Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar

Comment by JzG
In response to Newyorkbrad, this dispute is nationalist in nature, intractable and involves multiple users with varying degrees of problematic behaviour. My most recent involvement with it came with a war between supporters of two versions of the lead paragraph, one stating that Gibraltar is self-governing (based on a source which quoted the Governor-General as saying it was, in response to the UN stating it wasn't) and a version saying is was non-self-governing based on the UN saying so (which is, apparently, a result of lobbying from Spain). Since British Overseas Territory seemed to cover this well enough I removed the statement altogether, since the sources were to my mind equal and opposite. The result was an edit war in which, to my chagrin, I ended up blocked [six hours after a 3RR report which was preceded by no comment, reminder, friendly or unfriendly note or warning, but that's another story]. So my view here is that anybody who gets sucked in who is not immediately in favour of one side or the other gets a rough ride from both sides, leading to a polarised and endless dispute. It is my view (as an Englishman) that this article is dominated by a clique of pro-British users who are significantly more adept at working our policies than the succession of indignant Spaniards who come by. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra
I've only be involved in this sideways, responding (a couple of times) to a blacklisting request for gibnet.com (discussion still active here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=348469321 perm. link to current status])). I refused said blacklisting on the terms that there was not significant external link spamming (including reference spamming) going on, though I do agree, also on the basis of the reliable sources noticeboard discussion (archived, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_57) that it is not a reliable source, that the site was not used optimally. At the moment of my first decline I found that the blacklisting would merely be on basis of unreliability, as other venues for stopping the abuse were, in my opinion, not exhausted (though I do agree with an analogy given in another discussion: sometimes a mosquito net is more efficient than swatting all the flies: pre-emptive blacklisting and forcing editors to request specific whitelisting would enforce people to think which sources to use)

Based on the first two specific link discussions that were held with me afterward (where Gibnews was involved in (re-)inserting the links), it appears that, at least some of, the site is replaceable with better sources.

In the blacklisting discussion discussion, and also afterwards on other places (my talk, e.g. see User_talk:Gibnews (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gibnews&oldid=348362994 perm. link to current status], User_talk:Beetstra/Archive_13 and currently User_talk:Beetstra / User_talk:Beetstra (perm. link to current status) I have suggested Gibnews to be careful with citing that source, and when a specific source was questioned (and hence removed) to not re-insert the reference, but consider either to find a more reliable source for the statement involved, or to discuss re-insertion on the talkpage. I have also suggested that the unreliable sources were removed (preferably replaced with better, but where not possible, simply removed), and that statements which could not be properly referenced should be removed with the reference. I do assume, that even when the directive was aimed at a specific user, that other users do consider similarly the usefulness of a source, though for Gibnews there may be more reasons, as he does seem to be involved with the site in some way (per our conflict of interest guideline).

It must be said that Gibnews, in at least one occasion, did not follow that suggestion (suggestions: 1, 14:24, 18 February 2010 2, 13:23, 23 February 2010, 3 on 16:11, 23 February 2010; reversions: diff, 16:52, 22 February 2010, diff, 15:10, 1 March 2010 (beginning of an edit war, noting that there was more re-included in the revert diff).

Seeing the questionable use of sources, the persistence of users, and the multi-editor edit wars coming out of it, it seems that ArbCom might want to make some decisions here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Atama
I've been only peripherally involved with this dispute, so it's debatable whether I should be considered among the "involved parties" above, but I've made attempts to help out at the Gibraltar-related articles and help the regular contributors to those articles. My initial involvement came about due to a mediation request to help decide the best way to describe the turnover of Gibraltar from Spanish control to British control. After a discussion lasting a bit more than a month, an accepted compromise was reached. The only point that could not be settled was whether or not to include mention of the settlement of San Roque, Cádiz, and how to do so. I concluded that there was a deadlock and suggested that an RfC be used to bring outside opinion, and helped set up that RfC, but my participation in the RfC itself was almost non-existent. Since then I've only tried to keep a few disputes from escalating, and have helped most of the regular editors with one particular issue or another (both on talk pages and via email). I have no personal opinion on any of the content in the Gibraltar articles and have not edited them.

What I see as the biggest problem is an issue not uncommon at nationalist articles. There is far too much of a focus on editors and far too little focus on content in many of the discussions. This leads to assumptions of bad faith, where one editor assumes that another wants to insert a particular POV because of their nationality. I think this is very unfortunate, because in my time working with the editors at these articles I've personally come to believe that every single one of them has good motives, and if they were able to trust each other more I don't think there would be the problems that we see now. I haven't found any of the editors to be unreasonable even though they can't seem to always get along with one another.

Justin once proposed a form of article probation at ANI that would make ad hominem nationalist attacks be blockable offenses, and I supported that idea. Unfortunately there wasn't very much of a response to that suggestion to be able to determine whether or not the community at large would support such a measure. I'm hoping that the Committee would agree to something along those lines to help ease some of the tension seen at these articles. --  At am a  頭 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Justin
I was unable to make an opening statement for family reasons.

For information I have been diagnosed with PTSD, I am not mad or bad. I am not well but I am getting better. I had a particularly bad time of it in January and for a time behaved out of character. I am currently virtually 100% occupied with family problems, so I doubt I will be able to contribute significantly for some time.

As I said earlier I think the arbitration case was rather premature and suitable sanctions to keep tempers cool might have been preferrable.

I'd pretty much endorse the case made by Atama, whereby there has been a lack of good faith by all sides, and all sides have not treated other editors with civility. No one side stands out. Assertion this is the case are misleading and don't paint the full picture.

With the notable exception of Atama, the article has not been served well by mediators. The 1st mediator may have had good intentions but lacked experience. Richard Keatinge set out to mediate but instead chose to impose a solution and joined in a tag team edit war to do so. His justification in disparaging my opinion and asserting an ulterior motive was unhelpful and lead me to protest vigorously and ultimately I left the project in disgust. JzG's intervention was similarly mishandled, lead to his own block, and resulted in his bitter comments, not yet acknowledging he was the author of his own misfortune.

Willdow is another exception as by considering all opionions equally, he has my confidence to pull together a resolution. I have suggested it is time for all protagonists to step to one side and allow others to find a solution. Perhaps that is a better option that arbcom picking over the bones of this rather sad little spat.

There are a number of problems and I'm not convinced it is 100% down to nationalism. Imalbornoz seesm to view mediation as the next stage in getting the edits he wishes to make into the article against consensus. He wants arbitration to impose the content he desires and to basically assert he's right. Will you please educate him about the consensus process or this will go nowhere as he'll see an appeal to Jimbo as the next stage. In this belief I believe he has been encouraged by other editors with a different agenda.

Red Hat and Ecemaml have been pursuing a personal vendetta against Gibnews, they see arbitration as the next stage in their mission to expose Gibnews. Claims of a COI are disingenuous as you are left in no doubt as to his opinions, so how anyone can claim he is concealing an advocacy is beyond me. They have several times been warned that their conduct borders on harassment and this issue I believe needs to be addressed.

I do however notice that the bad behaviour is now moving toward Gibraltarian People, with the behaviour there continuing to show bad faith and incivility. Please deal with it appropriately.

I would also add that I'm half-Spanish - those who accuse me of being anti-Spanish please take note.

I would also like the behaviour of stalking my edits to be noted. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Stephen B Streater
I haven't been involved in this dispute, but it did attract my attention the Gibraltar article. The article is well written, interesting and informative and generally a success. The concentration of effort on a narrow range of articles may encourage a less relaxed view about fine detail, which could be ameliorated by a holiday in other subject areas. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy
A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW ( Talk ) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Amendment request: Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping (February 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Imalbornoz at 00:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping (specifically, regarding the Gibraltar case)


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) 6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Wee Curry Monster
 * Kahastok


 * Information about amendment request
 * 6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded
 * Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is reinstated;

Statement by Imalbornoz
Point #8 of the decision: “In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.”

Since November 2018 there has been disruptive editing from the users involved in the Gibraltar case:
 * Systematic tendentious editing from User:Wee Curry Monster [content reverted per WP:OUTING].
 * User:Kahastok ([content reverted per WP:OUTING], and who is mentioned in WCM’s user page as his “mentor”) has also edited tendentiously in several occasions and supported WCM’s edits.
 * I have edit warred (within 3RR) and lost assumption of good faith.
 * We have discussed for >2 months, covering the Gibraltar talk page with walls of text and probably scaring away uninvolved editors.

The focus of discussion: During Gibraltar’s capture in 1704 there were very notorious (at the time) events of rapes, plundering and defilement of Catholic churches; after the surrender the population was only allowed to stay if they changed their allegiance to the invaders’ faction; 98% of the 4,000 Spanish population fled, most of them forever, and settled up mainly in the rest of the Gibraltar municipality, which would later become “Campo de Gibraltar”; they took with them the city council files, historical symbols, etc. and kept the legacy of Spanish Gibraltar. These are facts mentioned by all relevant sources. They have been used by Spanish nationalists to support their irredentist claims (in the UN’s committee for decolonization, for example), and aren’t comfortable for British nationalists (none of which should affect Wikipedia). WCM, with Kahasok’s help, has been removing these facts from Gibraltar articles.

Antecedents (notice repetitive behavior):
 * 1) There was a 2 years discussion about the exodus of Gibraltarians, resulting in sanctions.
 * 2) *WCM’s tendentious behavior (summary:; examples:) caused the original Gibraltar case, and received a 3 month ban.
 * 3) *After the 3 months, under the DS, he was also subject to a 0RR restriction.
 * 4) *Later on, also within the DS, WCM, together with Kahastok, myself and Richard Keatinge were placed under restrictions for almost a year and a half, until WCM appealed and restrictions were lifted on a trial basis.
 * 5) During the 1.5 years of the restrictions, less involved editors copyedited the Gibraltar related articles and their edits have remained essentially untouched as the consensus text for 8 years until last November.
 * 6) Eventually, the DS were lifted by the decision mentioned above. For years, myself and Richard Keatinge remained mostly away from Gibraltar related articles, and WCM and Kahastok didn’t essentially change the content that had been developed by other editors.

Since November 2018, Wee Curry Monster, with the help of Kahastok, and some “good guys” in WCM’s list, has been editing tendentiously across several articles the specific issues involved in the Gibraltar case, removing facts that are supported by all secondary sources, using arbitrary excuses (first ignoring previous consensus, then arguing inaccuracy, then copyvio, “excessive quotes”, opposite consensus…) and rejecting dispute resolution.

Examples of tendentious editing:


 * 1) WCM and Kahastok removing the information about the capture and exodus in the Gibraltar article:
 * 2) *WCM reverting a proposed edit, but also removing information about the destination of the exodus (Campo de Gibraltar) that was included in the consensus text.
 * 3) *Kahastok and WCM pretending it wasn’t the consensus, so BRD didn’t protect it, and removing the information about the exodus; notice WCM’s comment: “rv seems you still don't get WP:BRD - irrelevant information removed” and Kahastok’s “Undid revision 873516065 by Imalbornoz (talk) per WP:BRD. Please discuss on talk” until they finally accepted to discuss.
 * 4) *Pretending their edit was the consensus.
 * 5) *WCM, now with the excuse that the sentence was inaccurate. The sources say 98% of the population (all 4,000 except 70) left, and most of them to “Campo de Gibraltar”], and the sentence said “the population left and settled in Campo de Gibraltar”.
 * 6) *WCM again, this time arguing that the consensus text was a copyvio.
 * 7) *WCM now tagging for “excessive quotes” and copyvio
 * 8) *Kahastok removing mention of the destination and “exodus”. Notice how he mentions “non-unanimous consensus”
 * 9) *WCM deletes all mention of the population leaving(!) because “there is no consensus” He prefers that the article doesn't mention that virtually all the population of the city changed in 1704(!!!!!), something any source considers VERY relevant
 * 10) They talk about “non-unanimous consensus”, while there were 3 editors who mentioned reasons to include some information they were removing vs WCM, Kahastok, Apcbg (in WCM’s list of “the good guys”), ThomasW and IdreamofJeannie
 * 11) WCM removing the information from “Disputed status of Gibraltar” article (notice the comment: “ce for grammar and trim”), “Gibraltarians” (with the excuse that the episode was cited in a different page of the source) (because of “extensive quotes”: “reluctantly revert as editor is unnecessarily adding large chunks of text that risks a copyright violation”)
 * 12) WCM removing information in “Campo de Gibraltar” article (tagged as a “minor” edit)
 * 13) A clear example in “Capture of Gibraltar”:
 * 14) *WCM adds many details
 * 15) *Removes mention of the atrocities during the capture
 * 16) *Includes something not relevant in most sources like “Rooke complained in a letter home that the Spaniards were so exasperated against the Alliance that ‘they use the prisoners they take as barbarously as the Moors‘”(!)
 * 17) *Adds very extensive quotes; whereas he removed information in #3 because of “extensive quotes.” Conversation(?) about this inconsistency:
 * 18) Rejecting discussion and assuming bad faith
 * 19) Rejecting, over and over, a RfC like the one was proposed in the discretionary sanctions and telling me to “drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass.”

They aren’t repeating the extreme verbal abuse that got WCM banned, nor do they ignore 3RR. They just keep pushing their POV:
 * Ignoring BRD and opposing editors’ opinions and pretending their text is the “consensus.”
 * Using multiple excuses for their edits that “sound” right to uninvolved editors but are inconsistent (only consistent with their own purpose of removing certain episodes).
 * Avoiding RfC, which in combination with long discussions that “scare away” uninvolved editors, keeps external opinion out.

Answer to Rockysantos
@Rockysantos, although there was no census in Spain before Floridablanca's in 1787, the consensus in secondary sources (Maurice Harvey, George Hills, Stephen Constantine, Isidro Sepúlveda, Peter Gold...) is that at the time of the capture there were around 4,000 inhabitants (1,200 households) and only 70 individuals stayed, and in any case all sources agree that most of the population left and only a few individuals remained. You can take a look here. - Imalbornoz (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Drmies, Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok
I was not aware of the problem about outing. I knew WCM had changed his user name but I didn't know it was off-limits to mention this when referring to past actions (in fact, I thought it was necessary to allow other editors to understand old diffs). The same with Kahastok. Please accept my apologies.

Regarding WCM's talk page, I have used it as little as possible and always with a very civil and constructive approach. Please, Arbcom, check my comments in WCM's talk page here, here and here. I have looked for alternatives to contact WCM and solve things out, such as the only e-mail I have sent him and which is not offensive at all (if you want we can post it here or send it to the Arbcom). Sometimes it's necessary to discuss things outside of the articles' talk pages.

I have always encouraged WCM to write in my talk page, in spite of his very extreme verbal abuse, personal attacks and vandalism on my talk page in the past. I have really tried to understand him and reach out to him, but I think some kind of battleground mentality has got in the way. That's why I think an arbcom guided RfC would be a good way to move forward. - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * WCM and Kahastok call my diffs “selective” and “misleading”. I would be very naîf if I thought that a “selection” of diffs could mislead the Arbcom: one of the good things about wikis is that we all leave a trace, and anyone can check whether what I explained is true or not.
 * I find it pretty ironic that WCM and Kahastok say I have a “battleground” mentality, taking into account that they are the ones rejecting dispute resolution, together with WCM’s history of bans and sanctions, the very aggressive comments he has made to me and other editors in the past, the fact that he keeps a list of “good guys” (that he periodically updates depending on whether someone has annoyed him or not). - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to MarshalN20
@MarshalN20, of course I have not accused British editors of being POV pushers. As a matter of fact, during past disputes Richard Keatinge, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick were very neutral and supported the inclusion of the facts that WCM and Kahastok have removed. I am a very great admirer of British culture (that's one of the reasons I made the effort to learn English). If you forget about the persons and focus on the edits, you will see they are removing information which they said was "Spanish propaganda", but which is factual and supported by all sources. They have done that 8 years ago and now, with inconsistent (even contradictory) arguments, ignoring other editors' comments and rejecting dispute resolution. On the other hand, they are including information that is much less prominent in reliable sources. I have been very patient with WCM (even when he made very aggressive personal attacks in the past I did not ask for Arbcom and allowed him to reconsider his attitude). But after 8 years my conclusion is that, in this specific case, I don't know whether out of a nationalist POV or personal animosity towards me, he has been a POV pusher. - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Bryan Henderson
I totally agree with Bryan Henderson. In fact, that's precisely my point:
 * The flood of discussion between WCM, Kahastok and myself keeps other less involved editors out (except maybe some editors who have some affinity with either one of them - in the case of WCM and Kahastok the ones who edit with them in Falkland Islands, British empire, Imperial vs metric systems... articles; nobody in my case given that I don't edit very frequently).
 * Unfortunately, meanwhile, WCM and Kahastok have been removing information with, in my opinion, a POV approach (please take a look at the articles and see where information has been removed or reduced to a minimum regarding this episode).

Maybe WCM and Kahastok are right. Maybe I am. Maybe I am biased, or maybe they are. In any case, we won't know what other editors think if we keep acting this way.

My analysis for myself is: I can
 * (a) leave it be and let WCM and Kahastok do what they want with the articles (which in my honest opinion is POV)
 * (b) keep discussing and hope that some editor will pay enough attention to participate (which was successful in the past but is very tiring in the long term)
 * or (c) ask for Arbcom intervention to bring some rationality into the discussion.

The fact is that the period of best advance in Gibraltar related articles was when the three of us were away from them (during the last enforcement of the DS).

That's why I am asking to reinstate the discretionary sanctions to stop us from disrupting the discussion and start some approach to include less involved editors. Maybe with the RfC that was recommended in the last enforcement? - Imalbornoz (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Richard Keatinge
Richard is a rare example of an editor who had no previous involvement in the article and one day payed enough interest to participate, bringing a neutral point of view into the discussion for months. His comment about "operating oneself without anaesthesic" is expressive of what it feels like to discuss in the Gibraltar article environment with WCM and Kahastok. He will probably never edit in this area again, as I haven't for years. The same happens with other users like The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml or Cremallera. Something needs to be done.

Summary

 * I think my answers to Bryan Henderson and Richard Keatinge above pretty much summarize the situation regarding how uninvolved editors are discouraged from participating in the discussion by our (WCM, Kahastok and my own) flood of comments.


 * Regarding WCM and Kahastok’s edits, you don’t have to trust my “selective” (like they call them) diffs. It’s pretty easy to see that there was (for 8 years) a description of the exodus of Gibraltarian population in 1704 (an episode mentioned in all relevant sources and considered by the vast majority as pivotal in Gibraltar’s history) and during the last two months WCM and Kahastok have managed to remove it using different excuses (some of them contradictory). Crystal clear: see the current version of the article after WCM and Kahastok removed the exodus episode and a sample of the last 8 years including it. The same has happened in several Gibraltar related articles.


 * WCM and Kahastok’s repeated rejection to go through dispute resolution and, more specifically, RfC is also a very clear fact.


 * Regarding WCM’s, Kahastok’s and my own actions, I would be grateful to receive feedback from the Arbcom about our tendenciousness and whether or not we should be sanctioned.

Finally, I honestly think that Gibraltar related articles need some fresh air with the input of new editors. I think the articles will be very biased if we let WCM and Kahastok “own” them with the things I’ve seen this last couple of months. The best way to move forward, I think, is to reinstate the discretionary sanctions. I think it would also be a good idea to start a series of “controlled” RfCs (meaning someone should stop us from overflowing other editors with our comments) regarding several issues in the articles (the first of which would be the exodus episode). The other option is that (as Kahastok has repeatedly proposed) I “drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass.” ;o)

Thank you very much for your attention. – Imalbornoz (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to arbitrators
I would like to point out that my request deals with the behaviours shown by WCM, Kahastok, and maybe myself, not the contents.

If the Arbcom sees our behaviours as problematic but has doubts about the age of the original case, I think there will be no problem to have evidence showing the continuity in behaviours, editors and other circumstances.

But if they see no issue about behaviour, then I guess I will have to recognize my perception was wrong and accept that this request is declined.

In the case the discretionary sanctions are not reinstated, I don't think I will have the time or the energy to start (again) a dispute resolution process without the DS protection. The last time, it took two years to find a way out of the disputes in the Gibraltar article, with several frustrated mediators, aborted RfCs, and tens of thousands of lines in article talk pages (and in the end, the solution was to have WCM, Kahastok and myself out of the articles for 1.5 years). If this is the scenario, I guess I will be happy to leave the Gibraltar related articles in the hands of WCM and Kahastok, like Richard Keatinge, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Cremallera, or Ecemaml, and wish the best luck to any editor who tries to build NPOV consensus in that area of interest.

Anyhow, whatever the result of the Arbcom, I thank the arbitrators for taking their time to look into this matter and offer us a way out of the deadlock. - Imalbornoz (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, Rob 13, SilkTork and RickinBaltimore. You are rignt about the two discussions. I am not as concerned about the discussions (which have been civil enough) as about the edits by WCM and Kahastok in articles space (not only Gibraltar) with things such as not accepting the previous consensus while we discuss (as per WP:BRD), arguing arbitrary (fake) excuses for the removal of whole episodes of History (not just wording) and rejecting dispute resolution.


 * Regarding the dispute resolution you recommend, I know that if we have a content dispute we should ask for community opinion, then ANI if necessary and then Arbcom. My point is that the same three editors already have gone through all those steps, and dispute resolution didn't solve anything until (i) the Discretionary Sanctions forced WCM and Kahastok to stop boycotting the dispute resolution process, and (ii) finally the 3rd enforcement took WCM, Kahastok and myself from the article for 1.5 years, freeing it for the community to edit a consensus text.


 * I will try to explain why I say that. I’m afraid that the only way for you to understand a problem that spans 10 years is to go over the story. I will try to keep it as brief as possible. Please read it before you completely decline this case:


 * The same editors with the same behaviours and dealing with the same content...:
 * compare these edits from February 2010
 * this one from October 2010
 * and these recent ones


 * ...went through dispute resolution and Arbcom for two years (notice that myself, Richard Keatinge, WCM and Kahastok, and very few other editors, were in each and one of these discussions)...
 * 1st Medcab in August 2009 was rejected by Kahastok, WCM and other 5 “British nationalists” and only accepted by me and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (who is British but without a British nationalist POV). See where Kahastok rejected the mediation
 * 2nd Medcab in October 2009 had one mediator being burnt out after 2 weeks
 * The same Medcab with another mediator in November 2009 helped us reach a partial agreement in some issues (which WCM and Kahastok have eventually deleted from the article anyway) but did not solve the issue we are discussing now (destination of the exodus) which was further discussed for several months.
 * As a result of those discussions (mainly about the capture and exodus) and WCM’s tendencious editing (and extreme verbal abuse against me and other editors), the Gibraltar Arbcom case was opened in March 2010, the DS were enacted and WCM was banned (under his previous name) for 3 months in May 2010.
 * There was a period of peace for 3 months (during WCM's ban), until WCM reverted the previous consensus about the exodus (and self-governance) in October 2010
 * As a consequence, under the DS, WCM received a 0RR in December 2010
 * We agreed to start a 3rd Medcab in January 2011 again about the destination of the exodus. It ended up without result (I don’t recommend it, but you can see the long and fruitless discussion here )
 * As part of the 3rd Medcab, the discussion regarding the text about the exodus was taken to WP:NOR Noticeboard, with only one outside editor participating in the discussion and only suggestions on how to structure the discussion
 * There was another entry by WCM in the same noticeboard, without any answer
 * More discussions in several talkpages, until WCM and Kahastok saw that the consensus was not in they favor, they started an Enforcement case against me under the DS in April 2011 and the three of us (plus Richard Keatinge) were sanctioned for 1.5 years.
 * The community edited the Gibraltar articles free from our negative influence ;o), including the destination of the exodus among other things, for 1.5 years. Then WCM and Kahastok returned, respecting the consensus text for 6 years.
 * Since last November WCM and Kahatok have been removing the consensus text, repeating the same behavior about the same content (please see my first statement in the request), only without the restrictions DS, removing whole episodes in several articles and rejecting, again, dispute resolution (like in 2009).


 * I think that now, without the DS, WCM and Kahastok will keep rejecting and/or boycotting any attempt to bring uninvolved editors through RfC, noticeboards, or mediation, like they did in 2009 when there were no DS, and we will start the process all over again.


 * I hope you understand now why I think it will be a waste of effort from editors, mediators, admins, … to start this process all over again without DS.


 * I think reinstating the discretionary sanctions and imposing a controlled RfC (in order to involve the community wihout us disturbing the discussion) would help solve this dispute saving us all hundreds of hours.

Thank you. - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * AGK, thanks for your answer. I understand that there are concerns about the editorial process, but also procedural doubts about whether ARCA is the place to take decisions about this.


 * Regarding procedures, I have a question: Wouldn't it be possible to take a decision in this case taking into account that Point #8 of the DS housekeeping decision established that "In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page" (the bold format is in the original text)? Otherwise, in which case would this point apply?


 * In case it's not possible to reinstate the DS, it would be very helpful to receive some guidance, taking into account the previous history of the dispute and the Arbcom decisions taken, as to what would be the best procedure to help us solve this issue trying to save time from mediators, admins, and editors.


 * Thank you very much again. - Imalbornoz (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Wee Curry Monster
I have sought advice from my mentor on how to deal with this editor. I have followed his advice scrupulously and avoided any repeat of any behaviour that is sanctionable. This filing seems to be an abuse of the system for this editor to get his own way in a content dispute. He has adopted his usual tactics of flinging enough mud around and hoping it will stick.

On my user page, I list a number of editors I admire. These are editors I admire for the quality of their edits not because of personal association. I have for example held opposing positions to that of and  and I am sure  would acknowledge we frequently disagree on matters. I consider it a gross and egregious presumption of bad faith that he would malign editors such as these in an attempt to smear me. (To answer your question Drmies, you've been on the list since I created it in March 2015, except for a brief period when we annoyed each other).

It is apparent that Imalbornoz has been following me to different articles, in many cases articles he has never edited before. In each case, he has simply reverted my changes, with the comment I have to seek a consensus with him before I am allowed to make any changes. Examples:, , ,.

Sometime ago, I requested Imalbornoz did not post to my talk page. I did so because I found that his postings on my talk page were not productive and mainly accusing me and other editors of misconduct. He has repeatedly ignored that request. Examples ,, ,. Further, on 15th December I had cause to remind this editor not to contact me by email as he had sent me rather an offensive email that I immediately deleted.

I have also noted that he has badgered any editor who has commented. Examples:, ,.

He also badgered editors where I have sought policy guidance, trying to get them to change their advice. Examples:,.

The talk page history is informative, this editor has completely dominated the discussion, deterring outside comment with walls of text. Compare this with my own minimal replies to this editor. His behaviour is characteristic of WP:BLUDGEON.

I previously edited using my own name. Due to off-wiki harassment, I changed my username and have avoided using my own name since. Admins are fully aware of this and any past sanction is registered against my current username. Imalbornoz is fully aware of this, knew there was no need to refer to it and yet has chosen to WP:OUT me once again. I have requested my previous username is redacted.

I have more to comment but that would probably be more appropriate for an SPI report I am considering filing. WCM email 18:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to question from Rockysantos
To answer 's question. I am not aware of there being any census data, the figures quoted are estimates based on eye witness testimony and vary between 4-6000. WCM email 18:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Misleading use of Diffs
Can I ask that anyone considering the OP use of diffs be aware that they are very selective and are designed to mislead. e.g. in Capture of Gibraltar he claims I've removed mention of what he terms "atrocities". This diff shows this to be untrue; this is my edit with extensive quotations and sources concerning precisely this topic. I also ask you to consider his use of none neutral language. All I did was move mention to a more logical chronological order, expanding it to represent the range of views in the literature. Yet he's presenting a diff as if it were permanently removed. WCM email 19:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Another example he claims I'm removing my edit because I want to remove all mention of the events of 1704. In Talk:Gibraltar I repeatedly state I don't want to and it was removed after his insistence that there is no consensus for it. WCM email 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Bryan Henderson
I thank for his comments and would like to add a small response. I have deliberately tried to keep my comments to a minimum to allow other editors to comment. I have also tried to focus solely on content. However, I find it difficult to avoid responding when you have an editor repeatedly demanding you reply on unrelated matters, ,. It's also difficult to avoid responding when an editor is making untrue statements about your editing history e.g. naming me as an editor responsible for an edit when I'd already pointed out I was not.

If you feel I've deterred you from commenting I would like to apologise and assure you that was not my intention. WCM email 17:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Richard Keatinge
I think it's helpful to remind arbcom of Richard's comment that he only reverted my edits previously for a giggle.

I am requesting that both Richard Keatinge and Imalbornoz are admonished for comments about the motives of other editors. I am tired of the accusation by both editors that Kahastok and I are suppressing information, which they have been repeating for nearly a decade. This repeated demonstration of bad faith cannot be allowed to continue, if this is not addressed they will be emboldened to continue being uncivil and generating a poisonous atmosphere.

One only has to look at my own editing history to instantly see this is untrue. Examples User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN, User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar Sandpit, History of Gibraltar, Capture of Gibraltar e.g..

This was a recurring statement leading up to and following the arbcom case ,, despite rebuttals from literature and. As was accusations that editors were suppressing information.


 * Therefore, WCM and want to apply inconsistent criteria to the text of the article: REMOVE facts that -coincidentally or not- have been cited as embarrassing by British historians but are widely mentioned, but KEEP events that tare not as widely mentioned and do not deal so directly with Gibraltar (but which -coincidentally or not- are not considered embarrassing by British historians).

Although sourced as the opinion of Garret(1939), a cursory examination of the literature shows it to be untrue. The events are described accurately in Hills (1974), Bradford (1971), Francis (1975), Jackson (1990), Andrews (1958) and Garratt (1939). In 1845, Ayala a Spanish work is translated verbatim into English by T.James (1845) note also Sayer (1862), Martin (1887), Drinkwater (1824). Admiral Byng and Reverend Pocock wrote detailed eye witness accounts from a personal perspective. All of which document the events to 1704. Aside from anything else the 70 yr old opinion of an author (Garratt) has no bearing on a content discussion and most certainly should never be used to impugn other editors. It was repeatedly and it still is.

The point that I and others have tried to make, which both Richard and Imalbornoz refuse to acknowledge, is that it is not necessary or desirable to mention extensive details in each and every article obliquely related to Gibraltar. This is the locus of the problem, they have sought to force edits into several articles where this level of detail is inappropriate per WP:WEIGHT. WCM email 19:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A minor point but it's worth noting as it is indicative of the lack of fact checking when Richard compiled his comments. When he highlighted the serious violence he alleges I am censoring, he linked to a section of the article I wrote diff . WCM email 12:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note for Arbcom
I have noted above that there is frequent reference by Imalbornoz, repeated by Richard Keatinge, that Kahastok and I are excluding information for POV reasons. As I've pointed out one of the very articles they linked in their evidence was written by me; it's clearly untrue. This is A) uncivil and B) a long standing and peristent failure to assume good faith and enter into consensus discussions with an open mind. This alone has been responsible for creating a hostile atmosphere and it clearly can't be allowed to continue. I'm not suggesting blocks or bans but an admonishment or even a simple WP:TROUT seems warranted to me. I would urge you to consider putting this to bed please. WCM email 13:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@

Can I also ask you to consider the point I raised above.

I fear that Imalbornoz is being very economical with the truth and ask you to note, as Kahastok and I have already commented, Imalbornoz is presenting diffs in a highly misleading manner. It's also worth bringing to your attention that throughout the period referred to by this editor he had no sources in his possession. Rather he made an edit, then tried to justify it by using sources found using Google snippets. He also tried to argue weight could be determined in the same way by constructing metrics based on google snippet searches and tried to use the same technique to argue other editors were biased. He has never to my mind considered the range of opinion in the literature, rather he is selective in his selection of facts to give an unbalanced view.

The problems with past RFC obtaining outside opinion was that Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge actively deterred it with the practised technique of posting walls of text and raising multiple irrelevant issues to confuse matters. As an example, during mediation I made a comment about the multiple issues in the way an edit was being formulated. I raised this at WP:NORN at the request of the mediator User:Lord Roem. Imalbornoz disrupted this by raising multiple issues that were not pertinent to that discussion. As discussion diverted from the issue relevant to the noticeboard I asked a focussed question for outside opinion, Richard Keatinge immediately followed this by again raising matters that were irrelevant.

They also disrupted RFC, as an example. Imalbornoz posted a wall of text, then Richard completely hijacked it and rewrote it so it did not address any of the issues raised.

You will find that I have not refused a suggestion of an RFC or outside opinion, nor would I but I would add it is likely to be deterred by the walls of text posted by Imalbornoz. I would in fact welcome outside opinion, in point of fact when Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge were removed from the article by the sanctions he is seeking to have re-imposed, outside editors more or less immediately restored the article in line with what I had been arguing was appropriate for an overview.

I learnt a couple of lessons from the past. One is not to respond to every argumentative comment as it can give the appearance of a WP:Battle, the second was to walk away and not respond to deliberate provocation. I also ask you to note that the circumstances were very different the last time, my mental health was in a mess and I really shouldn't have been editing. None of the behaviours that have lead to past sanctions have been repeated, nor will they be. WCM email 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Kahastok
This request is a case of an editor who - having failed to get consensus by continually badgering people on a talk page for months on end - is now trying to use Arbcom to do an end run around the consensus building process instead of just dropping the stick.

Initial notes:
 * The list of involved editors is not complete. There weren't just three of us in the discussion.  Editors involved in the discussion that have not been made aware of this motion include at least:
 * User:Rockysantos
 * User:Thomas.W
 * User:Giraffedata
 * User:IdreamofJeanie
 * User:Apcbg
 * The last edit to the discussion was on 26 January, two weeks ago. Any dispute here is stale.
 * The only times Arbcom intervention has been sought in this area in the last ten years were when Imalbornoz was around - and it has been sought every time Imalbornoz has been around. The same cannot be said of any other editor.

Based on stale discussion at Talk:Gibraltar
The content dispute is that Imalbornoz believes that Wikipedia's articles on Gibraltar should give a great deal of weight to the circumstances of the foundation of the Spanish town of San Roque in 1706. His focus on this narrow point is extreme to the point that he resembles an WP:SPA: probably 95% of his edits in the last two months, and probably 70-80% of his edits all time, are on this specific point.

In terms of the specific situation we're in, this is reasoanbly straightforward. I quote the second paragraph of WP:NOTUNANIMITY:

"Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process."

Imalbornoz appears to believe that his consent is necessary for any consensus to be reached. As such, he has been filibustering the process, badgering editors and insisting that there can be no "real consensus" without him. WCM and I - and others - spent weeks trying to include Imalbornoz in a consensus, but this proved impossible. Note frustration with Imalbornoz's methods here and here for example - and that neither of those comments came from me or WCM.

For me, it is reasonably obvious from a reading of the talk page that there is consensus for this text - once you take account of the stated positions of all involved editors (not just the three named editors here), and of the fact that Imalbornoz is a single editor and not entitled to a veto.

If I thought further dispute resolution would get a consensus that included Imalbornoz, I would agree to it. But Imalbornoz's behaviour - the filibustering, the badgering, the endless repetition of rejected proposals with no attempt made to resolve the objections raised to them, the repeated misrepresentation of others' positions (as noted in footnotes above, plus particularly the quote at the bottom of this wall of text that was taken entirely out of context) - demonstrates to me that this is highly unlikely. And having had this start before Christmas, I think very few of us want to still be having the same discussion next Christmas as well.

If any action is needed at this point to avoid a repeat of the previous car crash, it is to prevent Imalbornoz from raising this point again. Everyone else can work together constructively. All other editors can leave this point and deal with other things - have in fact left this point and spent the last two weeks dealing with other things. Any problems still needing resolution are the result solely of Imalbornoz's refusal to allow this discussion to end. Kahastok talk 12:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow up 09:13, 10 February 2019
Following WCM's lead and going through some of the diffs in Imalbornoz's text, turns out I shouldn't have bothered looking up examples of his misrepresenting others' edits in the discussion because he's done it over and over in his statement on this very page. The timeline is confused, the text in several cases false, the choice of diffs misleading. I only find it disappointing that I am not surprised - Imalbornoz's standard WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in full flow there.

In terms of the outcome of this, to be clear: I see no particular need to add discretionary sanctions in the general case, I feel that would be excessive based on a single discussion. But at the same time, in the general case, if an editor is not willing to drop the stick on his own, it's reasonable to ask that he be required to drop the stick by the community for the good of the encyclopedia. This discussion cannot continue for ever. But I think I can say with confidence that nobody bar Imalbornoz wants it to. Kahastok talk 09:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: comments by Richard Keatinge
A few points to bear in mind when reading this:
 * The last discussion on this article on the point RK raises appears to have been this one back in 2013.
 * The editor who actually removed reference to the violence from the article was User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick here, as part of a wider trim of what had become a seriously bloated history section.
 * When Imalbornoz assigns editors to each side of his WP:BATTLEGROUND, he lists The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick as being on his side.
 * While this is not the place to discuss content, note that there are legitimate reasons not to mention every point in full and complete detail on relatively general articles.

Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge now both appear to be trying to relitigate the events of 2010-2011. Why? For my part, I have no interest in that. It's 2019. The past is the past.

Comments about the choice to go to Arbcom
Taking only what's happened at Talk:Gibraltar, there are behavioural issues. I described them above. Do they require discretionary sanctions? No, not at this point. They require a WP:TROUT. Mentoring would probably help if Imalbornoz intends to return to the topic. But if this had gone to WP:ANI, I'd expect nothing further based on what has happened at Talk:Gibraltar. But I am concerned about the effect of this process on future discussion.

When Imalbornoz first came back, he started a different dispute. The discussion on this point is here. The question was controversial - he knew it had the potential to become heated (and made that point several times) - but we reached consensus quickly. Imalbornoz accepted my proposal the day after the first revert. But in his edit accepting the compromise, and three more times afterward, he was still trying to start the argument. And when he gave up on that one he immediately started trying have an argument over San Roque - another point that he knew was likely to raise the temperature.

If you wanted to raise the temperature at this article now, after the discussion we had - that, I remind you, finished a full two weeks ago - an effective way of doing it would be to bring the dispute here as Imalbornoz did, and make the sorts of statements that Imalbornoz has made.

There is a pattern here.

If we finish this now, and Imalbornoz comes back, I will do my best to ignore all this, to lower the temperature, to continue to edit in a constructive manner with all participants, trying to reach the best consensus we can reach given the views of all the editors involved. But that's not going to work if others - Imalbornoz included - are not similarly committed to lowering the temperature. I simply do not get that impression from the edits I see here. Kahastok talk 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note, modified by Kahastok talk at 23:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thomas.W
This is a classic example of a content dispute between a single-purpose account,, and just about everyone else who has been active on the article, where Imalbornoz stubbornly refuses to accept that other editors don't share their views, and just continues to push their POV, repeating the same arguments over and over again, ad nauseam. Having crossed the border to tendentious editing a long time ago. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Rockysantos
It's generally agreed some people had left Gibraltar when the British took over, however is there any census we can look at to prove this? The government of Gibraltar has on its website broken down the population in it's earliest census from 1753:-

The results then were: British 434; Genoese 597; Jews 575; Spaniards 185, and Portuguese 25.

Is there one from before this that shows the population and how it was before the British took over? This would show if the word exodus is justified.

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/gibraltar-census-history --Rockysantos (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Above was my statement back in December, which was never really clearly answered.

Is there a census from before the aledged exodus? If so where is it and what are the figures, once that is established can it be proven that the population on mass left Gibraltar for San Roque? Is there a census that shows that Gibraltar had a population of say 5000 then 0 and San Roques census then rose by 5000?--Rockysantos (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I'm very pleased to see that I'm on WCM's "good guys" list. I don't know how old or new it is, but I do know WCM hasn't always felt about me that way, haha. Anyway, I'm not here because of WCM but rather the editor filing the request: let there be no more outing. This isn't the place to discuss what outing is, what its parameters etc. are--just accept it, no more outing. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MarshalN20
Having worked with WCM and several Argentine editors to resolve contentious issues in the Falkland Islands article (in 2014), which is now a featured article, I can attest to WCM's value as an experienced editor and community member. Controversial topics can be adequately covered in Wikipedia, and WCM has proven expertise in achieving it. Kahastok accurately indicates that the crux of the content problem concerns the "Campo de Gibraltar" population. Imalbornoz accuses WCM and British editors for "POV pushing," when in reality what is happening is a difference of opinion. My understanding of "POV pushing" is that it promotes fringe perspectives. What is the literature or historiography on the topic? Reading the content article's talk page, this is unclear. Therefore, the claim of "POV pushing" is also unclear.

In fact, given the lack of clarity, it seems abusive (behavior-wise) for Imalbornoz to accuse the British editors as being "POV pushers". It's an uncivil defamation of character, which unfortunately often goes without remedy in administration/arbitration boards. Even more concerning (also behavior-wise) is Imalbornoz's outing of the other editors. In my book, these are both clear battleground mentality actions that reveal a lot more about Imalbornoz's behavior than that of the other editors.--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bryan Henderson
I follow the Gibraltar article and participated a little in the discussion others have discussed here, which started in December and featured mainly the editors whose discretionary sanction status is the subject of this amendment request.

I would have participated more, but I could not keep my head above the flood of argument between User:Imalbornoz on one side and User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Kahastok on the other. There is clearly something going on between these editors, as this continued for six weeks, meandering from here to there with no apparent hope of editors on one side changing minds on the other and what looks like heavy biases that prevent one side from even considering the other side's argument. Perhaps because of history they have with each other. Furthermore, about half of the discussion is meta-discussion ("You're not arguing properly").

But I don't see that that has any bearing on the amendment request, which is to reinstate discretionary sanction status. I don't see that any of these editors have done anything or is likely to do anything in the future that would result in a discretionary sanction.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Keatinge
I endorse Imalbornoz's point on the underlying content dispute; there is a longstanding campaign to keep out of Gibraltar-related articles details of the serious violence committed against civilians by the mainly-English forces that captured the town in 1704. This violent episode is a significant part of the ongoing Spanish feelings for the place. Histories in English have tended to downplay or even omit it, doing I feel a disservice to any reader who wants a holistic understanding. A coterie of editors (who have done good work elsewhere) have demonstrated remarkable devotion and ingenuity in the cause of omitting or downplaying it on Wikipedia. The discussion has been colossal, repetitive (often diverging into rather dubious procedural points), and wasteful of goodwill. I feel that this does a disservice to Wikipedia. We have also seen editors from other points of view, but in the face of vast argumentation they have generally decided to leave this ghastly dispute. I have profound empathy with their decision. Rather than engage in the dispute again, I would prefer to operate on my own piles without anaesthetic.

Imalbornoz makes a specific request, that admins should again be empowered to issue discretionary sanctions on editors on this subject. (This power was a part of the resolution that did, for a while, cool down the whole dispute.) This might well help a suitable (interested and robust) admin to prevent the content dispute from wasting further immense amounts of time and goodwill. I therefore support the idea, or any other that will bring an appropriate degree of constructiveness and courtesy to the issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I should perhaps add that I don't intend to make any further comment here (unless specifically requested by an admin). I'll just keep it on my watchlist for a bit. And Gibraltar-related articles will remain off my watch list. My dusty row of authorities on the history of Gibraltar may take an overdue trip to the second-hand book shop. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
When Arbcom first passed one of these housekeeping motions, I assume their thinking was that the disputes had quiesced and were no longer a problem. If one of these disputed areas happens to come back to life, with a lot of similarity in the issues raised, this suggests that the housekeeping should be undone. Making the participants file a whole new case seems to undo the 'housekeeping' rationale which suggests only a small matter of tidying up of things no longer needed. If the committee correctly identified the nature of the dispute the first time around, and made a reasonable choice of a sanction regime, that understanding should still hold if the dispute begins again. It is more labor-intensive to do something in a full case than at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re DS housekeeping)
my reading of that housekeeping motion, which is now over four years old, is that it allows a request like this - it doesn't guarantee that the DS will automatically be reinstated. The intent of the motion was that it would allow a quick resumption of the sanctions if the same problems as before reappeared as they were. However, the arbitrators have examined this request and looked at the evidence presented and determined that the issues this time are different to the issues that resulted in the sanctions being imposed in 2010 and they are not convinced that discretionary sanctions are the right tool for the current dispute. That doesn't mean there ins't a dispute, it just means that the arbitrators are of the opinion that this is a different dispute that the community should be allowed to attempt to resolve first. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Having a preliminary look, I agree that the edits are concerning. Awaiting statements from the other users involved.   AGK  &#9632;  10:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I remain concerned at the activity we are seeing at Gibralter. There appears to be evidence of both entrenchment along POV lines and significant flux between different versions of the article.  Generally, these are signs that when the committee looks deeper it will find a serious breakdown in the normal editorial processes.  However, procedurally, we cannot do justice to these concerns in the form of an ARCA.   AGK  &#9632;  19:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am extremely skeptical of reinstating discretionary sanctions at ARCA in a topic area that has had no active arbitration remedies since 2014. The Committee does retain jurisdiction over past cases and motions, but I think that is just too far of a gap for us to swoop in with another round of discretionary sanctions without a thorough examination of the topic area through a full case. In particular, it seems that the alleged issues in this topic area center around a very small number of editors at the moment. A full case could examine whether we should be restricting those editors specifically instead of casting the widest net we have in our toolbox. I am inclined toward no action here, with a note that a case may be filed if further examination is desirable. I will continue to evaluate further statements and the statements of my fellow arbitrators, however. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We'd be acting on "data" from the original case which is now nine years old if we simply added back discretionary sanctions. The majority of editors named as parties in the original case are no longer problematic in the area, and many new editors that were never examined in the original case have appeared. The circumstances surrounding the topic area appear to be fundamentally different. That's why I'm saying "full case" from my perspective, if we are to take this on. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline. Effectively this is a request to open a case, as we could not reimpose DS at this distance and in these circumstances (very little negative activity on the article) without a case. Haven taken a look, this is a content dispute rather than a behaviour dispute, and discussion is taking place on the talkpage. As such, this is a matter that is best handled by the community as ArbCom cannot pass judgement on content issues. Dispute resolution is the place to go for assistance. SilkTork (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Imalbornoz. I see two recent discussions on the Gibraltar talkpage. One is about governance - that started on Dec 2nd and was resolved by you all on 13th Dec. The second one is regarding the exodus of the population, and that started on 13th Dec and by 26th January was still not resolved, so you talked about some form of dispute resolution, such as a RfC. The discussions on the talkpage are snappy and irritable and are not ideal, and there is some history on this matter, as you indicate, but such heat in protracted and controversial debates is not uncommon - though I do find your mentions of blocks to be inappropriate. What I see is that there is no agreement on a way forward, so you have reached a stalemate. You feel that as there are two editors on one side, and you on the other, that you are being ganged up on. That may be so. That is why in these situations we go to the community for fresh eyes. If the community look at the matter and agree with you or the others, and that despite community consensus either you or the others continue to push your point, then the matter can be raised at ANI. If ANI can't come to decision as to if you or the others should be sanctioned for disregarding consensus, then would be the time to bring the matter to ArbCom. At the moment I see a content dispute rather than a behaviour dispute, and a content dispute which needs fresh eyes to look at the content rather than the behaviour. Your concern in this, as evidenced above in your statement, is not so much the behaviour of the other editors, but about the content of the article which you and the others disagree about. You are as passionate about getting the wording of the exodus right as WCM and Kahastok are, except you have different solutions to the wording. Your point of commonality is that you all want the wording to be fair, accurate and proportionate. What you need is some assistance with finding the wording that you can all agree on. DS will not help you find the wording, it will sanction and restrict those editors who become too heated in the discussions - and that may be you. You are far better to go via the community route. SilkTork (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Imalbornoz. I will consider carefully what you have said. SilkTork (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Decline Boiled down to its essence, this is a content dispute and it appears there is communication on the talk page. The community should try to handle this as a whole, or an RfC created, rather taken to ArbCom. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline. The DS are too old and too broad for me to comfortable reinstating them in an ARCA. If there's a solution here, it seems more likely to be sanctions against individual editors, but before that happens there needs to be an attempt at dispute resolution through the usual processes and, if that fails, a new case. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)