Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gibnews

This page refers to Requests_for_comment/Gibnews

What this dispute is really about
Lets be clear;


 * [User:Panchurret|Panchurret]
 * [User:Burgas00|Burgas00]

Have not tried to solve any problem they have caused one by attempting to introduce unsubstantiated defamatory material into the article about Gibraltar to further a suspect foreign POV using out-of-date sources which say different things to what they claim.

--Gibnews 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Tax haven"/OFC status
I only got involved in relation to this matter at a relatively late stage, where I was asked to lend my views (as someone who practices in the relevant field) in relation to Gibnews' apparent refusal to accept Gibraltar's status as a (pick your term) tax haven or an offshore financial centre. As I said on the talkpages of both Gibraltar and Tax Havens, I don't think anyone could credibly argue that Gibraltar is not an offshore jurisdiction. Admittedly, there is no precise definition of what criterea make a country into an offshore jurisdiction (many neutrels use the IMF guidelines, which are as good as any, but they are not hard and fast criterea), but pretty much whatever criterea you use, Gibraltar is an offshore jurisdiction. It is a fairly large offshore jurisdiction both by number of incorporations and turnover, and by most informal measures it is a very good offshore jurisdiction (in that it is both successful, and also well regulated and compliant with international money-laundering initiatives). I wouldn't want to comment on the other areas of concern which have been expressed with respect to Gibnews' conduct. I know how sensitive Gibraltans are to Spanish claims to "the Rock", but I can't comment on the various PsOV. Legis 08:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Politics are opinable. Removing sources like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&oldid=63013583, and summarazing it like English Corrected not. Gibnews argues and argues trying to distract you from the point, adding obscure or gibraltarian sources, talking about Franco and spanish conspirations, forcing you to waste your time checking if with his bad faith he is cheating on you again. But at the end the fact is that he plainly removes every paragraph or source that he dislikes even from IMF or OECD like in the previous example. --Panchurret 09:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Opinion is one thing, bare faced lies another. Your cites are outdated and do not support those things you claim.  If I assume good faith you have simply made a mistake and someone needs to correct it. --Gibnews


 * So you remove sources and say 'English corrected'. Don't make me laugh and add credible sources that support your POV. But please not as absurd as this ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&diff=next&oldid=63196151
 * --Panchurret 15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment- quite often the Spanish editors use poor English, so perhaps it is understandable, although I would suggest a plain "revert" if it is obvious what you are doing. Astrotrain 20:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that OECD and IMF had listed Gibraltar as both Tax haven and Offshore Financial Centre  in their last existing reports (from 2001 and 2002) and IMF includes its report in the  up-to-date:
 * "Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs): IMF Staff Assessments (Last Update: June 4, 2006) ".
 * While IMF or OECD doesn't observe a relevant change in Gibraltar's tax laws they don't have to renew them and these last reports stand as the most credited reference in this issue, like it or not.
 * --Panchurret 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So you say but the bottom line is that the references you quote do not support your use of the terms; Its as simple as that.  On the other hand mine support my position, albeit you chose 'laugh' at them.


 * http://www.fsc.gi/press/article20112004.htm
 * http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/sharman.html


 * I didn't realise it was necessary to write an essay when removing nonsense
 * and that is what the discussion is about, nothing else.

--Gibnews


 * My english is not as polished as I would like, I know and I'll keep working on it, thanks. If I misspell some words you don't have the right to remove a complete paragraph and sources. Correct me and/or laugh at me, but my english is not so bad to avoid to you to get the picture. Anyway that reminded me something: some months ago I asked for some help to translate a paragraph and this was Gibnews unpolite answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_Gibraltar&diff=next&oldid=44338613


 * Gibnews doesn't like to talk about the future neither the past. In that funny way any source that mentions Gibraltar as a tax haven or OFC is outdated for him. Now I found another link that corroborates that paragraph that Gibnews would preferred to remove from spanish wikipedia, and I found it on a gibraltarian source ironically (for Gibnews) called gibraltaroffshore.com . And it states:
 *  The 2005 year agreement between the Gibraltar Government and the European Union announced the end of the tax exempt regime on 31 December 2010 .


 * states clearly that Gibraltar is listed (as of June 2006) as an Offshore Financial Centre by the IMF, the IMF the report on Gibraltar included is from 2001 but if IMF includes it in this list is because is the last and most up-to-date one, search for a newer one and maybe you can end this dispute, but come on, the links that you provided (late and removing first without explanation) and  are opinion essays from obscure, non neutral, and/or irrelevant sources.


 * states:
 * Gibraltar was among 35 jurisdictions identified by the OECD in June 2000 as meeting the technical criteria for being a tax haven. As a result of having made a commitment in accordance with the OECD's 2001 Progress Report on the OECD's Project on Harmful Tax Practices, Gibraltar will not be included in the list of unco-operative tax havens to be issued shortly.
 * So Gibraltar was considered an unco-operative tax haven until 2001 but until someone find a newer, and credible, it's still considered a tax haven, now co-operative on some previous Harmful Tax Practices with OECD, at least until 31 December 2010 as said before.


 * Gibnews you should stop censoring unpolitely everything that you dislike before getting on more trouble, I should get more calm, and we should reelaborate the paragraph on the Gibraltar's article including the information provided by the IMF, the OECD and the EU. Basically could be something like this: Gibraltar is an International Financial Centre / was an unco-operative tax haven listed by the OECD until 2001 aprox. / now is still a OFC listed by the IMF with some thousands of tax exempt companies (that pay only a few hundreds of pounds per year) / and has agreed with the EU to end the tax exempt regime on 31 December 2010.


 * --Panchurret 09:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One small qualification to that - Gibraltar was never listed as an uncooperative tax haven. It was (and in my view still is and always has been) viewed as an 'offshore financial centre' ('tax haven' if you insist).  But it was never on the blacklist for money laundering.  See the original list from 2000  (see para 27 and 64), and you can track the developments over the years.  Countries come off and go on, but Gibraltar was never listed.  Interestingly, most of the countries on the list at any given time are non-tax havens.  Which I think tells you something about where money launderers do most of their work, but that is just my view. Legis 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Right! But this means that it still is listed as a tax haven. Since the OECD has only decided that it will be not considered uncooperative. It has never said that it would no longer be considered a tax haven. In any case the article does not state it was "listed as an uncooperative tax haven"--Burgas00 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not to discuss the Gibraltar finance centre, it is to address the issue of removing malicious nonsense with sources which do not support what was claimed. Of course it may be complete co-incidence that the repeated baseless lies about Gibraltar have their source in Spain:


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


 * The principal objective for Spain is the recovery of sovereignty over the territory. Everything else is secondary. Spanish research paper 1999

--Gibnews


 * Thanks for your help Legis, you look like the more neutral and qualified here. I'm sorry if I misunderstood that point about 'unco-operative tax haven'. Anyway the link still states literally: Gibraltar was among 35 jurisdictions identified by the OECD in June 2000 as meeting the technical criteria for being a tax haven. (sorry being sooo repetitive)


 * Repetition does not make it say what you would like:


 * Gibraltar was among 35 jurisdictions identified by the OECD in June 2000 as meeting the technical criteria for being a tax haven. As a result of having made a commitment in accordance with the OECD's 2001 Progress Report on the OECD's Project on Harmful Tax Practices, Gibraltar will not be included in the list of unco-operative tax havens to be issued shortly. The OECD looks forward to working with Gibraltar and encourages other jurisdictions to come forward with similar commitments. --Gibnews


 * Gibnews we are talking now about reports from the IMF or OECD, about facts and sources, not about opinions on Spanish-Gibraltarian-British politics. And by the way, what does Spanish research paper 1999 mean? And which are these series of allegations that Spain makes against Gibraltar? And where are the links? ...
 * --Panchurret 08:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a place to discuss your allegations and misstruths not those of the Spanish Government. --Gibnews

Ok I agree with panchurret and legis: the uncooperative part should be removed... --Burgas00 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews and Gibraltarian
Much as I dissaprove of Gibnews' behaviour I am quite convinced that he is not a sockpuppet of Gibraltarian. Their style is different and I have seen them arguing on a number of occasions (regarding whether EU citizens need a residence permit, for example). Furthermore, Gibraltarian is an outright vandal who has contributed nothing to wikipedia whereas Gibnews' behaviour is more nuanced...--Burgas00 11:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Gibnews is not a sockpuppet of Gibraltarian. --Spangineer[es] (háblame)  11:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Truth, lies and consequences
Claim: "The so-called slander campaign Gibnews is constantly talking about is non-existant in wikipedia."

I was asked to look at Wikipedia in 2003 because it claimed that Gibraltar was engaged in drug smuggling, money laundering etc those comments having being added by Spanish editors. Until recently the Spanish language pages were equally as defamatory.

I have included sources which confirm that the use of the term 'tax haven' in 2006 implies financial wrongdoing and is perjorative.

There was a considerable and long edit war which tried to claim that the Spaniards resident in Gibraltar in 1704 who left were 'expelled' and were 'the original Gibraltarians' This is part of a sustained and offensive claim that the 'true' Gibraltarians live in San Roque and have a claim to those things we have built in Gibraltar since 1704.

Thankfully the war over Gibraltar no longer claims lives, unless one counts the two individuals who had heart attacks waiting in the queue in the hot sun to cross the frontier where deliberate delays are the order of the day. It does involve false propaganda in the Spanish media, continued obstruction of EU measures which involve Gibraltar, interference with telecommunications and endangering air safety with stupid restrictions.

I am not sure whether the high powered television station in La Linea transmitting hard core porn on the same frequency as GBC is a deliberate act, or whether its normal in Spain to be able to see explicit anal sex in the clear on analog broadcast TV in the afternoon. (727.25Mhz Channel 53 for the curious)

As the Spanish Government does not recognise the competence of our licencing authority (although the rest of the world do) complaining is difficult.

--Gibnews 09:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A comment by panchuret
Comment 1

Thanks for your contribution bxlbaby.

As far as I know Burgas00 is a British citizen. Anyway, I think it's true that as Spanish i'm biased against Gibraltar in some ways, at least we have been always taught that it is a tax haven, maybe from the worst class, and spanish media isn't really pacient when troubled British nuclear submarines go there for maintenance. Talking about present day, most people here doesn't really care about Gibraltar soverignty. At least that's what I feel.

So I came here at first looking for a NPOV to contrast with my previous inputs, and I found Gibnews imposing his own biased version with very unpolite manners, acting more as a relentless defender of the holy honour of his loved homeland than a faithful Wikipedia contributor.

After Burgas00 opened the RfC on him, Gibnews became more calm and more people got involved, so he had to admit sources and those sources grew in number and quality. I think the whole thing has worked for me. It costed a unnecesary waste of time and Gibnews behavior is really regretable sometimes, but hope he has learnt that there are some rules here and, well, I've got a richer and more accurate POV of Gibraltar than before coming here.

--Panchurret 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not admit anything of the sort Your sources did not say what you were claiming. I neither know nor care what nationality Burgas00 is, however he is posting from a Spanish IP and his use of English suggests he is not a native English speaker.


 * If you are worried about maintenance of nuclear submarines, go and protest in Rota which is in theory part of Spain.


 * As I assume you are a Spanish tax payer, you might wish to complain to your Government that they are still spending money and effort complaining that the Gibraltarians vote in EU elections. Read the story at


 * http://www.gibnet.com/eurovote


 * That campaign took ten years from asking for the right to vote to the ballot box. we started it and we continued it until it succeeded. All the other things which are being fought over will in the end be won.  Resistance is futile.


 * So if you don't 'really care' about Gibraltar then move on and write something about those things you know about and care about and make Wikipedia better, but now you know that Gibraltar is not a tax haven, and you have seen the sources that confirm that, go to the .es wikipedia and remove 'paradioso fiscal'.


 * --Gibnews 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? What suggests I am not a native English speaker? Is it the fact that I speak other languages as well? I know this can be rare among Brits but there are always exceptions. I have British nationality although I am not of English heritage. On the other hand, one could also doubt Gibnews' Gibraltarian origin. I've noticed all other born and bred Gibraltarians are native Spanish-speakers.

By the way, there is no reason to remove "paraíso fiscal" since, in Spanish (as in English), this means a jurisdiction with corporate friendly tax-laws. Thats my opinion. --Burgas00 10:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

But the facts don't support your opinion. --Gibnews

Accusations of sockpuppetry
Comment: Its suspicious that Spanish people "say bad things about Gibraltar"? Maybe. But its also suspicious that your user account was created on the 15th of July. A case of sockpuppetry?--Burgas00 10:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Azmoc was created on the 9th of July ...and has been blocked already --Panchurret 11:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets face it guys your conspiracy has failed to achieve any support because you have not got your facts right and you are left with is trying to shoot the messenger for not agreeing with your opinions.


 * For the record, I have one account here and although there are postings from me prior to its creation, I am not user:gibraltarian in his many incarnations or asmoc, prozac, anzac or even polydiazobenzene napthalate.


 * AND please post comments here where they belong.


 * --Gibnews 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not accusing YOU of sockpuppetry. I dont think you are the kind of guy who would go for that type of behaviour. We are accusing those 2 users of being sockpuppets of someone... Maybe of Gibraltarian. Our RfC has not failed. It has been a success, you have changed your attitude and allow sources to be kept, although you continue to fight an inexistant Spanish enemy on wikipedia. --Burgas00 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules on the Rfc page clearly state:

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

If you continue to edit other peoples comments on that page I will revert it as simple vandalism, and issue a complaint against you.

Anyone who reads the RfC can quickly see who is here to create pages and who is here simply to create trouble. If you think those accounts are sockpuppets of user:gibraltarian then talk to an administrator about it, or contact the guys directly - but at least have the courtesy not to deface their views just because they are not yours.

As regards a 'non-existent Spanish enemy' remind me who it is who blocks my telephone calls, endangers air safety and prevents EU legislation to benefit the handicapped being applied to Gibraltar. Its not the Martians.

--Gibnews 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Considering that user account bxlbaby and user account Azmoc have been created in the last few days and the latter has engaged in repeated vandalism reminiscent of Gibraltarian, having been blocked frequently throughout its short existence: I request a checkuser be made on both. Please do not erase this comment until this has been done. Thankyou. --Burgas00 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your pananoia is showing. The commonality between user:gibraltarian and user:Azmoc is that they are both accused of acting inappropriatly.  There seems to be sufficient history about both to indicate that they are NOT the same entity.  user:bxlbaby is something quite different. Clearly you don't like it because they do not agree with your POV --Gibnews


 * Bxlbaby was created on the 15th of July and as today has only two contributions in Wikipedia. Azmoc got blocked one week after its creation. But we are paranoics if we doubt about them and Gibnews is fair enough to remove any comment or link here on the main RfC page. Interestingly Gibnews isn't sooo worried on removing his own comments on exactly the same circumstances a couple of paragraphs before:.
 * By the way, and just to show the difference of good faith between Gibnews and us, I was the one who helped Bxlbaby at first to expose his point of view even clearly disagreeing with him/it:
 * And thanks my funny friend for quoting me on your User page.
 * --Panchurret 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly you don't understand the difference between removing and moving, as for quoting you on my user page, its accurate enough and if you are getting bored, feel free to do something useful instead of complaining about the Gibraltar pages.


 * You could explain why the Government of Spain feels it necessary to block my telephones, or how come its legal to transmit hard core porn in the afternoon in Spain on a channel allocated to Gibraltar by International agreement. These things are quite outside my understanding. --Gibnews


 * I'm not complainig about Gibraltar pages. I'm not here to argue about politics. I'm complaining about your, at this stage obvious to everyone, lack of civism here at wikipedia. You know it, we know it, and it's just a matter of time that you get banned unless you start to understand that Wikipedia is a place to colaborate not to fight.
 * --Panchurret 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What should be obvious to everyone by now is that you are here in concert with your associate to push a defamatory POV about Gibraltar using 'sources' which do not support what you claim, and this RfC is a rather weak attempt to try and see if you can get me banned - you are not 'trying to resolve' a dispute your actions are calculated to provoke one. In relation to Gibraltar if your only source of information is the Spanish media, then you are not competent to comment as it can be outright dishonest and is paid by the MAE to spread lies - this is something that as a honest Spanish taxpayer you should be deeply concerned about. Instead of using your tax euros to promote genuine Spanish interests in Europe, a large effort is put into trying to make MY life miserable for living in a British territory adjacent to Spain which your Government wishes to annex, contrary to the wishes of the Gibraltarians.


 * http://www.gibraltar.freeuk.com/docs/bribehack.htm


 * http://www.gibraltar.freeuk.com/docs/tve1.htm

Have a nice day.

--Gibnews 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually Panchurret and me are on the payroll of the CESID. We recieve 30 euros an hour just for conversing with you.:-) --Burgas00 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, as we are the same special agent with double personality, we (I) receive €60 per hour XD
 * And great links as always Gibnews. Deep, from an obviouslky unbiased source and very, very well referenced. By the way, it's CESID, not CESLD. And sorry sir, neither IMF nor OECD is 'spanish media'.
 * --Panchurret 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * TVE could correctly be described as 'Spanish Media', or in this case 'lieing Spanish media' --Gibnews

And I am the one who is considered a non-native English speaker, Gibnews???

"Yo no hablar Español"??? Que hablar tú, then? :-D --Burgas00 15:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Its immaterial, for all I know and care you might be a martian, whatever you are not contributing anything meaningful to the Gibraltar pages and are simply wasting my time. If thats you aim, then its a limited one. --Gibnews

Hi Panchurret,

Apparently, according to Gibnews you and me are the same guy! See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FayssalF

Imagine you, me, Gibnews, Gibraltarian and Faysal were the same person with a serious personality disorder??:-) --Burgas00 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * well you have used alias's before. --Gibnews 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Peace
Well it seems Gibnews and me have managed to make peace at last. I still think he is biased in his approach and he thinks the same of me but we have the right to dissent. The important thing is that contributions to the Gibraltar article are based on adding material rather than erasing it. Gibnews is now careful in not erasing sources and he seems to have understood that there are limits to what one can do to protect the good image of his territory. Although his goodwill will be measured next time a wikipedian attempts to add a source in the article he dislikes. I will desist in acting as a policeman and will engage with him in a friendly manner from now on. He is not a vandal and I have never accused him of being one. --Burgas00 00:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for peace, however you would be wrong if you believe there are limits on defending the causes of truth and freedom. Thankfully to date the keyboard and camera seem more effective than the AK47 the RPG-2. (not being a reference to the programming language). Anyhow HMG is giving the Government of Spain a brown envelope with 200m Euros to behave as good Europeans, so maybe they will. However if you know the story of the frog and the scorpion. that might be a more likely outcome. --Gibnews