Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

A Wrong Case With A Wrong Result
Looking at the way this is heading, I can only stress my disappointment that anyone claiming to be an arbitrator, and the final call of conflict resolution, would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap. This was a case with no previous attempts at long term solutions and was unsuitable for Arbcom from the get go, but you chose to take it and so it was your responsibility to ensure it was a solution. This is not. However it is not something I can change and, made worse by seeing a handful of names I do respect on the list of arbs, I must live with my disappointment. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can only echo my disappoinment with the utter fudge that is being proposed. As I feared, the disruptive editors who held the article hostage don't even get a slap on the wrist or even have their conduct examined.  There has been no examination of the evidence whatsoever, whats the point of that section of arbitration if you're just going to ignore it?  I've been harangued as demonic, racist, prejudiced, called a liar and had the Rottweiler insulted repeated and not one word of admonishment, not only that but to add insult to injury one of the chief protagonists in escalating tensions is not even to be admonished it seems.  Wrong Case, Wrong Result, Wrong for Wikipedia.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with both. The current proposals seem to have the effect of removing one side of the dispute without doing anything about problematic behaviour on the other.  The way things are going, you'll remove disputes, yes - but only by clearing the field for the pro-Spanish side to impose their POV.  If this finishes the way it's started it will be sad day for neutrality on Wikipedia. Pfainuk talk 17:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Handling of COI allegations
I hope you don't mind me asking this here - if it would be more appropriate to the Proposed decision talk page or somewhere else, please feel free to move/refactor/whatever. Both you and SirFozzie have noted that the COI allegations were "not handled well". Since it was me that handled them (initially by dealing with the outing issue then via email with some of the parties), this appears to be a censure of my actions at that time. If so, I'd greatly appreciate any pointers you could give me as to where I went wrong and how I could have acted more appropriately. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 09:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I actually didn't particularly have in mind your initial raising of the COI issue in writing this finding. I was more concerned about some people's continuing to harp on the issue on-wiki, even after it was noted that there was an outing risk and the matter might be better taken elsewhere.
 * If you would like more input on this, a post on the talkpage of the proposed decision might draw more arbitrators' eyes than here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should try to gather RedHats private information, try to out him across wiki and even at Arbcom, because it sure seems Arbcom just sanctioned that behaviour as acceptable and only worthy of vague mealy mouthed comments. SirFizzie's very own oppose to the uncivil findings seems to say he was uncivil, yet is an oppose as it us not to a certain level? So what level of incivility can I use when outing people across wiki? There appears to have been little thought put into this or its implications. If you let someone off you do implicitly sanction their action and they will crow about it. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, 'proving' Gibnews's COI inevitably involved knowing his real identity, which he had not explicitly disclosed and in fact expressed via email that he did not want disclosed. I believe from the proposed sanctions that Arbcom have taken off-camera evidence into account, but I think the full reasoning behind some of their decisions will inevitably have to remain private. That is, after all, why we have an Arbcom. I fully agree with the comments that our privacy and COI policies are in tension though. EyeSerene talk 09:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My concern is that they are coming down against the privacy of the users, which will put off a lot of people if that choice is removed from them by agressive editors. While they may technically not be saying that, by allowing people to get away without comment or sanction against them when they behave in that manner even so far as ArbCom itself, I really have to question the virtue in the ruling. As I said in my earlier comment on this page, there is little I can do to change things, so I have to live with it and simply be frustrated, but I do not believe this is in the best interests of ArbCom or the community it serves so I'd rather speak out now rather than stay quiet. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Trying to help make things clearer, I will give my opinion. I think that you (Narson) are talking about two different issues: incivility and anonymity. In the current proposed decision:
 * The only proposed finding of fact related to TRHoPF is about incivility. SirFozzie has only said that it does not rise "to the level of requiring a arbcom finding" (and I agree with him). That does not have anything to do with anonymity (i.e. SirFozzie's vote in the findings of fact about TRHoPF does not imply anything for or against TRHoPF's behaviour about anonymity, only incivility).
 * Anonymity is only dealt with in the proposed principles, as being in tension with COI. (1) Nobody -at least in this proposed decision- is specifically accused of going against the principle of anonymity. (2) SirFozzie only agrees that the tension between COI and Anonymity has not been handled well. (3) There is a specific remedy on COI (which is "intentionally" vague about users). Also, EyeSerene says that there is evidence that neither you nor I have been able to see. I assume that the Arbcom's proposed decision -including (1), (2) and (3)- is partially based on evidence which neither you nor I have been able to see (and therefore, without the whole picture, it is difficult for us to go beyond mere assumptions). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding too, and despite what has been claimed, I went out of my way not to post information on WP which would personally identify Gibnews. On another note, Narson you appear to be fixated on "punishments". The purpose of this process is not to punish, it is to provide remedies.  The COI matters have been heard by ArbCom and look to be dealt with. End of story.  In what way would a block of me on the basis of the COI handling be a remedy for anything, given that the specific matter of Gibnews' activity is now closed?  Lastly, instead of seeking retribution until the very end, how about accepting neutral parties' opinions as they come in with good grace so that we can all move on and work together in a constructive and friendly atmosphere?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

The tension between COI and anonymity is difficult to overcome. The only solution I can see is a specific procedure to privately report about COIs. There are currently two bodies that can receive information which guarantee privacy: the OTRS volunteers and the ArbCom (admins also, but they're not a body). As only the ArbCom has been commissioned by the community to deal with problematic issues, I'd suggest that a procedure (possibly no more than sending information to a given email address or using a form similar to the one used to send emails) to a specific body. It may be the ArbCom or other elected body. That way, whatever person having a COI issue that might be also an anonymity breach could know what to do. My 0.02€ --Ecemaml (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Another possibility is the group of users with checkuser privilege as they are already privy to privacy busting info and would be able to tell if, say, an employee at XYZ Corp is editing the XYZ Corp article if a COI is alleged there. Whatever happens, I think there needs to be a better principle than "it's a grey area and you have to be careful".  Another area where there could be clarification is at what point you waive your right to anonymity. Personally I think if you are trying to link to real life things like websites which your real life identity set up then you can't have your cake and eat it. YOU chose to link to that site, so now you must bear whatever scrutiny descends upon it - there are public records out there which anyone can examine and which ultimately point back to you.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A block of you would stop you trying to out anyone else, which you refuse to admit was wrong. Until it is brougt home to you that your behaviour was wrong, I see little reason to believe you wouldn't do the same again. Arbcom has, in the past, ruled that peoples real lives are more important than wiki, this is part of how we ended up with our WP:BLP. Arbcom is now creating confusion. On the issue of incivility, this entire case was below Arbcom but they chose to take it. They took it based on incivility, so they have a duty to deal with all cases of it. If the matter was below Arbcom, that changed when they took this case and they have a duty not to allow you to think you are patron saint of wiki editors rather than someone who delights in teasing and tormenting people you know to be suffering from temporary mental problems. Why would blocking you be a 'remedy' and not just a 'punishment'? Because, until you are corrected, you are a danger to any wikipedian you come across and choose to hound. Repeating that you believe outing to be justified only reinforces this! -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to continue to work with you on the Gibraltar article space, even though I'm cutting back on my editing, so I hope when this is over we can put past prejudices behind us and start afresh. A huge part of the problem at the Gib space has been the assumption of bad faith all the time - we need to break from that if we don't want to end up back here.  I've promised to avoid my ill-advised humour, the Gibnews COI matter is done and dusted.  Let's be constructive now and discuss how the next editor who has COI concerns can raise them while respecting privacy concerns.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When the spotlight is off the RHoPF, ~I feel sure he'll return to his ways of hounding any editor he disagrees with but whilst its there you can be sure he will be on his best behaviour. I observe that RhoPF's 1 year sabbatical seems to have been terminated now that the case seems to be heading in a direction he likes.
 * Regarding RHoPF pious comments about not seeking retribution, all I saw in that workshop and in all your evidence against me was a cabal of editors seeking retribution against an editor they knew was ill, had family problems and didn't have the time to defend themselves. That evidence is the basis for this proposed decision and I really can't see how what is being voted on relates to what came out in the workshop as it bears no relation to the comments from outside editors there.
 * As to how a block of RHoPF and Ecemaml would a remedy. It would be a remedy in that it would remove two editors who have proven to be adept at manipulating the system to get rid of editors they don't like, creating conflict in doing so, and who have directed energies in a multi-year vendetta.  It would leave room for productive editors to fulfill wikipedia's mission of producing articles in peace to some extent.
 * As for "remedies" and not "punishments", all your evidence against me stems from a period when I was ill. Now that I am in fact much better tell me how it isn't a punishment for being a little mad.  I can at least admit my faults and not step away from taking my licks, others it seems weasel their way out of them all too easily.
 * Regarding the supposed conflict between anonymity and COI, I see that supposed conflict as a Red Herring raised to disguise the fact there is a route for dealing with it. You were told to submit your “evidence” by email, you both persisted in pursuing it openly until told to stop or be blocked.   You did not go out of your way to avoid revealing Gibnews' identity, you dropped hints all over the place.  You both should have been blocked for it.  A remedy should have been proposed to deal with it but like much of this case it seems arbcom is ducking its responsibilities.  There is no conflict in the policies, you're raising a red herring to avoid having your conduct examined.
 * For the information of all, RHoPF is well aware that I have problems with PTSD and he has used diffs from when I was ill against me. I left it to his conscience whether he would admit it, draw your own conclusions from the fact he didn't.  Justin.  Justin talk 09:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, the suggestion that I used your personal issues is hurtful, though I have to say I don't really know what you are talking about as such a thought never crossed my mind (I have my own life and family to worry about - I am not keeping tabs on what is happening with yours, though I extend my sympathies to you and your family.). I would - I really would - like to return to a normal level of discourse with you as there is noone in the world who appears to carry such a hatred for me. I'm treating this ArbCom process and the feedback it offered as an opportunity for a fresh start wih everyone, including you. I hope you can do the same with me. Cheers The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I could take the above in one of two ways. I could assume that you're sincere or I could assume you're playing to the gallery whilst under the spotlight.  Sadly experience would tend to indicate the latter unfortunately.  Returning to a normal level of discourse, requires someone to be the bigger person and admit when they're wrong.  Sadly I don't see that in your editing.
 * All I've seen in the course of this process is a cabal of editors lobbying for sanctions against me. I don't see anyone suggesting a way of moving forward in a positive manner.  Its a case of block them, they're evil, they're demonic, they're the problem.  I didn't do that, I talked about problem behaviour, I didn't propose topic bans or blocks for anyone.
 * When someone from arbcom suggested sanctions against me, I didn't try and weasel out of it. I held my hands up, admitted I was wrong and said I'll take my licks.  When the same editor suggested sanctions against you and Ecemaml you tried to get out of it.
 * When I've been wrong or what I've said was misunderstood I apologised for offence either real or down to a misunderstanding. I have never once seen you apologise properly.  Its always a non-apology like I'm sorry you were offended by my joke.  Yet even where I've apologised more times than I care to count, remarks I made whilst very ill are flung back in my face at every opportunity.
 * Speaking of returning to a normal level of discourse, remember this? I only bring it up because there was no spotlight when I made those remarks.
 * Narson is 100% correct, there needs to be sanctions against you because you need to realise your behaviour in hounding editors is 100% wrong and needs to stop forthwith. You seem to be getting away with it and thats just going to re-inforce the notion you can work the system to get rid of editors you don't like.  I don't hate you, I just think you're a malign influence that is bad for the atmosphere of a supposed collaborative project and that something needs to be done to stop it.  Sadly though I rather suspect you're projecting your own feelings. Justin talk 17:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, in the worst case you are going to be banned for three months. Even though I suppose it might hurt your pride, it will pass really quick (look, April is already over, and this arbcom started on 5 March -two months ago). So, in the long run, I hope that the opinion of some very objective and reputed editors (the arbitrators) can help us all take a more objective look at ourselves and start anew. Please, believe me when I say that I don't really care whether someone is banned for 3 months or not. What I really care is for the message to get through to all of us. In that sense the findings of fact are much more important than the remedies, which are only a means to give some "weight" to the message in those findings of fact. In your case, the message that I would like you to get is that you have made "uncivil comments, assumed bad faith, and engaged in personal attacks during interactions with other editors concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar" (and please notice that most of the diffs are not from that PSTD period). Personally, I don't really mind too much about the personal attacks and the uncivil comments (at least, the ones directed at me). What really worries me are the bad faith assumptions (which probably resulted in all of the above). If you only get the message that "OK, I was ill but otherwise I have had a perfectly acceptable behaviour" or "well those guys are really a bunch of punks trying to civilly trick WP and bait me into getting blocked" then we will start all over again. I really hope that in the future I will be able to edit peacefully with you and viceversa. Please, if we are going through this traumatic experience, let's at least make an effort to get some positive result out of it. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Imalbornoz, when someone suggests that information might be peripheral to a topic, then in a collaborative project that is what you discuss. You don't accuse them of suppressing information, you don't put up walls of text and you don't chant it is sourced it must go in.  When they apologise for intemperate remarks you don't constantly fling them back in their faces.  All of which contributed to an utterly poisonous atmosphere and which hasn't been dealt with here.  I really do want to go over that evidence that you claim will show I'm uncivil.  I don't see a positive outcome because the problem behaviour isn't being dealt with. Justin talk 17:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, I hope that you will return to use your undoubted knowledge and skills in a collegiate and constructive way, leaving past grievances behind. Please? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, what happened to me being demonic and responsible for all that is wrong in the world? This is nothing about "past grievances" as you put it, quite frankly I am tiring of your constantly negative presumption about my motives.  What came out in the workshop made clear that there were problems with editors seeking to play the system to remove one side.  That is precisely what is happening.  So instead of continuing to play the blame game how about we actually examine and deal with the problems?  Oh and please don't refactor talk page discussions again.  Justin talk 12:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin
Justin, please keep a cool head and realise what is happening here (even if it's not nice for your self-image). It's the only way to avoid problems in the future and to create a collaborative environment (yes, I think that is still possible): I think you need to think about all of this again. Please, make an effort and try to get out of that position where you "clearly" see that all "the other side" is trying to do is "game the system" and "right great wrongs". Maybe it's not "the other side", but some editors who can contribute with additional views to articles to which you have dedicated great effort. Otherwise, this is going to start all over again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The workshop has not "made it clear" that one "side" is trying to remove the other one: 1) there's still Narson, Pfainuk, RedCoat, Gibmetal... and nobody has even tried to "remove" them; 2) not one single arbitrator has mentioned this "removal" problem.
 * What has been made clear in this case is that some editors have complained about your behaviour, and 7 out of 7 arbitrators (so far) consider that you have assumed bad faith, made uncivil comments and engaged in personal attacks for months (maybe that has been a major contribution to the "poisonous atmosphere"?).
 * TRHOPF, Richard Keatinge and myself have said that we wish to forget about the past in order to collaborate with you (now or when you return from your topic ban -if it is decided and implemented). We have not received one positive answer from you so far.


 * Imal, well done for totally missing the point for the 900th time. And the remedies solve nothing, and the message they send is very wrong, especially in light of recent Fox News newspaper attacks on our editors and foundation employees. Arbcom is appearing to sanction methods similar to Fox News (Out an editor clumsily and repeatedly to muddy the waters while making wide ranging CoI claims), going against core principles of wikipedia (Where we say that a person's real/private life is more important than wiki), and suggests there are levels of incivility that are tolerable. Yes, Justin and GibNews should be topic banned. Justin doesn't argue that, he just correctly points out the flaws in a 'resolution' that seemingly endorses the base gutter methods used by some editors, and points out how it will cause that group to act piously and crow...as they are now doing. So stop misrepresenting Justin, Imal - I understand it might be a comprehension problem, but please give it a rest. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Imal, do you really think that it is helpful for you to follow Justin around for the sole apparent purpose of reporting his mistakes in topics that you admit you have no involvement in? Narson is right, you have spectacularly missed the point here.  The fact that Arbcom hasn't mentioned you does not mean that your conduct has been perfect or even necessarily good.  It certainly does not give you carte blanche to go after Justin and Gibnews in whatever way you like.  Your following Justin around is only likely to inflame tensions and is deeply unhelpful. Pfainuk talk 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do believe that Justin is not really aware of his behaviour (he keeps saying that he only misbehaved during the PTSD episode, seems to think he only got reported because "one side wants to remove the other one", does not respond to collaboration offers from other editors, keeps accusing other editors of being the real cause for things he has done, ...) I casually found his entering into yet another edit war, when I saw Justin contribs this morning (I checked them because I wasn't too sure of his current status, because he said he was leaving but then made comments now and then). The only way I can think to make someone aware (especially if I am perceived as a "bad guy") is to confront him with real examples of his own behaviour. In fact, notice that I have not asked for a block but only for a warning. For sure, a better option would be that two good friends of his like you put things in perspective to him, instead of reinforcing his perception that this arbcom is not being fair... because then no lesson will be learnt and we'll all start from square one. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC) BTW, my offer to Justin for collaboration and to move on without any prejudice is sincere and still stands. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's apparent that you are at best entirely unaware that your conduct has not been and is not perfect in this matter. It may not be your intention, but your report has all the appearance of someone trying to enlarge the battleground away from Gibraltar articles into other areas.  Which is not helpful to Wikipedia or to editors who edit in those areas.  Given your history of dispute, it would be far better for all concerned if you tried to avoid conflict with Justin, rather than inviting it: if he breaks 3RR on an article you don't edit, you're not the only person who can report it.


 * When I say that it would be unfair and unreasonable, when both sides have caused problems, to topic ban one side and leave the other without a mention, I mean exactly that. I am not going to pretend that I think that this would be a good outcome for neutrality on Wikipedia, or indeed a fair outcome on the editors involved, because it wouldn't be.  And I am not going to tell Justin and Gibnews that all of the problems on Gibraltar are all their fault, because they aren't.  You, Imalbornoz, are not helping matters.  You have been part of the problem.  The sooner you realise that and drop this holier-than-thou attitide, the better. Pfainuk talk 11:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Justin, I'm still wondering which is the purpose of your comments here and the messages you've left to the members of the ArbCom. You've talked about sides, but I'm afraid you've misunderstood completely the point. There are actually two sides. Those who play by the rules and those who don't. Unfortunately, you and me and in the latter (even to a different extent). As told above, remedies can be argued. However, the key aspect of the ArbCom is not the remedies (anyway, beyond the topic bans, there is a general warning to all of us; moreover, all of us are subject to discretionary sanctions, so your proposal is completely covered by the remedies proposed by the ArbCom), but the findings.

In your case, the findings, beyond pointing out at your uncivil comments and personal attacks to other editors, states that you've "assumed bad faith during interactions with other editors". I thought that it should have make you reflect on it (especially considering that it's something you've practiced since the very beginning). However, you keep on with the same attitude. It's interesting to note that if I write a lenghty comment with regard to the findings of the ArbCom on me, it's a mere "walls of text being put up to derail discussion" and not the simpler explaination (a genuine request to understand what's wrong and how it can be solved). Moreover, when it comes to uncivil comments, you also goes on, defining me as someone who has "proven to be adept at manipulating the system to get rid of editors they don't like, creating conflict in doing so, and who have directed energies in a multi-year vendetta". You said that you've apologized but sincerely, which is the value of such apologies if you're unable to stop doing such uncivil remarks?

On the other hand, I don't really understand your insistence on me being topic banned. You're perfectly aware of that, but I tell it again, as I've told to Newyorkbrad, that since the beginning of this year I stepped back from the most controversial Gibraltar-related articles (I wasn't finding any pleasure in wasting my time and efforts in endless discussions) and I devoted to actual writing of non-controversial Gibraltar-related articles. Since then, I've started a number of articles (such as Gibtelecom, the incumbern telecom operator in Gibraltar, John Mackintosh Square, the main square in Gibraltar, Juan Mateos, the founder of the first hospital in Gibraltar, Ralph Heskett, the Catholic bishop-elect of Gibraltar, Alonso Hernández del Portillo, the first historian of Gibraltar, Tommy Finlayson, the Gibraltarian historian that authored the canonical work on the evacuation of the Gibraltarians during the WWII, Our Lady of Europe, the main marian devotion in Gibraltar, John Baptist Scandella, the first Gibraltarian Catholic bishop of Gibraltar, Gibraltar Medallion of Honour...; you can randomly read any of them and possibly enjoy them) and more are under construction (User:Ecemaml/Nursery/List of Gibraltar placenames, recording historic Spanish-language names of Gibraltar places, or User:Ecemaml/Nursery/Grand Casemates Square, the other significant square in Gibraltar). Therefore, my personal advice to you is going back to editing articles. It's what we're supposed to do here, aren't we?

Finally, just a personal reflexion. You're not the only person with a life outside Wikipedia. You're not the only one who has had to stay for weeks at the hospital, the only only having family matters to care about which do not leave much time to edit in Wikipedia. Moreover, there are people in this case suffering from more severes diseases than yours. But all of us try to put up with such sad circumstances and be resposible for our behaviour.

Narson, Pfainuk, I sincerely think that you've lost the perspective. Although I don't endorse Imalbornoz report on Justin's 3RR (even if he's right, it seems that Justin broke the 3RR rule; BTW, it's not only 3RR, but the misuse of rollback privileges or the use of reversion as editorial tool by default) I simply remind you some words by Justin that haven't deserved any comment from your side: "they [Imalbornoz among them] have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV" (or the aforementioned about me being someone "proven to be adept at manipulating the system to get rid of editors they don't like, creating conflict in doing so, and who have directed energies in a multi-year vendetta"). You complain about Imalbornoz report on Justin's violation of rules (BTW, Justin edited the talk page of British Empire for first time in six months and nobody has assumed that he was following The Red Hat) but Justin's personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are OK. As I've pointed out above, Justin's lack of good faith assumption is one of the key points of this Arbitration Case. Both of you, as Justin's friends, have constantly minimized or justified Justin's actions. If done otherwise, Justin could have noticed that his comments and actions are many times wrong. Instead, Justin has been encouraged as if everything's OK. And it isn't (and it's not because I say that, but because uninvolved people, namely the members of the Arbcom has stated so). For me it's really disturbing that as long as Justin is one of the members of your "side", he can keep on assuming bad faith, doing uncivil remarks, edit warring, using routinely the reversion as editorial tool or misusing the rollback privileges... Anyway, it's up to you.

And that's my last comment in this talk page. As told previously, I have much more interesting things to do that arguing pointlessly, especially considering that a topic ban will stop my work (hope it will be enough for you). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Couple of things: This thread shouldn't have been started. If you'd like to make a peace offering, doing so without rubbing an arbitration in someone's face is much more likely to bear fruit. It's also something that should be handled on user talk pages or even via email, not here. About not taking out one "side" of a dispute - things simply can't work that way at arbitration. If we looked beyond the behavior and started considering how to balance "sides" of the dispute, where does it end? Do we split things evenly? What if something is a minority position - should we use a ratio? How do we decide what disruptive behavior gets a pass because it would hurt one "side"? And probably most importantly, how long would it take the community to hamstring us when they realize we're setting ourselves up as judges of content by manipulating decisions in this manner? Shell  babelfish 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When both sides have stepped over the line, then yes, you do have a duty to come down against both sides. Look above, this 'Below Arbcom's intervention' nonsense about incivility just reinforces a notion it was ok and creates an acceptable level of incivility (something I am sure you do not intend). To be blunt, when Arbcom chose to take on this case it all became arbcom level and you should deal with everything brought before you or if you didn't want to, you should not have taken the case. The mealy mouthed findings about outings are the most puzzling though. Arbcom bleats about BLP and the primacy of peoples private lives over the encyclopedic interest, the foundation bleats about Fox attacking Eric Moeller, but when users perform similar acts, repeatedly, there is some wooly nonsense posted as a finding - If there is a conflict, Arbcom has been clear in the past, you come down on the side of personal privacy. To my mind, this is a abrogation of Arbcom's responsibility to our users and a dangerous precedent. If we make it so anyone with a real life won't want to contribute, we will be left without any academic input on the project and that would be a shame. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: Who is asking for a pass for one side? Answer: No one is.
 * What we are asking for is for arbcom to examine the issues rather than rush to judgement based on one sided evidence that was prepared with the sole objective of eliminating one side. I had 1000 words of evidence against 5 editors, who combined could range 5000 words in reply.  Not only that but circumstances meant I couldn't reply.
 * What we are asking arbcom to do is to consider the problems and offer solutions. What is being proposed is not a solution.
 * There was a clear example here of hounding and outing under the guise of a "COI Investigation". Clearly here arbcom has not treated that as serious and I think editors are entitled to question why.  As noted above Arbcom is ducking its responsibility.  Not even a topic ban but only an admonishment for what is considered elsewhere to be a cardinal sin?  Really this does need an explanation.
 * And yes this thread shouldn't have been started. It was blatant spot of rubbing people's noses in it, with the aim of provoking a response - a response they hoped could be used as further evidence of my bad behaviour.
 * And the 3RR complaint? I engaged a newbie user on his talk page, the article talk page and my talk page to explain what they were doing wrong.  Two Argentine editors, the opposing side if we use Gibraltar terminology, back up what I did as appropriate.  Yet Imalbornoz who has never edited in this area and has no knowledge feels the need to lodge a spurious 3RR complaint 24 hrs later.  Both the frivolous complaint and the stalking behaviour are clearly further attempts at provocation.
 * And again I have worked a lot in the area of the Falklands War, an area with considerable potential for conflict but funnily enough there isn't any there is there?
 * Ecemaml alleges I've "abused" rollback priveliges. No, missed clicking the UNDO button and used rollback accidentally.  But this isn't the first time a false allegation about abusing rollback has been raised by Ecemaml either directly or by proxy. More provocation.
 * Its compared with a comment I made on Talk:British Empire, funnily enough where I agree with RHoPF on this occasion and said so. I used to contribute regularly on British Empire, I quit because of the ownership issues RHoPF exhibits there.  There is nothing comparable between the two.  Its a Red Herring raised to cover up stalking behaviour.  It was deliberately provocative.
 * And as usual we have a wall of text put up in the tl;dr category. It has no relation to the comments about hounding editors going back to 2006 (and the comparison of the attitudes back then is really illuminating).  Its disruptive and intended to drown out comment.
 * My presumption of bad faith? I gave Imalbornoz the benefit of the doubt more times than I should have.  I stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt when he explained how UN resolutions supported the notion that Gibraltar was really Spanish and how the UN considered the Spanish the real Gibraltarians (you just had to know how to "interpret" them).  When I hear some expressing such an extreme nationalist viewpoint, there comes a point that later justifications are no longer believable.  WP:AGF does not require suspension of disbelief but one should remember for the future how disbelief can later be spun at Arbcom.  But stampeding off to make a spurious 3RR complaint is an example of extreme bad faith.
 * In the Workshop we also saw example of Imalbornoz rubbing my nose in it, RHoPF hounding editors whilst they made edits, Ecemaml putting up walls of text. So far I have seen bad faith attacks, blatantly uncivil language and further examples of the disruptive behaviour which was responsible for the making of such a bitter dispute.  I think I'm entitled to ask at what point is Arbcom planning to do something about this disruptive behaviour? Justin talk 12:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, I want to be able to edit in collaboration with you, I really do. And from Michael Keatinge's, TRHOPF's and Ecemaml's words I infer that they also do. On the other hand, during these months I have seen that it's very difficult to do it (and I suppose it's not because of anything that you do on purpose: you probably are not aware of how often you assume bad faith, how often you revert, how difficult it is to discuss with someone who behaves uncivilly and makes personal attacks...
 * I have tried to first tell you in your talk page (until you quite aggressively forbid me writing in it) and then in article talk pages but I suppose that, coming from an editor with whom you had a controversy, it is difficult for you to assume it (that's only human). But now that 7 out of 7 arbitrators have found that you have assumed bad faith etc, I thought that it would be easier. In spite of that, I see that you still don't seem to get the message.
 * That's why I reported you on the 3RR noticeboard. I have apologised for raising tensions, but I thought that you would at least recognise that you have in fact broken the 3RR and would realise how often you revert edits you don't like. BTW, the two Argentinians did not support you: both said that the information that you deleted was not duplicated -in fact, you have recognised afterwards that it wasn't. Your comment "Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs or as a platform for advocacy" did not seem to be helpful either.
 * I have already apologised for raising tensions, but I don't know what to do: you don't seem to realise you have to change your usual behaviour, but if we point out your mistakes then we are raising tensions. I want to work in collaboration with you but I don't want to put up with too frequent reverts and aggresive discussions. What should we do? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Topic bans seem kind of pointless, when people are already finding ways round them, given they already confer by email off-wiki . But of course any suggestion of meat puppetry would be dismissed as "a bad faith attack", even when it is that blatant. Justin talk 17:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin talk 18:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, come on, read the diffs again... This accusation sounds like something from a MontyPython movie -something that I believe you have the good taste of enjoying, like myself... ;-) Imagine what a clumsy case of meatpuppetry it would be: "It's OK. I just received an email from Ecemaml asking me to mention that he supports Richard's choice" (those are my words in the diff, in the Gibraltar talk page). This is a bit unnerving, but I'd rather take it humorously... let's draw a line... It will make all of us happier... (I believe that Narson and Pfainuk would be more convincing in helping lowering tensions in this case, please?). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So you're a MP fan? Oh, I see. Strange then that you would fail to see the humour in the Holy Grail reference and raise it repeatedly as an example of a bad faith comment and stranger still that you would be offended by it.  Draw a line and work together?  How many times have I suggested drawing a line for that suggestion to be flung back in my face and for you and your friends to gang up and do their level best to have sanctions raised against me.  And when I was having problems for you to stick the knife in.  I see, so stalking me and making spurious reports is your idea of drawing a line is it?  Calling me prejudiced and a racist was your idea of making peace.  Rubbing my face it?  In future will you continue with the habit of constantly returning to state the same point so that any discussion never goes anywhere.  And still the silence and inaction from Arbcom is deafening.  Justin talk 21:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to all
I would like to suggest to everyone here that we use this ArbCom process to draw a line in the sand. We may not agree with the final decisions, but we all had our chance to put forward our evidence. I seriously doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed at this stage and it's not helping the communal atmosphere to continue arguing or grumbling about it here. The enforcement section applies to all named parties, which includes all of us whether we were specifically named or not - so for the sake of the project let's all try to get along, eh? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, everybody (especially Pfainuk, Narson and Justin), I am sorry for raising tensions with the 3RR report. I have explained why I've done it, but if the final result seems to entrench people in "sides" (as it seems it has been) then it's a mistake for our common goal to make better articles (with each one's knowledge and point of view). I realise it's been my mistake and I apologise. I accept to draw a line and try to build a better atmosphere for everybody. Finally: sorry for posting this here if it's not the place (but I felt that this response corresponded to this thread). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No go Red Hat, not until you realise your actions were wrong. Until you do, you are a danger to any wikipedian you come across (and therefore the project) and that is something that cannot be tolerated. Sorry. You need to realise that outing and baiting editors is not ok. The above conversation only reinforces the farce that this arbcom has reinforced some deluded view of yours that what you did was ok, and I'm not willing to indulge you. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tone it down please Narson. Shell  babelfish 23:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You know I may be a hot head and over react sometimes but you could never accuse Narson of that. The fact that Narson is expressing such views might hit you with a clue stick that you've missed something here.  Justin talk 12:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Shell, but how else would you describe allowing editors to out anyone they want repeatedly, including at Arbcom and fishing expeditions across multiple pages (and RedHat was not alone in this) other than as a threat to every editor who hasn't outed themselves? I accept Arbcom is well intentioned and good people, I just think they have ballsed this one and they need to re-evaluate the impact of the message they are sending out and how it conflicts with previous rulings on the primacy of the private life of our subjects. I see no sense in extending that right to our subjects but not our users. There is a saying that 'no comment' is itself a comment and that choosing inaction is itself an action, and people can rightly infer from that. -- Narson  ~  Talk  • 18:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)