Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-12/Gibraltar

Where is the dispute?
Gibraltar and Talk:Gibraltar

Who is involved?

 * User:Imalbornoz
 * User:Justin_A_Kuntz
 * User:Gibnews
 * User:RedCoat10
 * User:Gibmetal77
 * User:Narson
 * User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
 * User:BritishWatcher
 * User:Pfainuk

What is the dispute?
One party wants to:

a) return the expression in the lead "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory" to its pre-April 5 2009 status "Gibraltar is a British overseas territory" (and keep the governing status for the Politics section, as it was in the previous 7 years).

or b) qualify the "self-governing" expression so that it reflects more literally the official situation (e.g. the position of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs "Gibraltar has almost complete self-government", or of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office "Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government") and include in the lead that Gibraltar is listed in the UN's list of non self-governing territories.

The other party wants to:

keep the expression "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory" and keep any details in the rest of the article and wikilinks.

Some editors are in between the two parties.

What would you like to change about this?
I would like that:
 * Disputing editors explain in more detail their arguments at the request of the other party.
 * There is a consensus on standards for sources, citations and how to place the evidence from the source in the article so that it is not out of context and cannot be misinterpreted.
 * There is an agreement on the text of the lead of the article, according to those standards.

How do you think we can help?

 * Help to better structure the discussion.


 * Provide a neutral opinion on what standards for cites, sources and their references are if they have to comply with WP's policies and guidelines in the context of the article.


 * Provide a neutral opinion on whether some text in the lead can be or cannot be misinterpreted by several types of readers.


 * Provide a neutral opinion on whether some text in the lead is superfluous or not, according to WP's policies and guidelines.

Discussion
I suggest that any potential mediator takes a look at Talk:Gibraltar and the reams of tendentious edits from the originator. In this case no less than 5 separate editors explained at length the issues to the originator. The originator has moved the goalposts several times first of all claiming that the text was controversial, then it was biased, then it may be misleading. The originator is also misrepresenting the position of other editors (a common feature of the discussions on the talk page); their point is that the lead already indicates the limits on the jurisdication of the Gibraltar Government. Finally, I would also draw the attention to the opinions expressed by the originator off-wiki as they indicate a strong Spanish nationalist POV.

I also suggest they have a look at the fact that the originator of this request is asking the mediation cabal to apply a ruling. Clearly he doesn't understand the process.

To be honest after the frustration of discussions with this editor always return to re-iterating the same point repeatedly, I am disinclined to think that mediation will serve any useful purpose. Justin talk 16:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Imalbornoz clearly has a bee in his bonnet about Gibraltar being self governing; after failing in editing this out of the lead on the Gibraltar page and arguing with Justin he then tried to solicit support for the cause - which some see as the suppression of democracy in Gibraltar by Spain at any cost - and when that and his extended arguments on the talk page did not get any support, its off to the mediation cabel. --Gibnews (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I can't see that mediation can possibly serve any purpose. The discussion appears to have degenerated into a cycle whereby Imalbornoz argues his points and others rebut. Imalbornoz does not rebut the rebuttal, s/he just repeats the points that have just been rebutted. I see very little reason to accept mediation in these circumstances because I do not see any way in which a mediator could improve the situation.

I also think it's clear that Imalbornoz does not actually want mediation: s/he wants a policy ruling, which is something that medcab will not provide. I don't blame him/her for the misunderstanding, but equally I don't see that we need to carry on through mediation because of this misunderstanding. Pfainuk talk 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for any mediation on this matter, plenty of sources have been provided to back up the statement, it also goes against common sense but this one editor refuses to accept clear consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

While I can't say I care too much in this debate (I'm one of those who is between the two positions, in that I can see the virtue in either approach to a degree, so I am happy to flow with consensus), I do not think mediation from the MedCab will be useful because all either side wants is a simple definitive answer. We have editors from both sides (Gibraltan and Spanish) who want their version of The Truth so mediation won't bridge that gulf. This is one of those things that is best left to the article talk and seeing if something appears that everyone likes. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Gibraltarian view reflects 'as is', the Spanish view is horribly biased with a point of view of turning the clock and map or Europe back 305 years, and imposing itself on the unwilling, but the citations and constitution speak for themselves. The GoG did announce a plan to spread the word about Gibraltar in Spain to counter the black propaganda which circulates unchecked, however it has failed to do so to date. --Gibnews (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If we don't put a remedy, I think we could be repeating the story of previous “outside Gibraltar” editors who have tried to improve Gibraltar related articles in English WP, and have had such a bad experience that they don't want to go in there any more, such as   (the first example is from a Wikipedian with 6,100+ contribs and an article featured in the main page ; the second one is an administrator in Spanish Wikipedia with 2,600+ :en & 71,600+ :es contribs).

I think that going back to the talk pages without -at least- having a mediator will not solve anything. The only way to move on is to focus on content, its verifiability and notability and avoid blocks (many related with “you are a Spaniard trying to stop democracy in Gibraltar and invade it”     ), or just see the last comment):
 * some editors have already openly stated the fact that they don't want to further the discussion.
 * Also, I don't want to go in circles whereby I ask questions such as "Can you give me an example of (statementA)?"   and get answers such as "See this example for (statementB)"  or “I have already told you”  or "I think that (statementA)"  (in longer paragraphs,  for "misconstrued").
 * If someone says he sees a contradiction in an editor’s position   (seek “rationale for a change” in the last reference), it is better if it is explained or corrected, not ignored (unfortunately, I can give NO example of a good or bad explanation or correction to this contradiction).

I think a neutral mediator with significant experience can help us do precisely that: avoid blocks and focus on content so that the Gibraltar article (to which all of you have dedicated so much time and effort) can be improved. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This meditation cabal is unlikely to yield anything useful. It is result of a user who has not got his way and is now seeking some sort of ruling or third opinion. The originator initially canvassed support for his case on two separate occasions (see here and here), was warned about it, and now, in blatant defiance, has continued to petition for advice on how, inter alia, one should go about gaining the support of administrators, the reply to which includes such advice as "make allies" and "insist on including the Spanish POV". This is quite clearly canvassing through the back door. The originator, using every conceivable means for his purpose, has been determined to encumber the discussion by ignoring our rebuttals and soliciting support while, outrageously, claiming the moral high ground at the same time. Need I say more? RedCoat10 •  talk  10:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some further background information: the user whom the originator solicited for support (viz. User:Ecemaml) was blocked for edit warring and has been warned about personal attacks on numerous occasions. He is also well-known to use his prerogative as an administrator on the Spanish Wikipedia to systematically revert edits that originate from Gibraltarian users, without any rationale (as recently as last week). User:Gibmetal77 and User:Gibnews can no doubt vouch for that observation. RedCoat10  •  talk  10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think these ad hominem attacks are one of the problems. They don’t add any value to the discussion and only make it messier. That’s why I’m asking for a mediator! Please, HELP!!!!
 * About canvassing: I didn't even know the term until I was accused of it. I only asked for advice from someone senior who looked neutral and, when I realised that he was on vacation, I asked someone else for advice. I don't know if that (1 + 1 requests for advice) was canvassing, but even if it was a slight case of it, I think that "Ignorantia juris may excuse".
 * After that, I have only asked the first user for advice yesterday, after the discussion came to a stop, explicitly starting with "No voy a pedirte que edites nada en el artículo de Gibraltar en inglés" meaning "I am not asking you to edit anything in the Gibraltar article in English". Reasons: I am a newcomer and am afraid to get lost in this type of dispute due to my lack of experience. I did not ask about how to gain the support of administrators. I only asked him about means to avoid what is currently happening in Gibraltar related articles (see above). He has only responded last night, and does not just say "include the Spanish POV" but "a) insiste siempre en incluir el punto de vista español; haciéndolo simplemente estás cumpliendo el punto de vista neutral; no modifiques o elimines el punto de vista gibraltareño, simplemente resalta que es su punto de vista" meaning "a) insist always in including the Spanish POV; doing it you are complying with the NPOV; do no modify or eliminate the Gibraltarian POV, simply underline that it is their point of view". I think this is pure Wikipedia policy, isn't it? Myself, I am asking at this point not to include any Spanish POV. Only 1) UK's House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee or Foreing & Commonwealth Office verifiable statements and 2) a reference to a UN official document.
 * In the reference I provided before, Ecemaml admits he has been blocked... and says that he does not participate in Gibraltar articles because he doesn’t want it to happen again!
 * Anyway, I hope you are not trying to hide the point of this mediation in a mist of accusations and explanations. I haven't accused you of anything in order to focus on the content of the article.--Imalbornoz (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, regarding editors outside of this discussion: I think it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to make these ad hominem attacks to people who cannot defend themselves (being outside). Furthermore, as he cannot defend himself, I have to say that if you click on next edit you will see that Gibmetal77 undid Ecemaml's edit restoring it to YOUR previous edit with the only comment "RedCoat10 is right", and Ecemaml let it be. So much for "systematically reverting Gibraltarian edits"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imalbornoz (talk • contribs)
 * Please refrain from using excessive markup as per WP:TPG, thank you. As regards the canvassing, you have not provided any justification and your penultimate sentence here, in which you effectively invite the user in question to this Meditation Cabal, seems to expose another agenda and breaches WP:CANVASS. If you are genuinely interested in focusing on the content of the article you would have replied to our arguments, e.g. these and these which were ignored outright, rather than go round the same loop of argument. RedCoat10  •  talk  13:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that mediation can achieve anything. But I do question why its SO IMPORTANT for someone to try and supress a mention that Gibraltar is self governing to have written so much waffle about such a short statement of the actual agreed situation.  In this time many good articles could have been added to the Spanish wilipedia by someone fluent in both languages simply by translation. I don't edit the article on spain to add the Gibraltar POV that they are less than democratic.  --Gibnews (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is going the same as before. You keep combining accussations with circular arguments. I will respond to these comments now, but not any more as long as there is not a mediator.
 * Penultimate sentence: "If you have any other advice, be sure that it will be very warmly welcome (I'm quite 'acojonao'='shitting my pants' to tell the truth)" -> canvassing????
 * Understood Justin's point, argued repeatedly "self-governing" is not self-explanatory to everybody => can mislead non British non especialised people lest they go to Politics section/wikilinks (purpose of the lead?). BTW Justin's point is in the summary above.
 * Encyclopedia Britannica supports my point: does qualify term self-governing with "in all matters but defense" (but not accurately - even Gib Chief Minister admits Gvt of Gibraltar not responsible for frgn affrs, defence and internal security page 4). Self-governing colony article does not have one single source & shows a warning since November 2007.
 * Wonderful argument, Gibnews! Right to the point! (sorry for the irony). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Antepenultimate if we're going to be pedantic. And the term self-governing colony is an offical term: a cursory Google search will corroborate this (e.g. here and here), so the argument still stands. RedCoat10  •  talk  16:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one has denied that the Government of Gibraltar is not not responsible for foreign affairs, defence and internal security. However, as has been pointed out: when used in this context, and in common English usage, the term "self-governing" does not extend to defence etc., as evidenced by the term "self-governing colony", which is endorsed by the British Government, and the Andorra example. The following is a quote from an academic treatise on the subject: "Normally the governing state in such a relationship is responsible for the foreign policy of the colony together with its military defence". The principle remains the same; the only difference is that we're using 'British Overseas Territory' instead of 'colony' in light of Gibraltar's official legal status. I've made this point a number of times and a reply has (thus far) not been forthcoming. RedCoat10  •  talk  17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Internal security is the role of the Police who are controlled by the Police authority appointed by the Government of Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk)


 * My gosh! Are you going to keep providing anything without checking it before, as long as you think it supports your POV?
 * Does the British Government actually endorse this? Please take a look at the bottom of the page: "The actual descriptive text portion of the article above (and its Contents menu) are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License then in effect published by the Free Software Foundation. The text article uses material from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-governing_colony (retrieval date: 2007-05-27) and is provided "as-is" and without warranty." If you look at the authors of the WP article, the last one is... Gibnews!!! I am sure that the UK Government regards him/her as a source to be endorsed without hesitation (Gibnews, don't get mad: I am sure that my Government would not endorse my opinion without hesitation either).
 * Regarding the scholarly source, I will give you another quote: "non-self governing or dependent territories (such as the Bermudas, Gibraltar, Guam, (...)" page 437. Also, I would have to interpret the previous sentence: "Depending on the internal agreements between the governing state and the colony, the latter may be entitled to enter into treaty relationships with foreign states (...) A colony which belongs to this group is normally called a self-governing colony." In any case, I would not expect the proverbial Texan student to be familiar with this source
 * What about this source, supporting the very plausible posibility of the Texan student misinterpreting the current text? I think this would at least mean that the current expression is ambiguous. I am starting to wonder whose POV does this ambiguity benefit...


 * Anyway, I think that this line of reasoning is much more complicated than simply saying: "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. It is self-governing in all matters except (...)" I think that we have all agreed that this sentence is true and unequivocal, so far. I am trying to bring consensus here. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation obviously requires the participation - or at least the acceptance - of all parties in the dispute to be effective. Of the nine people named in this medcab (including the filer), seven have made it clear that they feel that mediation is (at least) unlikely to help here, and one has yet to comment. No-one has actually yet said "I decline to participate", but I think that such a position can be reasonably inferred from the comments of most editors. I believe that the level of acceptance required for mediation to work is impossible to attain.

I intend to delist this case from WP:MEDCAB for this reason. If you have an objection to this, please explain the basis on which you believe - given the comments thus far - that all parties to the dispute will participate in, or least accept the outcome of, any mediation that occurs here. Pfainuk talk 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * agree --Gibnews (talk)


 * You talk as if Mediation Cabal were a tool that is going to work or not independently of our will. To be fair, the question should not be "Do you think that mediation will not work and therefore we should delist this case?" That's why, with the best of intentions, I propose Pfainuk and the others that we answer the following question: "Do you want the Mediation Cabal to facilitate this discussion?" --Imalbornoz (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 06:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To that question I answer: Yes. --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * see recursion --Gibnews (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the point you make is answered by the post you responded to, which (I note) is a post about whether or not there is sufficient will for MedCab to work. Pfainuk talk 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to the Neutral point of view noticeboard, where User:Imalbornoz has started another discussion. RedCoat10 •  talk  10:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)