing it in the open with the opportunity for external opinion thanks all the same. I really don't see the need to have any discussion in more than one place.  You asked for this and I agreed with the request.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 17:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment (related to the following essays WP:BRD, WP:RV, WP:ROWN, WP:DRNC & WP:EDSUM): a note addressing the indiscriminate wholesale reversions and misuse of edit summaries would probably be useful (in the form of a further principle perhaps?). I mean this kind of stuff:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed lets discuss those edits. First of all lets ignore the ones chosen from a period where I was having problems.  If you look at each and every one of the rest they are all justifiable.  When we're finished doing that can we talk about sanctions against the editors who are apparently trying to use arbcom to push for sanctions against editors they disagree with and are doing so by presenting misleading evidence.  I just want to bring attention to this diff, where Cremallera brings up the subject of nationalism as a derogatory term against others.  To put this into perspective, Cremallera repeatedly raises any mention of nationalism by any other party to push for sanctions see  for example.  May I also draw attention to this archive  where the earliest interaction with Cremallera is documented and ask arbcom to note that it was Cremallera who is needlessly confrontational and progress went forward when it was discussed reasonably.  Yes I know this is stale but if his contributions are examined the same pattern of confrontation will emerge.  This is why I wish to go through the history, the evidence that has been presented does not portray an accurate description of the dispute.  Long term there has been conduct that has had a cumulative effect on other editors, yet the editors responsible have been able to present evidence to convince that others are the cause of the problem.  The evidence needs to be evaluated objectively and a long term examination of conduct needs to be made.  The picture that will emerge will be very different.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Is it acceptable to refactor a comment here after it has received a response?   I just note he has been warned about this before  only to respond to such warnings with bad faith accusations  note cachondo mental and the follow up warning by User:Atama .  Thanks. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The "behaved uncivilly" is an awkward expression. Also, my earlier comment about diffs is useful here - and where there were mitigating factors, I'm not sure why they are omitted in the part of the decision where they are needed most; here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
3) has behaved uncivilly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. This incivility has been of a lower grade than Justin's (which is reflected in my proposed remedies), but comments like this and this are extremely ill-advised, given context, and anything but conducive to building the kind of editing environment we want around here. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hat: I did indeed see your response to Nanton, which I believe applies to the second of the above diffs (correct me if I'm wrong). But this was either intentionally abrasive or astonishingly ill-advised; while I can't read your mind (or anyone else's) that does look for all the world like grave dancing to me. Steve Smith (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Steve you, like Narson, have totally misinterpreted the intent behind those comments (did you see my response to Narson's evidence in my evidence section?). However, the fact that those comments have been misinterpreted by more than one person makes the intent irrelevant if the effect is the same as incivility. Anyway I have in the heat of the moment posted other comments which were actually barbed, I freely admit, so I can't complain about the proposed admonishment.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Steve Stephen Fry is a famous British comedian-turned-beloved-national-personality who has a large following on Twitter. He got a bit upset around exactly that time and announced to the world that he was quitting it, and it was in all the national newspapers.    He came back and quit again in January   Fry's Twitter-quit was fresh in my mind after Justin's Wikipedia-quit and all I did was make a humorous connection between the two in a style that Alan Partridge might use (fictional British TV character).  The point of that ramble was: it was a joke, that is all, which had we all been sitting in a room or the pub together would not have been misinterpreted.  All I can say is that I agree in retrospect it was ill-advised.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment RHoPF once referred to me as a Rottweiler, to which I took great offence. I was also extremely upset by the remarks RHoPF made above when I wasn't in a good mental state.  I have never known RHoPF aplogise for any offence he has caused, he usually attempts to laugh it off as others misunderstanding his joke.  We see the same sort of non-apology above, which says to me he doesn't see his behaviour as the problem that it is. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here. I did once say you were "Gibnews' rottweiler". As I think I explained to you at the time after you got angry about it that Richard Dawkins is often called Darwin's rottweiler, itself borrowing from the way Huxley was referred to at the time as Darwin's bulldog. These names are not insults in the way that calling someone a "dog" would be. You said it meant something rude in Spanish but I never understood why and a fellow Spanish editor also told me he didn't understand why. I'm perfectly happy to provide the full conversation on this. That aside, I have expressed above that such jokes are ill advised if they are liable to be misconstrued in a written environment.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eres tan estupido como un perro or You're as supid as the dog (Does that help with understanding?). There is a world of difference between inadvertently causing offence and honestly apologising for it, compared with non-apologies such as "I am sorry you were offended by my little joke". Regarding the diffs above, I was at the time hugely upset by what appeared to be gloating, which I believe both Narson Steve have picked up on.  Persisting with the non-apology line and the bad faith presumption "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me", merely re-inforces the point that RHoPF doesn't see the problems in his own behaviour.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 16:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only say once more that there was no malice intended with the rottweiler remark. See here  "Some call him Darwin’s Rottweiler. A man of slight build, wispy silver hair and round spectacles, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins did not earn the fierce nickname for his appearance. He earned it for his vigorous advocacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection as indisputable scientific fact."  What more can I say about my post?  Ill-advised?  Yes.  Written with malice?  Absolutely not.  I just meant that you are normally on the same "side" as Gibnews in arguments and you are more vociferous than him in making them - exactly the same way it's used with Dawkins/Darwin.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I plough my own furrow RHoPF, always have done and I am no one's lapdog or "Rottweiler". What I found astounding is that you're persisting with an "analogy" you already know I find grossly and gratuitously offensive and justifying your act of grave dancing.  I also note this is the second time I've been subjected to a personal attack and it seems there is no repurcussions on either editor. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecememl
4) has assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. In particular, his/her behaviour in the mediation cabal case suggested a battleground mentality and a tendency to stonewall.  The evidence page also included clear evidence of edit-warring—from a year and a half ago.  Absent any evidence of a sustained pattern or of more recent misconduct, a formal finding on that subject would serve no purpose here, but it does need to be included as part of any overall picture. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we should sanction mainly on bad-faith conduct that takes place during mediation, because it might discourage future editors from taking up mediation as an option of dispute resolution. Edit-warring from 1.5 yrs...look a bit stale to me? - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think that the evidence provided proves that his misbehaviour is several orders of magnitude below that of Justin's (per my comment in Justin's section above), and that should be reflected in the findings of fact. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think this is fair, given the evidence (and particularly those points mentioned by Steve below). Pfainuk talk 22:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews topic-banned
1) is topic-banned from the Gibraltar article and articles about Gibraltar's history and politics, broadly construed, for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. In my view, a topic ban is essential, but I have deliberately drawn it narrowly. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin: I'm afraid that I don't agree with you. My read of Gibnews' behaviour throughout this dispute has been of someone more interested in winning than in achieving consensus, and willing to engage in some dishonest tactics to that end.  I agree that he (like all editors in this dispute) has been provoked by some sub-optimal behaviour, but I'm not proposing a topic ban because hesnapped and made intemperate remarks in response to this provocation, but because his long-term pattern on this subject has been one of tendentious editing. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment This seesm unduly harsh to me, Gibnews has made many significant contributions and has been hounded by RHoPF and Ecemaml for some time.  You're punishing the reaction not the underlying cause. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tendentious editing? Yet has proven more willing to engage in mediation than others who you're proposing to admonish see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-28 Gibraltar for example.  Whilst his soap boxing is unhelpful he is generally more willing to compromise.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 13:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - Though I view him as equal as Ecemaml so I'd probably favour meeting the two punishments in the midle at 6 months. I am afraid that GibNews has become more worrying as this case has developed, though I trust this is down to the stress of the case. If there are further problems after 6 months, then admin can deal with it then. Considering that this is, really, the first attempt at serious solutions, lets not go too nuclear. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree For personal reasons I've been unable to contribute to much of this discussion. However, I actually live in Gibraltar and have done so for a number of decades. During that period I've seen endless harassment by Spain against Gibraltarians and the conduct of the cabal of editors trying to force an anti-Gibraltar POV onto an article about Gibraltar is disturbing.


 * I've tried to be factual. I've spent a lot of time trying to make Wikipedia better.  If you want it to be full of worthless material about how hard done by the Spaniards were in 1704 and that Gibraltar is on the UN list of non-self governing territories which makes not the least bit of difference to anyone than that is your choice. But it indicates to me the model is flawed.


 * Anyone who doubts that Spain will move heaven and earth to disadvantage Gibraltar has not read the UEFA affair, where the highest court in Sport ruled that Gibraltar must be admitted. And yet it never happened. I don't expect Wikipedia will be any different, I just hoped it was.  --Gibnews (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree with Steve. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz topic-banned
2) is topic-banned from the Gibraltar article and articles about Gibraltar's history and politics, broadly construed, for three months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. I think Justin can be part of the solution, but both he and the content dispute need some time apart.  Again, this is a narrowly drawn (albeit broadly construed) ban. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin: is your question hypothetical, or are you referring to your situation in this case? Steve Smith (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable to me, and hopefully he will be refreshed to contribute constructively after this period of time. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment I won't oppose this, I am tired of the poisonous atmosphere on the articles anyway. But please note comments below. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment Too bad: advocacy counts for something here. So given the limited time window for formulating and presenting evidence, if you find yourself in unfortunate circumstances, what then? Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not hypothetical at all but having found myself the focus of what felt like a lynch mob and seemingly taking full advantage of the circumstances where I simply didn't have the time to defend myself, that remark seemed a little insensitive. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 07:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With the person punished having no opposition to it, I can't imagine why I would have any. Justin needs time away to focus back on his more productive areas. Though I do support Ncmvocalist's view below. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that we are discussing remedies, not punishments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I agree that time apart is good, but I'd prefer a duration that is slightly less than the others - even if it is only different by 1 or 2 months. That some form of restriction is placed from the decision lets administrators use their discretion if further time out is actually needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick admonished
3) is admonished for behaving uncivilly and for contributing to a battleground environment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. I don't see a topic-ban as necessary, but this needed to be said. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin: I did see that diff in the evidence; can you provide evidence that he was conclusively aware that Gibraltarian and Gibnews were unrelated? Steve Smith (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks okay to me. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment I see this as unduly lenient. RHoPF has deliberately given information he knew to be misleading to AN/I see  where RHoPF presents circumstantial evidence to link Gibnews to the banned user Gibraltarian in the full knowledge that the numerous sock puppet investigations instigated by RHoPF have shown no such links.  He has also campaigned to black list certain web sites solely because they are linked to Gibnews' work and this has been going on for years.  Admonishment is nothing more than a token slap on the wrist and a reward for gaming the system.  You punish the reaction but not the cause.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I'll start looking for the diffs and add them at a later date but RHoPF has instigated numerous SPI against Gibnews. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gibnews has been linked to Gibraltarian before and the RHoPF is aware of this. Even after the SPI check against Gutterbrothers cleared Gibnews a year later RHoPF comes back and make the same accusation see .  Notice also the sour grapes when the SPI failed Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 12. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed the blacklisting claim that this has been "going on for years". So that is three untruths in the same section from you - the Gibraltarian claim (I wasn't party to the original discussion) the multiple SPI claim (I filed one, not multiple) and the blacklist claim (it happened in Feb 2010 and I didn't even first propose it). Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?    The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, do I have to drag diffs from years back at WP:RSN, where you're trying to have any website Gibnews has been involved in declared unreliable? Or will you remove the personal attack and accusations of telling lies?  I'm also beginning to wonder at what point personal attacks at arbcom actually become actionable.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 15:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are calling for me to be sanctioned on the basis of your claims which I am telling the arbitrators is - to the best of my recollection - false. Given that it is impossible for me to prove this without asking them to read my entire contribution history, the onus is on you to prove it via diffs. Everything I have said about you had a supporting diff. Is it too much to ask that you do the same?  (I think not, given that Steve asked you to do so).   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I said I would do and, as Pfainuk notes in his evidence, you're badgering for it be done instantly. This sort of badgering is unhelpful and precisely the sort of uncivil behaviour I was complaining about.  There is a world of difference between someone being mistaken and what you're doing asserting that they're telling lies.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 16:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * unindent
 * See posts from 24 September 2008.  Please have a look and you can get some idea of the confrontational approach RHoPF has adopted over a not inconsiderable period of time.  Also indicates RHOPF trying to have a Gibraltar newspaper website blocked for "belonging to Gibnews".  God that was depressing, back in 2006 Ecemaml was attacking Gibnews over mentioning San Roque.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 21:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin linked to an entire archive page which I doubt the arbitrators are going to read, so here are the salient points:
 * According to Justin, I have "campaigned to black list certain web sites solely because they are linked to Gibnews' work and this has been going on for years." and then as evidence, a link is provided to a July 2008 conversation along with the statement "RHOPF (tried) to have a Gibraltar newspaper website blocked"
 * What actually happened was I said "This is your own website, is it not?" Gibnews immediately replies saying mistaken identity  and I accept it explaining why I thought it was, ending on a bit of humour .  I never suggested it should be blocked, and after Gibnews told me it wasn't his, it was all done and dusted in the space of a couple of hours and four posts.  I never to this day have mentioned panorama.gi again.
 * Please, Justin, for the sake of honesty, withdraw these "multiple year campaign" allegations. I don't understand why you are doing this.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I would like arbitrators to look at the archive page, rather than your edited highlights. There is a number of items of interest, such as (Narson (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)), where he tells you that he asked me to back off as a friend not because I was causing a problem.  You have highlighted that in your evidence as evidence of my "uncivil behaviour".  What it will also do is give a perspective on your claims to have been driven from that article by "uncivil" editors.  The only editor being uncivil is the RHoPF.  And as regards your assertion of trying to get you blocked - please point me to where I've proposed that.  I simply point upwards to where you were asking for me to be blocked whilst my father was on life support in hospital.  Now can I be left to respond to Steve's request for evidence without being constantly harangued from the sidelines; I let you present your evidence in peace.  Please extend the same courtesy to me. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What Justin failed to point out there is that it wasn't even me who brought up that matter in that thread, I was responding to User:GoodDay . I was not involved in the slightest in the Gibraltarian/Gibnews saga, I hadn't even come across Gibnews or Gibraltarian when it occurred, and that post was the first time that I examined the contributions of the two.  I've been involved in a lot of sock puppet investigations on Wikipedia where users have gone to amazing lengths to get their edit in (e.g. ), sorry if that has made me cynical about WP:DUCKs.
 * Regarding "numerous sockpuppet investigations" - Justin that is a complete untruth. There was only one I ever filed about Gibnews, and it was here .  Gibnews and I were in disagreement, he had reverted three times and then a brand new editor immediately turned up with their first WP edit to revert a fourth time.  I challenge any seasoned WP editor to not suspect sockpuppetry in such a case.  It wasn't Gibnews, but the SPI did uncover that Gutterbrothers was a sock, so I was right to suspect some foul play.
 * The approach I have adopted on these pages is to find the diff first, and then make the accusation, because memory plays tricks on you. Justin is doing the reverse.  Justin, I just hope that it is because your memory is not serving you properly that you have made this false accusation rather than you are going to any lengths to get me blocked.  The alternative is that you are engaging here in exactly same behaviour that you are accusing me of above.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem here though. If Red Hat does not accept his behaviour is incorrect, an admonishment will serve no real purpose in preventing it in future as it does not send a clear message. While he remains righteous and shows no contrition, I have no faith in this being enough to prevent future problems. His recent contributions to this page, including petty attempts at justifying insults ('I was making a high brow reference, honest guv') only reinforce my view that on these matters, Red Hat has blinkers on. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Not convinced this goes far enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecememl topic-banned
4) is topic-banned from the Gibraltar article and articles about Gibraltar's history and politics, broadly construed, for three months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, when I referred to absent evidence of a sustained pattern or of more recent misconduct, I was referring specifically to edit-warring. As for specifics of the reasons for this topic ban, here are some examples:
 * Ecemaml accuses, without any justification that I've found, one side of the dispute of rejecting sources a priori because of their authors' nationality.
 * Ecemaml proposes text for History of Gibraltar (on November 14) that (without examining the substance) is flagrantly non-neutral in tone.
 * Ecemaml accuses Gibnews (on November 15, in the midst of mediation) of making things up, and tells him to shut up. This is part of a general pattern of accusing opponents of inventing, deliberately misconstruing, lying, etc. Steve Smith (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think an admonishment might be more appropriate here. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * On what grounds exactly? I can't see anything in the evidence page (and I'll quote your very own words here: "absent any evidence of a sustained pattern or of more recent misconduct") supporting an equal treatment to that of user Justin (who has demonstrably indulged in a "long-term pattern of incivility and assumption of bad faith"). In my opinion, Ecemaml's behavior has been far more considerate and self-restrained than I'd expect of someone in the receiving end of such a constant, long-term abuse. The reasons above (a "battleground mentality" & "clear evidence of edit-warring—from a year and a half ago") could easily describe the conduct of any editor subject to the systematic reversion of his (sourced -usually abundantly sourced-) edits, often without even a tentative explanation other than being labeled POV-warrior, disruptive editor or something along those lines in the edit summary. For years. Of course, he could've left the Gibraltar space (he did so for months, in fact) like other editors who won't be penalised did. Or he could've played himself in the same league as the aforementioned editor, insulting his counterparts day after day, in which case I presume he'd be topic banned the same 3 months. That's not exactly the message an Arbcom decision should send, as I see it. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also like to request Steve provide some diffs here which helped him decide Ecememl is on the same level as Justin. I don't understand it personally. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Ecemaml is an admin on es.wikipedia. If anyone should have behaved correctly in this situation it should have been Ecemaml.  Is there to be any action about his adminship elsewhere?  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Steve, for the answers, although I am afraid that in the light of these responses, I can't agree with you.
 * "Ecemaml accuses, without any justification that I've found, one side of the dispute of rejecting sources a priori because of their authors' nationality": I believe that you are refering to this conversation, in which we can read users ChrisO and Ecemaml requesting Gibnews for some clarification concerning his published-for-years-yet-unsourced-assert that George Hills was "a close friend of Franco". Indeed Gibnews dismisses/discredits sources purely because of his personal opinions. That's not the only example, there are more in the evidence page.
 * "Ecemaml proposes text for History of Gibraltar (on November 14) that (without examining the substance) is flagrantly non-neutral in tone": Sorry, I can't see any comment made by Ecemaml in that article and date. Anyway, I sincerely thought that the Arbitration Committee wasn't going to examine content, but user conduct. Thus, the only things I'll ask about it is: was his proposal unsourced? Did his tone include any personal attacks?
 * "Ecemaml accuses Gibnews (on November 15, in the midst of mediation) of making things up, and tells him to shut up. This is part of a general pattern of accusing opponents of inventing, deliberately misconstruing, lying, etc": not really that much of a general pattern. Ecemaml directed his words to Gibnews, who is really prone to publish his own original research. If that's the rationale for your proposal, you can include me in the topic ban, because I wholeheartedly share the impression that Gibnews has deliberately misconstrued the content of reliable sources, has made plenty unsourced edits, and has dismissed enough requests to provide references for his editions to support that statement. Again, more on that in the evidence page. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Further comment: I see you were refering to this specific statement. I won't defend Ecemaml's tone here. I think it was out of order. I'd just like to stress that that's just about the worst kind of comment you'll read of him, and that it came after yet another reiteration of the "Hills was a close friend of Franco" assert as a means to brush off a profusely referenced proposal. Even when Gibnews was previously, repeatedly and unsuccessfully intimated to substantiate such a claim here.


 * Ecemaml has also accused me of making things up and inventing, deliberately misconstruing, lying, etc when I wasn't even responsible for the edit in question. TBH Cremallera I would imagine you'd have been looking at a topic ban if you were still editing regularly on Gibraltar for exactly the same reasons. BTW note who produced the offending obituary from the wayback machine. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which reasons? Endorsing WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:V policy? Or are you accusing me of making personal attacks? In the latter case, please provide diffs for a change. I am growing increasingly tired of having to prove my innocence. Finally, please read the obituary already: after 5 months, it still does not support any claims of friendship between Franco and Hills. Cremallera (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the degree and number of evidence provided justifies this remedy, and much less a topic ban as severe as a much more disruptive (and less self-aware) editor like Justin. I have almost always seen Ecemaml talking civilly about content and sources. And -even though the abuse he has suffered for months does not justify any incivility or (I presume) bad faith assumption- there have been very few (and human) occasional responses out of the line. Furthermore, all his edits have been carefully sourced. He has also been the most prolific contributor to the Gibraltar articles in non-polemic areas collaborating with Gibmetal77 (that does not fit well with a "Spanish nationalist" battleground mentality, does it?). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I've read your preliminary analysis and I would lie if I said I feel confortable with it. I'll try to refute (or at least to explain my point of view on them) as I don't think your analysis is rightl (unfortuntaly I don't have much time, so I'll go one by one).

One interesting point seems to be related to content instead to behaviour. I'm really glad to see that content issues will be also analysed, even if you describe an edition by me as being "flagrantly non-neutral in tone". I think you refer to this edition. Here you have the text that I included, "flagrantly non-neutral in tone" as you say: "1704 4-7 August. After the surrender, despite the efforts of British and Dutch senior officers to maintain order, the civil population was abused by the troops. All the Roman Catholic churches but one (the Parish Church of St. Mary the Crowned) were desecrated and used as stores.[A] Mockery of religious objects was especially shocking.[B]'[C] The Chapel of Our Lady of Europe and the women and children who had taken refuge in it with their homes' most valuable goods were looted. The statue of the Holy Virgin was profanated: the head of the statue and the child Jesus were broken off and thrown among the stones.[D] There were cases of raped village women.[A] The townspeople took some bloody reprisals, murdering Dutchmen and Englishmen and throwing their corpses to wells and cesspits.[C]'[A] The historian and former governor of Gibraltar William Jackson links the behaviour of the troops and the news of the atrocities of English troops two years before in Cádiz stating that: Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Habsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. [..] English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline, but the inhabitants worst fears were confirmed. [..] Many bloody reprisals were taken by the inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain."

As you can see, the text has plenty of references in order to follow our guidelines. Here you have the sources:


 * [A]: :

Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline, but the inhabitants worst fears were confirmed: women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes (except for the Cathedral of Saint Mary the Crowned that was protected successfully by its staunch vicar, Juan Romero, his curate, and his bell-ringer); and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship's crew and marines who came ashore. Many body reprisals were taken by inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain.


 * [B]: :

Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged after he had thrown dice with a Dutchman who had 10, and the Englishman 9.'[note 58: Where several soldiers of sailors were sentenced to death at the same time, it was not uncommon for a proportion only to be hanged, the condemned throwing dice to decide who would die] Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed. There were 'disorders involving persons of the weaker sex with gave rise to secret bloody acts of vengeance'. In consequence, 'the vanquished deprived many of life and threw the corpses in wells and cesspools'.[note 59: Ignacio López de Ayala, 'Historia de Gibraltar', p. 289, quoting from Romero's lost MS. account of the capture] What shocked Spaniards most was the profanation by the Englishmen of places of worship and their mockery of religious objects. If such were the allies of the King of Spain alternative to Philip V, they would have none of him, unpopular though the Duke of Anjou was already becoming with his nation-wide appointment of Frenchmen over Spaniards. Accordingly, when the garrison and City Council marched out on 7 August under the terms of surrender, all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia.


 * [C]: Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:

[Rooke had] a living town in his hands peopled by creatures of flesh and emotion, desperately concerned with individual security and happiness. Over these people, during the steaming August days, lay the smell of death and corruption and rapine. The conquerors were out of control. Into the raw hands of fighting seamen their tar-stained nails broken with work on rope and canvas and cannon, alcohol and plunder and women passed wildly and indiscriminately. The bitter personal and religious hatred which Englishmen and Spaniards still nurtured made their excesses more terrible. The Spaniards could only retailiate with individual vengeance -the knife in the back of a drink-hazed victor and the swift bundling of a body down a well. The sack of Gibraltar was memorable through Andalusia for the peculiar fury of the invaders against the servants, houses and ornaments of the Catholic religion. [..] Every church in the city was desecrated save one. The priest who had foreseen the possibility of conquest, and had been snubbed for suggesting precautions, kept his church inviolate. Father Juan Romero faced the fury of the destroyers and saved Saint Mary the Crowned by the sheer forces of guile and personality


 * [D]: :

At the shrine the sailors had 'met with rich punder' [note 47: Pocock journal] -'twelve silver lamps, candlesticks, lecterns, crowns, gems and consecrated vessels, the clothes of many families who had withdrawn there, and when there was nothing else to rob, they broke off the head of the statue which is so venerated in Spain and the child Jesus and threw it among the stones'.[note 48: Annotation by the parish priest, Juan Romero de Figueroa, in the Baptismal Registers, now in the Parish Church of San Roque]

As this passage of the history of Gibraltar is obviously contentious, I've tried to adhere to relevant policies, mainly to WP:SECONDARY. [A], [B] and [D] have been provided by me ([C] was used previously and I simply used it as basis, as it was being used in previous discussions without further problems). You can see more sources in here, but I picked up those sources because I considered them reliable sources. Williams is a military historian, former British governor of Gibraltar (if partisan, he could be labeled as pro-British). Hills was a British historian, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (usually discredited by Gibraltarian editors, without any relevant secondary source stating the same; the comment by Williams on Hills' work is this "I found that there were many books about the Rock, but few were comprehensive histories. On one end of the spectrum there was Doctor Hills's well-researched, but perhaps overdetailed, Rock of Contention, and at the other end [..]"). It's interesting to note that Justin talks about Hills' obituaty as the proof-of-charge of his bias (however, it's interesting to verify that Hills obituary was originally introduced by me, four years ago!!!).

As a conclusion, humbly but honestly, Steve, would you mind please explain me why my text is "flagrantly non-neutral in tone" according to the sources I've provided? I say it because I'm not really able to understand its flagrant non-neutrality. Of course that my text can be somehow biased and therefore enhanceable, but... "flagrantly non-neutral in tone"? If after reading again my edition and the sources you still believe that, I suggest an indefinite topic ban for me, since honestly, although I can imagine a better summary of the events (both in terms of neutrality and synthesis), I can't think of a version not being flagantly non-neutral in tone and being radically different of my proposal.

Finally, I'd like to know whether your tocic ban applies to text such as Our Lady of Europe (it's nominated to good article and some enhandements are required), User:Ecemaml/Nursery/List of Gibraltar placenames or User:Ecemaml/Nursery/Evacuation of the Gibraltarian civilian population during the Second World War (just to let Gibmetal know that I won't help him for the next months).

Best regards and thank you for your time. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC) PS: Justin, I don't really understand your fixation with my adminship status in the Spanish Wikipedia (I'm also an admin in commons and that makes no difference with this case as well). My last administrative decision related to Gibraltar or editors involved in this case was your unblock (a block that anyhow was fair as you insisted in edit warring removing a paragraph that, although biased, was referenced and therefore deserved in any case a neutralization instead of a removal. My last edition in the Gibraltar article was this. For those that can't read Spanish, the lead sentence of the article said "Gibraltar is a territory that depends of the United Kingdom with a status of British Overseas Territory" and with my edition, the phrase "and wide self-governing capabilities" was added (much in the line of what Justin and Gibnews are trying to push in the English version of the article).


 * Fully Support these proposals. Short term and lets see how it works. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Being an admin on es.wikipedia doesn't really have anything to do with en.wikipedia. Rarely does a person's actions on one site affect another, primarily because the different projects have different policies and guidelines. What might get a person banned here might be acceptable at another mediawiki site, and vice-versa. --  At am a  頭 16:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may add to my earlier comments in response to yours, WP:AGF is a universal policy across all wikis. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May I also add that given the nationalism based conflict we see here, es.wikipedia becomes relevant when as I noted in my evidence canvassing spreads to there. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that this is the proposal for an edit to History of Gibraltar that Steve refers to.


 * Just as an aside, if people want to add bits to their comments after they post, could they add another signature - or even better, add another comment - please? When the sig is in the middle of the post it can be difficult to spot.  I very nearly added an unsigned template to Cremarella's comment of 7:36 UTC in the above section because I didn't notice the signature in the middle.  Thanks. Pfainuk talk 17:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember this lengthy ANI report Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar, which supports Steve Smith's comments about Ecemaml's edits in Gibraltar-related articles. Mathsci (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think it does. However, for whom it may concern, here's a recollection of recent AN/I threads related to Gibraltar. They're chronologically arranged for further commodity, and probably worth the read:, , , , , and . Auf wiedersehen. Cremallera (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Commenting at the end, I'd never find the right place to comment with that 14k behemoth of text that was added. This neatly illustrates the problem, its a wall of text, that utterly obscures the argument, it actually bears no relation or at least only a tangential relationship to Steve's comments.  Now imagine putting up with this for months and ask yourself whether you might get a tadge irritable or irascible.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors reminded
5) All editors are reminded to discuss content issues in such a way that consensus becomes more, not less, likely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. While I don't think I'm notorious for my faith in Wikipedia's capacity to resolve content disputes, I think it really should be possible to achieve consensus here once the above topic-bans are in effect, but only if editors bear the above in mind. Steve Smith (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, I agree that WP:CPUSH is a problem here. I think it is chiefly a problem from Gibnews on ones side and Ecemaml on the other.  Having read a good deal of the history, I have not been able to put together a case of CPUSH from anyone else on the "Spanish" side. Steve Smith (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer NYB's version. :o) - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment "Should be possible to achieve consensus"...no I don't think so, all you'll achieve is a lack of counter argument to POV edits. Effectively this will mean skewing the article to favour a pro-Spanish sovereignty POV contrary to wikipedia's policy of a NPOV.   What you're proposing is to clear the field for a WP:CPUSH editor to do just that.  And as I've noted in my evidence there is a number of editors who communicate by email and have demonstrated a willingness to act by proxy see .  Your proposed topic bans effectively means very little will change on one side and you've topic banned anyone who disagrees.  I was encouraged by EyeSerene and Thryduulf's comments that at least some parties understood what was going on.  Its impossible to piece the evidence together of a long term problem with WP:CPUSH in 1000 words or less, particularly when you're under immense personal pressure.  I'm disappointed that arbcom appears to be ducking the responsibility of investigating this properly and appears to be headed toward a notional band aid solution that solves nothing but gives the appearance of taking action.  I would also just point out something else, this diff  where RHoPF defends Imalbornoz against accusations and then simply ask who accused Imalbornoz of WP:CPUSH?  The answer is no-one, why then does RHoPF feel the need to defend him and draw your own conclusions.  I'd also point out you'll have taught certain editors that repeatedly stating the same position, throwing up 10k walls of text is the ideal way to achieve consensus.  Fundamentally the problem of WP:CPUSH in nationalism based disputes is simply going to escalate, because there is an unwillingness to admit there is a problem with editors who can manipulate the system. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, you really do need to look at Imalbornoz's contributions and I would be happy to go through it with you. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 07:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * In the absence of the worst offenders and stonewallers I do believe this is possible. The involvement or more collegial British editors such as Richard Keatinge should ensure that NPOV is preserved even if the more extreme proponents of the pro-Brit POV are excluded from the process. Some people misperceive MPOV as NPOV which is clearly not fixable (we don't fix people's personal problems) but the impact of this problem on Wikipedia can indeed be fixed. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: