Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gibnews

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
Constant removal of sources and biased POV editing (erasing) of Gibraltar article by User Gibnews. Effectively "owning" the article.

Description
User Gibnews has been persistently censoring the Gibraltar article. His behaviour falls short of outright vandalism but it consists of imposing his POV view on all other users by daily revertals and refusal to engage in constructive discussion or consensus building. He accuses all wikipedians who do not agree with him on a number of issues (a majority of editors of the Gibraltar article) of being "pro-Spanish", part of a Spanish conspiracy and spreading lies and propaganda.

The main problem with his behaviour is that he has erased dozens of respectable sources included in the article by a number of users over the past months. He considers they are not worthy of being included in the article since they contradict his biased POV. He has even gone as far as erasing the disputed tag from the article while imposing his view on all other users who disagreed with him.

A number of users (including myself, user:Asterion, user:Ecemaml and many others) have given up on contributing to the article but I have noticed that others (such as user:Panchurret) continue to contribute sources which are promptly erased by user Gibnews.

Evidence of disputed behavior
For proof see the following examples of his behaviour.

Unjustifiable deletion of valid, up-to-date sources on the Gibraltar article by user:Gibnews (including the UN, OECD, IMF and -ironically- the Gibraltar government websites):

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 

Some sources erased repeatedly by Gibnews:
 * OECD 2001 report
 * IMF 2006 report
 * Article on the jewish journal
 * Article on the New Scotsman
 * Gibraltar government website explaining offshore tax regime
 * Article on Gibraltar on LowTax.com
 * Gibraltar Financial Service Commission website
 * Offshoregibraltar.com Territory's tax law
 * List of Taxhavens
 * UN Decolonization Committee with list of colonies
 * Article in second largest newspaper in Spain on Exodus of Gibraltar

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:OWN
 * WP:CITE
 * WP:NPOV

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_2
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gibraltar

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * --Panchurret 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * --Burgas00 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Szvest 22:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

BACKGROUND


 * There is a real and accepted campaign by the Government of Spain to engage in economic sabotage of Gibraltar and to interfere with any activity which generates a profit or shows the Gibraltarians in a positive light internationally


 * For background please read the following websites (none of which are mine)


 * 1. Football


 * 2. Restrictions imposed on Gibraltar by Spain


 * We conclude that the series of allegations which Spain makes against Gibraltar appear almost wholly to be without substance. In many cases, it is not just the Government of Gibraltar but the British Government as well which is traduced. It is deeply regrettable that allegations are made that cannot be sustained by a basis in fact. - House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 1999


 * Sadly some people consider it their duty to continue this by promoting the above mentioned 'Spanish' view of Gibraltar in the media including Wikipedia.

When I first looked at the page it suggested that the Gibraltarians were a a bunch of drug smuggling pirates living on stolen Spanish territory. That has gone, but with a lot of effort, and the pages are now factual and informative.

NATURE OF THIS COMPLAINT


 * Let us turn to the specific allegation that I have deleted well sourced material

1. ALLEGATION GIBRALTAR IS LISTED AS A TAX HAVEN BY THE OECD

Simply, that is false, it is not. The OECD do not use that term on their website today. So what is the 'source given'

http://www.oecd.org/document/59/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2074555_1_1_1_1,00.html

Please now look this up and you will find a dated article from 2002 :


 * Gibraltar Commits to Co-operate with OECD to Address Harmful Tax Practices ... Gibraltar will not be included in the list of unco-operative tax havens to be issued shortly.

Which actually says what a good job Gibraltar is doing and says it is not on its list of 'tax havens' as claimed. And that was in 2002, they have since stopped using the term !

So I removed the reference to 'tax haven' and the OECD it was because it was used inappropriatly.

2. ALLEGATION THAT THE IMF SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT GIBRALTAR IS A TAX HAVEN

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ofca/ofca.asp

Again, please follow this link and you will find a page which says about Gibraltar


 * Gibraltar -- Assessment of the Regulation and Supervision of Financial Services - October 31, 2001 (558 k pdf file)

Again this is OUTDATED however, take some time to download the report and you will find it is actually very positive about the regulation of financial services in Gibraltar:


 * The FSC carries out its duties diligently and has an intimate knowledge of the institutions under its supervision. Its policy is to be approachable and accessible to its licenses and this is characteristic of small jurisdictions where people are well known to each other. There is general acknowledgement in the industry of the FSC’s professional approach.

Again the cite given does not support the claims made, if you examine it.

Going through the list provided;


 * Item 1..4 covered by the above regarding tax haven
 * Item 5 removal of claim that Gibraltar was the first Jewish state - False
 * Item 6..8 Claim that the Spanish Government 'objected' to our referendum - False
 * Item 9-12 Attempt to label Gibraltar a tax haven for propaganda purposes
 * Item 13 'totally disputed' template removed as no actual dispute included on talk pages)
 * Item 14..16 Item on taxation inappropriate for main article removed and a factual one later added to the seperate detailed section on 'taxation'
 * Item 17 Removal claim that 'The UN regards Gibraltar as a colony' it does not.
 * Item 18 Item 14..16 revisited

Regarding 'el Mundo' I don't see anything wrong with indicating that the link is in a foreign language, as this is the English langiage Wiki, and anything in a Spanish newspaper about Gibraltar is suspect.

The Government of Gibraltar website, like all sites sometimes contains errors, if there is anything there describing Gibraltar as a tax haven, please post the link on my discussion page and it will be corrected promptly.

CONCLUSION

Gentlemen and editors, having shown that the particular item about 'tax havens' was malicious and unsourced I invite YOU to now remove it from the article on Gibraltar as it does not belong in an encyclopedia. This is what I did,

Why are we here ? yes I have upset a number of people by insisting that the pages about Gibraltar are factual and honest. In doing so I have tried at all times to be polite and to reason with people, even when there has been clearly a lack of good faith, or in the case of spurious templates, no response.

Another entity user:Gibraltarian Gibraltarian faced similar problems lost the plot and has been banned, I'm sure some would love to have me banned too so they can write whatever nonsense they like about Gibraltar. In the case of the above deletions, the evidence is clear and at all times I have tried to discuss things politely, provide cites, references and photographs. What I deleted was nonsense

I live in Gibraltar and deal with all levels of people daily and have access that others who gain their information from reading Spanish newspapers and exercising their prejudices simply do not.

Check the sources, read the talk page and form your own views, the truth is out there.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Gibnews 23:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC) I would further add that I am not expressing a POV but disputing the validity of FACTS presented as the references given do not support the claims of the editor.
 * 2) -- Rockeagle 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Please see evidence of news doctoring, corruption of journalists which may colour Spanish opinion. Gibraltar article seems up-to-date and unbiased, Military section needs finishing!
 * 3) --Astrotrain 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Note that the editors in question have a poor grasp of writing in English, and many of their additions are deleted because they simply do not make any sense. I would also agree that stating the territory is a tax haven and then linking to articles from several years ago that do not explicity agree with what they are saying is not a good idea. Astrotrain 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --Saluton 13:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Gibnews holds some personal opinions, but on the whole his edits are good and stick to the facts, while his discussions on the talk page are always polite and rational. Without agreeing with every single edit he has made, I would say that Gibnews has definitely improved the pages relating to Gibraltar.

Outside view by David
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

This behaviour looks very reminiscent of the permanently blocked User:Gibraltarian. Has a checkuser been undertaken?

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) David | Talk 10:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Mais oui! 08:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 1 The common factor is that we have both had to deal with abusive behaviour. However the response is different; I can assure you I am not user:gibraltarian nor do I do things the same way and that is clear to those involved. --Gibnews 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 2 Yes a checkuser is not necessary. I am sure they are two different users.--Burgas00 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 3 Fair enough. Others seem to be in agreement with you, as well. David | Talk 14:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 4- it is unlikely that this is the case, as there is a marked difference in behaviour between the two. Astrotrain 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 5 - Gibnews is very unlikely to be Gibraltarian under another name; for a start, Gibnews appears to be sane... -- ChrisO 20:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 6 - I would agree that Gibnews and Gibraltarian are unlikely to be the same person. Their style is completely different, Gibraltarian was much more aggressive and could be quite unreasonable. -- Saluton 13:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Garcilaso
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

The user Gibnews has a legitimate point of view, that may represent other people´s opinion, mostly in Gibraltar, but it does not legitimate him to delete other points of view or sources. The evidences given of a destructive attitude are overwhelming. The best thing Gibnews could do is to add his sources (Gibraltar Governement´s) to the other ones so that the reader sees there are various POV, but never deleting contrasted and serious references. If he thinks that they are obsolete, he may find the possible new OECD report that supports his oppinion and ADD it to the others, not instead. Even if it is related to the past (I just don´t know), what Gibraltar has been is as important to an Encyclopedia as what it is now: Nobody questions that in the article :Spain it must mentioned that it was formerly under a dictatorship as well as that it is now a Democracy.

What a person, an entity, a region or a country says of itself is an important fact to be written, but it isn`t always the truth, or at least, not all the truth, and it is necessary for an Enciclopedia to have all the information. Please, forgive my poor English.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Garcilaso 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Szvest 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -- E   Asterion  u talking to me? 17:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Spangineer
This is a controversial subject, and emotions are going to run high by default. Both sides can take steps to promote civil discussion and improve the article. First, sources must be used, and they must be used appropriately. Gibnews is correct to disapprove of the addition of outdated sources that do not directly back up a claim. However, Gibnews may sometimes need to be reminded that, according to WP:NPOV, "All significant published points of view are presented" in Wikipedia articles. All documented opinions, whether true or false, must be included. The goal is not to present "accurate" or "factual" information. The goal is to include all documented opinions and facts and let the reader decide which is accurate.

I'm pretty sure that Gibnews understands this, and I hope this reminder isn't necessary. He has done beneficial work and probably represents the best chance we've got to develop articles on Gibraltar that are fair to Gibraltar. He demands good sources, and is generally civil. I encourage him to keep working on Gibraltar related articles and to continue to demand good references that back up claims in the article.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Spangineeres  (háblame)  17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree. Gibnews should also bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox; at the end of the day, he's not here to "defend" Gibraltar but to represent the issues fairly, even when he disagrees with what is being claimed. See also Neutral point of view/FAQ. -- ChrisO 21:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I also agree. So long as Gibnews reads sources properly before discarding them as "outdated" and understands that so far none of us have "attacked" Gibraltar in any way. The so-called slander campaign Gibnews is constantly talking about is non-existant in wikipedia.--Burgas00 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Asterion  u talking to me? 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by bxlbaby
I am an American and so impartial, however it does look suspicious that it is always the Spanish people who want to say bad things about Gibraltar and attack this guy for doing a good job. Spain wants to take over Gibraltar again and who knows what for but its wrong. --bxlbaby 13:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) bxlbaby
 * 2) Azmoc 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Arbiteroftruth
This is a controversial topic, as said by others on this page already, but acting controversially on a controversial topic is not going to "set things straight" for either side. Wikipedia is a tolerant place, and opinions of the opposition, when they are within reason and not extreme, should be included, whether a person agrees with it or not. Wikipedia's duty is not to decide, but to let people to decide in an informed manner. Pushing a particular ideology is, at best and regulations aside, not ethical and contrary to the established purpose of Wikipedia.

Since he is only making POV edits that favors one reasonable side (ie: not pushing extremist ideologies), I think we should just let him go, and tell him that he needs to strive to get a concensus. The very important thing here is that he is not pushing for some Nazi causes. That makes all the difference. Taking sides is natural, and we do it all the time, but this isn't the place to do it, of course. Gibnews needs to make some choices himself, and I'd say let him make it without our intervention. Arbiteroftruth 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)