Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
User Gibraltarian considers edit wars as a valid tool to impose his own point of views. He's violated recurrently 3RR policy and makes reversions without any explanation or with futiles ones:
Two main "takes" of 3RR violations have been performed by Gibraltarian. The most serious was this one: History of Gibraltar was reverted up to eleven times in five days, without providing any reason and even if the edition he reverted was different each time (I kept on adding new information). I asked him which information was not accurate and why (see here and here), but Gibraltarian answers were not clarifying at all (see here and here). 3RR violation is cut and pasted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR:
Second "take", once I decided to give up this absurd edit war (since the other party just removed information without any argumentation)), consisted simply in removing the {{disputed}} template that was set by me and afterwards restored by the administrator in charge of mediating in the dispute ( Spangineer). From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR:
Apart from those, Gibraltarian has removed the {{disputed}} template 44 times else:
He's done the same with Disputed status of Gibraltar, beginning one day after the protection was removed:
And also afterwards:
Different administrators such as HorsePunchKid [78] or Spangineer [79] have set or restored the {{disputed}} template, but it hasn't prevented Gibraltarian from removing it afterwards.
Gibraltarian makes personal attacks. It's his usual way of behaving:
As he goes on vandalizing History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar he was blocked by Woohookitty. His last claimed edition (anonymously as 212.120.228.42) is, as usual, full of insults: malicious troll, Ecemaml has been deliberately causing discord, now appears to be pulling Woohookitty's strings, obsessed troll, he not only has a chip on his shoulder over Gibraltar but an entire potato plantation, It is high time he grew up... gave up his fascist inspired campaign, There is only one way to deal with this kind of person, which is to treat him with the contempt that he deserves [117]
Following messages goes on with his usual offensive language, full of insults: No room for Ecemaml's racism in WP [118] (as 212.120.231.76), There is no place in WP or anywhere else for your racist views [119] (as 212.120.227.180) or allowing Ecemaml's racism to prosper [120] (as 212.120.231.76)
Gibraltarian doesn't seem to understand what NPOV is:
Compare it with First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Here Gibraltarian doesn't even allow POVs other than his (providing that, of course, he defines what is neutral).
Gibraltarian constantly refuses to provide verifiable sources. That way, it's impossible to get any agreement regarding the dispute. Mind that such a refusal is joined with intensive reversions. Sort of "as I don't have sources and yours are not valid, I revert again and again".
I've done an extensive research that can be seen in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar/1#Disagreements, on in the alternative versions that Gibraltarian insists in removing ( History of Gibraltar/temp or Disputed status of Gibraltar/temp). I'm open to provide additional sources if needed or if the currently provided are not reliable.
But Gibraltar simply says:
I think that beyond any doubt I've proved that some of the statements by the Gibraltarian are possibly false since no source supports them, but it's like talking to a wall.
An interesting point, for instance, is this. In his nth reversion, he apart from removing facts that include a source, simply removes the mentions to the Spanish books used to write the article.
At the moment (December 22), History of Gibraltar includes 34 notes (with citations from Spanish books, British books, Gibraltarian sources....
Gibraltarian doesn't want to solve this dispute by any means:
Gibraltarian has refused to take part [132]
Furthermore, his last edition in the relevant talk page was on November 25th [133], and wasn't especially helpful as usual: Why not admit it? The only reason you disagree with anything is because you are an obsessed troll, whose sole agenda is causing discord
Finally, when I informed him that an arbitration had been opened [134], his answer was offensive as usual: GET LOST. DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN UNDER ANY PRETEXT. YOU BEHAVIOUR IS BENEATH CONTEMPT. GO AWAY! [135]
I'm going to continue the section on No Personal Attacks since even after this opened, Gibraltarian is still engaging in them:
December 3rd
December 7th
I don't know what Gibraltarian's motives for his anti-Ecemaml campaign are, but it simply hasn't gotten any better with time:
Here, Gibraltarian (editing under various IPs in the 212.120.*.* range) even uses the terminology "Gospel according to Ecemaml" - and stubbornly stickes to his view that Ecemaml is a (biased) troll. Now, I don't know who is more correct, but I've noticed that Ecemaml and the mediators have managed to keep their cool while Gibraltarian's anti-Ecemaml attacks are discrediting himself, even if he is indeed more correct.
I also wonder why Gibraltarian has not posted anything on these arbitration pages - I mean, if he really thinks Ecemaml is a troll, he should at least post some evidence here to show how that might be, instead of simply continuing his tirade like if nothing had ever happened. His ignorance of the arbitration case isn't going to help him - I mean, if I were ever involved in an arbitration case as a defendant, I would certainly post something to defend myself - this at least gives me a shot at winning. It seems to me that Gibraltarian's silence on this case has almost certainly guaranteed him a loss.
Update: He's even turned on myself and Woohookitty: [140] [141]
He has also defaced Ecemaml's front user page and talk page: [142] [143]
He's even called for Ecemaml & Woohookitty to be blocked indefinitely (I think this is even uglier than Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel remarks) [144]. He seems to view shouting as a legitimate means of achieving his objectives: [145].
He has repeatedly removed cited material on Talk:Gibraltar: [146] [147] [148] [149]
I would like to invite him to present evidence as to why he regards Ecemaml and Woohookitty so negatively, but his behavior suggests that he probably will never actually do so. I mean, I have no problem believing and supporting him, but if he keeps up his current behavior, then I can't do anything to help him.
The problem is that "Gibraltarian" has been, as he perceives it, fighting a war against an enemy. Ecemaml has done an excellent job of winding him up and prodding him to react in a manner guaranteed to self destruct. As a result you have permenantly banned him, and the other day locked out most other Gibraltarians resident in the territory from being able to contest the history of OUR land being written according to an aggressor.
Yes "Gibraltarian" has gone about this badly, yes he is mad and has made savage attacks which have done him no good. Let us not forget that the national pre-occupation of Spain is not baseball or cricket but bullfighting and the bull seldom wins.
In terms of Evidence, the continued harassment of ALL Gibraltarians by the Spanish Government is fact. That this is aimed at an attempt to annex our territory and internationally isolate is fact. That we don't like it is also a fact.
Quote:
"The principal objective for Spain is the recovery of sovereignty over the territory. Everything else is secondary."
2. Harassment and restrictions
3. Allegations of criminality refuted
This is not propaganda, this is the way things are. One hopes they will change, in the meantime user Gibraltarian has good reason to misstrust everything North of the frontier. There may not be trolls but there is something nasty.
This does not excuse bad behaviour, but it does explain it.-- Gibnews 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice try, but wrong place to pick a fight. -- Gibnews 11:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"blackening the name of Gibraltar"? Prove it. Provide some diffs proving that I'm blackening the name of Gibraltar. -- Ecemaml 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
If you seriously think that I will allow racists like Ecemaml poison WP you are very much mistaken. None of you seem to have actually bothered to read my edits on the relevant articles.......other than the fact that Ecemaml didn't like them no-one has been able to show any of them to be either factually incorrect or POV.
How they can be labelled as "vandalism" solely on the complaint of a proven racist Ecemaml is beyond me. Go on.........check. ALL of the edits I made to any of the Gibraltar articles are factually correct and NPOV......and NO-ONE has even alleged otherwise. So how do they classify as "vandalism"?
I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!
Finally someone saw the light and got this individual banned. I had given up on Wikipedia because of this user. It is certainly a better place now. Thanks very much. Asterion
Rewriting history to favour the losers remains a futile exercise with or without one Gibraltarian. -- Gibnews 11:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Gibratarian appears to have used this Ip address to vandalise, to Gibraltar and all the related articles. The edits are exactly the same as the ones Gibraltarian did, and the Ip address is located in Gibraltar. I' am certain that it is him. This is the Ip address. User talk:212.120.227.108. It has not been blocked at all, and no action has been took. Sheogarath 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
User Gibraltarian considers edit wars as a valid tool to impose his own point of views. He's violated recurrently 3RR policy and makes reversions without any explanation or with futiles ones:
Two main "takes" of 3RR violations have been performed by Gibraltarian. The most serious was this one: History of Gibraltar was reverted up to eleven times in five days, without providing any reason and even if the edition he reverted was different each time (I kept on adding new information). I asked him which information was not accurate and why (see here and here), but Gibraltarian answers were not clarifying at all (see here and here). 3RR violation is cut and pasted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR:
Second "take", once I decided to give up this absurd edit war (since the other party just removed information without any argumentation)), consisted simply in removing the {{disputed}} template that was set by me and afterwards restored by the administrator in charge of mediating in the dispute ( Spangineer). From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR:
Apart from those, Gibraltarian has removed the {{disputed}} template 44 times else:
He's done the same with Disputed status of Gibraltar, beginning one day after the protection was removed:
And also afterwards:
Different administrators such as HorsePunchKid [78] or Spangineer [79] have set or restored the {{disputed}} template, but it hasn't prevented Gibraltarian from removing it afterwards.
Gibraltarian makes personal attacks. It's his usual way of behaving:
As he goes on vandalizing History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar he was blocked by Woohookitty. His last claimed edition (anonymously as 212.120.228.42) is, as usual, full of insults: malicious troll, Ecemaml has been deliberately causing discord, now appears to be pulling Woohookitty's strings, obsessed troll, he not only has a chip on his shoulder over Gibraltar but an entire potato plantation, It is high time he grew up... gave up his fascist inspired campaign, There is only one way to deal with this kind of person, which is to treat him with the contempt that he deserves [117]
Following messages goes on with his usual offensive language, full of insults: No room for Ecemaml's racism in WP [118] (as 212.120.231.76), There is no place in WP or anywhere else for your racist views [119] (as 212.120.227.180) or allowing Ecemaml's racism to prosper [120] (as 212.120.231.76)
Gibraltarian doesn't seem to understand what NPOV is:
Compare it with First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Here Gibraltarian doesn't even allow POVs other than his (providing that, of course, he defines what is neutral).
Gibraltarian constantly refuses to provide verifiable sources. That way, it's impossible to get any agreement regarding the dispute. Mind that such a refusal is joined with intensive reversions. Sort of "as I don't have sources and yours are not valid, I revert again and again".
I've done an extensive research that can be seen in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar/1#Disagreements, on in the alternative versions that Gibraltarian insists in removing ( History of Gibraltar/temp or Disputed status of Gibraltar/temp). I'm open to provide additional sources if needed or if the currently provided are not reliable.
But Gibraltar simply says:
I think that beyond any doubt I've proved that some of the statements by the Gibraltarian are possibly false since no source supports them, but it's like talking to a wall.
An interesting point, for instance, is this. In his nth reversion, he apart from removing facts that include a source, simply removes the mentions to the Spanish books used to write the article.
At the moment (December 22), History of Gibraltar includes 34 notes (with citations from Spanish books, British books, Gibraltarian sources....
Gibraltarian doesn't want to solve this dispute by any means:
Gibraltarian has refused to take part [132]
Furthermore, his last edition in the relevant talk page was on November 25th [133], and wasn't especially helpful as usual: Why not admit it? The only reason you disagree with anything is because you are an obsessed troll, whose sole agenda is causing discord
Finally, when I informed him that an arbitration had been opened [134], his answer was offensive as usual: GET LOST. DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN UNDER ANY PRETEXT. YOU BEHAVIOUR IS BENEATH CONTEMPT. GO AWAY! [135]
I'm going to continue the section on No Personal Attacks since even after this opened, Gibraltarian is still engaging in them:
December 3rd
December 7th
I don't know what Gibraltarian's motives for his anti-Ecemaml campaign are, but it simply hasn't gotten any better with time:
Here, Gibraltarian (editing under various IPs in the 212.120.*.* range) even uses the terminology "Gospel according to Ecemaml" - and stubbornly stickes to his view that Ecemaml is a (biased) troll. Now, I don't know who is more correct, but I've noticed that Ecemaml and the mediators have managed to keep their cool while Gibraltarian's anti-Ecemaml attacks are discrediting himself, even if he is indeed more correct.
I also wonder why Gibraltarian has not posted anything on these arbitration pages - I mean, if he really thinks Ecemaml is a troll, he should at least post some evidence here to show how that might be, instead of simply continuing his tirade like if nothing had ever happened. His ignorance of the arbitration case isn't going to help him - I mean, if I were ever involved in an arbitration case as a defendant, I would certainly post something to defend myself - this at least gives me a shot at winning. It seems to me that Gibraltarian's silence on this case has almost certainly guaranteed him a loss.
Update: He's even turned on myself and Woohookitty: [140] [141]
He has also defaced Ecemaml's front user page and talk page: [142] [143]
He's even called for Ecemaml & Woohookitty to be blocked indefinitely (I think this is even uglier than Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel remarks) [144]. He seems to view shouting as a legitimate means of achieving his objectives: [145].
He has repeatedly removed cited material on Talk:Gibraltar: [146] [147] [148] [149]
I would like to invite him to present evidence as to why he regards Ecemaml and Woohookitty so negatively, but his behavior suggests that he probably will never actually do so. I mean, I have no problem believing and supporting him, but if he keeps up his current behavior, then I can't do anything to help him.
The problem is that "Gibraltarian" has been, as he perceives it, fighting a war against an enemy. Ecemaml has done an excellent job of winding him up and prodding him to react in a manner guaranteed to self destruct. As a result you have permenantly banned him, and the other day locked out most other Gibraltarians resident in the territory from being able to contest the history of OUR land being written according to an aggressor.
Yes "Gibraltarian" has gone about this badly, yes he is mad and has made savage attacks which have done him no good. Let us not forget that the national pre-occupation of Spain is not baseball or cricket but bullfighting and the bull seldom wins.
In terms of Evidence, the continued harassment of ALL Gibraltarians by the Spanish Government is fact. That this is aimed at an attempt to annex our territory and internationally isolate is fact. That we don't like it is also a fact.
Quote:
"The principal objective for Spain is the recovery of sovereignty over the territory. Everything else is secondary."
2. Harassment and restrictions
3. Allegations of criminality refuted
This is not propaganda, this is the way things are. One hopes they will change, in the meantime user Gibraltarian has good reason to misstrust everything North of the frontier. There may not be trolls but there is something nasty.
This does not excuse bad behaviour, but it does explain it.-- Gibnews 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice try, but wrong place to pick a fight. -- Gibnews 11:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"blackening the name of Gibraltar"? Prove it. Provide some diffs proving that I'm blackening the name of Gibraltar. -- Ecemaml 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
If you seriously think that I will allow racists like Ecemaml poison WP you are very much mistaken. None of you seem to have actually bothered to read my edits on the relevant articles.......other than the fact that Ecemaml didn't like them no-one has been able to show any of them to be either factually incorrect or POV.
How they can be labelled as "vandalism" solely on the complaint of a proven racist Ecemaml is beyond me. Go on.........check. ALL of the edits I made to any of the Gibraltar articles are factually correct and NPOV......and NO-ONE has even alleged otherwise. So how do they classify as "vandalism"?
I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!
Finally someone saw the light and got this individual banned. I had given up on Wikipedia because of this user. It is certainly a better place now. Thanks very much. Asterion
Rewriting history to favour the losers remains a futile exercise with or without one Gibraltarian. -- Gibnews 11:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Gibratarian appears to have used this Ip address to vandalise, to Gibraltar and all the related articles. The edits are exactly the same as the ones Gibraltarian did, and the Ip address is located in Gibraltar. I' am certain that it is him. This is the Ip address. User talk:212.120.227.108. It has not been blocked at all, and no action has been took. Sheogarath 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)