Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-28 Gibraltar

Who are the involved parties?
Locii of the dispute

User:Gibnews User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

Interested Parties

User:Pfainuk User:Narson User:Justin_A_Kuntz User:RedCoat10 User:Té y kriptonita User:MEGV

What's going on?
A long campaign by a new editor seeking to introduce POV language into the article on Gibraltar, a campaign characterised by reams of tendentious editing, had largely subsided. Users Pfainuk & Narson were considering a proposal to revise the introduction to the article. The nexus of the previous dispute had been around the use of the word "annexation", the desire to use softer terms and language favouring the Spanish sovereignty claim. The two editors proposed a wording that avoided the use of the contentious word but remained neutral. Nevertheless both users considered the use of the term annexation in context to be NPOV.

At this point User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick entered into the debate and made an edit that was reverted by User:Justin_A_Kuntz, with the suggestion that the talk page was the appropriate means of discussing such an edit.

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick opposes the use of the word annexation describing it as a negative term and being negative would fail NPOV. He has placed a comment to this effect on the neutrality noticeboard, the limited response was that in context the term was considered neutral. He has also questioned the reliability of sources here, where inadvertently several other editors commented that Wikipedia considers the term neutral if used in context. User:Pfainuk, User:Narson, User:Justin_A_Kuntz, User:RedCoat10 also consider the term neutral but are prepared to consider an alternative.

User:Gibnews is not prepared to consider the compromise wording acceptable to (User:Pfainuk, User:Narson, User:Justin_A_Kuntz, User:RedCoat10) as in his opinion, the term correctly and succinctly describes how the Spanish sovereignty claim is perceived in Gibraltar.

Discussion on the Talk Page has become quite heated and remains unproductive, with the conversation going around in circles with various detours.

What would you like to change about that?
Cool tempers and achieve a consensus through reasoned debate.

Discussion
If those words I have struck out are removed, I'm happy to be a part of this process. Otherwise not. The reason I say this is that the author of the text is far from being a neutral party in this (for example, he failed to mention that he changed his mind to vote "for" Gibnews' position in the straw poll ). Also, his summary of my position is far from neutral: it does not simply state my view and is subtly arguing against my case. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Setting conditions for involvement in mediation, well obviously that does not indicate a willingness to fully participate. Please think again about those comments.
 * I would be happy to remove the word "vehemently" if it gets mediation going. I now realise that infers a viewpoint.
 * Equally, I would be happy to remove the word "contentious" if it gets mediation going. Again, I now realise that infers a viewpoint.
 * Outside opinion was asked for, the outside opinion indicates neutral if used in context. That information needs to be available to a mediator.  I'm not happy to remove that, please reconsider.
 * The tendentious spamming of the Talk Page is relevant to the dispute, as I am sure User:Pfainuk and User:Narson would highlight. That information needs to be available to a mediator.  I'm not happy to remove that, please reconsider.
 * Tempers need to be cooled here if there is any chance of the process working, again please reconsider.
 * I have always indicated that I am prepared to accept either of User:Pfainuks proposals.
 * I have no doubt that my summary would be considered by some as neither fair nor neutral but I have tried to be both.
 * If you have a problem with my summary, you are welcome to suggest changes on the Talk Page.
 * After careful consideration, I removed all references about User Conduct from my edit summary, as I saw no merit in going over the same ground again. I would suggest that you do the same.
 * I am quite prepared to draw a line under what has gone on before, I suggest that you consider doing the same. Justin talk 08:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we have mediation on the mediation? This is just silly.  All I wanted was a neutral description of matters without any preloaded ammo.  Anyway, Gibnews didn't even reply about mediation and clearly is not interested in it.  The talk page seems to be getting somewhere with ChrisO's involvement.  So I'm unwatching this page.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I must admit, ultimatums do sour my belief that this will achieve anything. Narson (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Pfainuk talk 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So TRHOPF throws his toys out of the pram, and its over ? --Gibnews (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All parties need to agree or medition is pointless. Narson (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if Red Hat refuses to take part in mediation, as it appears that he has done so, or attaches pre-conditions to involvement, then it is not possible. Justin talk 11:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah more waste of space and time. For the record I was willing to engage in this process without preconditions, but it seems the other party continues to move the goalposts to suit his position (whatever that may be) --Gibnews (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Response by user:gibnews
As one of the parties named in this dispute, I'm quite happy to repond, however I see no reason to be ordered around by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (TRHOPF) who in the past has harrassed me on my user page.


 * I never noticed any 'Straw poll' so did not respond, and make no comment as have not read either its question or answers.


 * TRHOPF started discussion about the merit of one of the references I used which had an inconclusive result, despite which my references were removed.  Having been involved in an edit wars with TRHOPF I'm reluctant to revert them although I think removing references in order to promote his POV is a bad tactic.

The word that is at the root of this argument is annexation used in the introduction to the Gibraltar page :


 * The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain.

Annexation is the term commonly used in Gibraltar to describe Spain's unilateral desire to adsorb Gibraltar into its nation state. The sentence correctly notes that the Gibraltarians reject this, if there are any Gibraltarian editors who disagree or anyone knows of a movement in Gibraltar supporting union with Spain, then the sentence is indeed questionable. TRHPF has introduced a 'neutrality tag' and has removed any references that support this and has repeatedly claimed that Gibraltar references are 'biased' and that any other references are either manufactured (eg use of the term by Sir David Frost) or not sufficiently authoratative.

I really don't understand why we are spending so much time and creative effort on something which is self-evident. That Gibraltarians reject the concept of the territory being incorporated into the Spanish state is well known and establised in referenda held in 1967 and 2002. annexation is the correct political term to describe the unilateral adsorbtion of a smaller state by a larger one. If the term is seen as negative, that is apt as by definition it is an unwelcome act, at least on the part of the territory being annexed.

The reality is that it remains Spanish policy to reclaim Gibraltar (ceded to the UK in 1713), this is rejected by the Gibraltarians, and the UK is committed to respecting their wishes. If it is Wikipedia policy to pander to such things, then lets call it something else, but it looks like a duck, and smells like a dead one. --Gibnews (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)