Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence

Reply to RedHat

 * Response to Red Hat: I was not going to respond, but now AGF is being trotted out and being forced into an ill-fitting costume once again like some unfortunate dog with a lonly owner, I feel I must. You have /repeatedly/ done the same thing to Justin (and others) and got the same response. Now, we both know you are not a stupid person and are not going to perform the same action over and over and expect a different result. So what other conclusion am I left with other than the use of those messages to wind Justin up? I am not accusing you of necessarily doing this consciously, but it has been at least a good part of the ratcheting up of tensions and that does need to be realised, that one can promote incivility in others merely by being passive agressive does share a small part of that burden out. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are making this allegation, then please provide evidence with diffs on the evidence page. If you feel I /repeatedly/ am doing something, that should be easy to find.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to evidence by Imalbornoz

 * I repeatedly and politely asked him not to post on my talk page. This was in response to posts that I would characterise as "taunting", he ignored this repeatedly and persisted.
 * As with others he makes a great deal of this revert, you may note that the first is a goat herder. It appeared to me a disruptive and pointy edit.  When it was explained, I had no problem with it.  The response to challenging the edit was to revert war, when it was discussed reasonably consenus was rapidly achieved.
 * Pls check the contribution history of some of the editors he claims that I have driven away. It will be illuminating.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Refusal to accept mediation? Please refer to any case with my name on which I've not agreed to. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to evidence by Cremallara
In response to Cremallara's comments about my "alleged" ethnicity. I was inititally taken aback by that comment, since on the face of it there is a direct implication that I'm lying. I realise wikipedia is largely anonymous but from the start of editing I have chosen to use my real life identity. I suppose the nature of my origins first came about several years ago when I was trying to translate some Spanish (badly I hasten to add as my Spanish is crap) for an article on the Falklands. That was about 3 years ago I think. So I'm not entirely sure if he is alleging I was so prescient to plant that information years ago in anticipation of this dispute but there you go.

But he does raise a serious point, there are often allegations thrown about of an "anti-Spanish" bias or of a racist attitude toward the Spanish. Such allegations are usually intended to close down debate by painting the opposing editor as unreasonable. This has happened far too often in this dispute, most of those diffs I am responding to accusations of bias.

Not knowing quite how to respond, I turned to Atama for advice. As usual he came up with a very well argued comment that gave me a new perspective so I thought it worth sharing here.

The other issue is that one of the reasons why we have such a problem with the Gibraltar-related articles it that there is too much of an emphasis on editors' real-life identities, affiliations, and nationalities

I would hope that all editors concerned recognise their own issues here. Anyway I initially intended to respond somewhat robustly to Cremallara, now I'd like to thank him for raising an important issue. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cremallara claims that my abusive comments drove Irbisgrief to abandon being a mediator. This is a complete fabrication and misleading evidence. Irbisgrief utterly failed to grasp the issues so I politely asked that another mediator take the case. He didn't take that too well and over reacted, urging other mediators to stay away - I did not attack him in anyway and to claim I did is false easily verified from the talk page. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 22:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to evidence by Ecemaml
I was not blocked for edit warring on the Spanish wikipedia, it could be characterised by a language misunderstanding but not edit warring. But if you wish to discuss it or bring it up feel free; I note that speculation remains justification for allegations to be aired as fact on es.wikipedia so I'd relish the chance to discuss it here. And yes I was and remain grateful for your intervention, only spoilt by the occasion when you blamed me for your block on the English wikipedia and your statement to another editor I was not to be trusted. So much for good faith. I again draw your attention to the fact that I have never sought any sanction or reported you for any violation on either wikipedia. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Content
A diff from August 7 where I give links to various sources to explain the difference between governance and government and how Gibraltar is self-governing, although the GoG is not responsible for the police or judiciary but these are controlled by separate Gibraltar authorities. This is not asking for a judgement on content but rather to reflect that several months later Imalbornoz still puts up walls of text from different sources to justify minimising the degree of self-government in Gibraltar and not to discuss how better to explain it to our readers. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
Regarding RHoPF's claim of a self-imposed exile because editors on Gibraltar were creating a poisonous atmosphere. I came across this from 2 years ago Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-28 Gibraltar. I thought it useful to bring attention to the attitudes of the parties back then, noticeably the only person refusing mediation was RHoPF. I also note Gibnews referring to Red Hat attacking his use of references on the RS noticeboard, the same reference source being disputed 2 years later. 2 years ago we'd just emerged from several months of the page stagnating by long term disruption including the editor User:Té y kriptonita (please would you review that editors contributions bearing in mind Pfainuk's comments) who it is alleged we also drove from the page. I would also draw attention to the fact that RHoPF's attitude hasn't changed and it has been a 2 year campaign against any website Gibnews has ever worked for. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge
Richard asserted There are still editors who object to any mention of San Roque on grounds which I find not relevant to Wikipedia.' My arguments were based around whether it were necessary to include peripheral information, information Richard acknowledged was peripheral, in an overview on Gibraltar. This became transmuted by Richard to suppressing mention of San Roque at all costs, which bears no relation to what I actually argued and despite repeated requests to address the actual argument no one did - please feel free to check the talk page.

I continue to question the judgement of anyone who would use the same language as one side of a polarised debate, continue to claim to be neutral whilst edit warring to impose a solution (imposing a solution was Richard's preferred phrase).

Regarding the accusation of suppression of San Roque at all costs see Demographics of Gibraltar - please look at the edit history of who was involved in that article edit.

Noticeably Willdow very quickly acknowledged what I has to say had merit and I was quite happy to see someone judge the edit on strength of argument. What I do object to most vigorously is the continued assertion of bad faith motivations on the part of editors involved as an excuse for disregarding their argument and their protests at such bad faith as evidence of their "incompetence". I would also highlight that both Narson and Gibnews have indicated they were unhappy with the imposed solution and both Gibmetal77 and Atama expressed reservations about the way it was imposed. Consensus was possible, it just can't be imposed and requires judgement on the strength of argument not finding reasons to ignore it. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to further attempts by Richard to portray me the devil incarnate
posted on 14:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC), please compare with the dates on the diffs in Richard's evidence. It seems that though I am getting better, others wish to continue kicking me from when I was down. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 17:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Scheduling announcement
I expect to post proposals to the Workshop in the next day or two, and then move to a Proposed Decision within a couple of days after that. If anyone has additional evidence they intend to submit, please do so as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to add to evidence
Thank you again to Arbcom for taking this case. Although I've been following proceedings fairly closely I haven't posted to the evidence page. I hope as the filing party this is acceptable; I'm only really posting here to state that from my limited knowledge I can see no omissions in the evidence page and have nothing to add to what's already been said by the various parties. EyeSerene talk 11:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to evidence presented by Gibnews (from Imalbornoz)
According to Gibnews, I am part of a "cabal of Spanish editors who want to rewrite the history of Gibraltar to deny the people of the territory their rights - this amounts to cybergenocide". He kind of supports that assertion in the fact that I have used the term Gibraltarian for inhabitants of Gibraltar pre-1704 (which, according to him is completely wrong and could only be used by a Spanish irredentist).

In the following diff (from a discussion with Gibnews) you can see that:
 * A good deal of non-Spanish sources (including the Collins dictionary, some historian and some present day Gibraltarians) use the term Gibraltarian for inhabitants of Gibraltar irrespective of the time period (which is no surprise, I suppose, given that Gibraltar has been called Gibraltar since many centuries before the capture by the Anglo-Dutch army and the term "Gibraltarian" uses the normal rules for demonyms in English).
 * I insisted that using the term Gibraltarian for inhabitants of the Rock pre-1704 does not justify (in my opinion) any irredentist claim.

It seems that Gibnews keeps ignoring 1) sources and 2) any open statement of good faith from other editors when it does not fit with his extreme prejudices. This is typical of discussions with him in the Gibraltar related articles, and one of the reasons why it will be so difficult for the Gibraltar related articles to be NPOV so long as he continues disrupting them. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)