Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case Opened on 16:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Case Amended by by motion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 11:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• EyeSerene ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Cremallera ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ecemaml ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gibmetal77 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gibnews ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imalbornoz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Justin A Kuntz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Narson ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richard Keatinge ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Willdow ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gordonofcartoon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been a long-term dispute on Gibraltar-related articles (mainly Gibraltar itself, but also to a lesser extent History of Gibraltar, Disputed status of Gibraltar and possibly Self-governing colony). The dispute revolves around Gibraltar's status* and claims of both pro-Gibraltan and pro-Spanish POV pushing. I came relatively late to this via an ANI thread ( Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Gibraltar, November 2009), but have noticed similar threads appearing at ANI with depressing regularity. Searching the archives for AN and ANI returns 41 matches; discounting the duplicates and false positives, by my (rough) count we still have more than 30 threads dating back three years. The latest is here (current as of 5 March 2010) archived here (amended 08:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)); as can be seen, recent developments have included WP:OUTING issues over WP:COI concerns. Partly due to this privacy concern and partly due to the long-running and apparently intransigent nature of the dispute, I feel this has now escalated beyond what can be dealt with at ANI. I ask the committee to consider taking this case on, if only to clear the decks in this area to allow productive editors to contribute without every edit becoming a battle. EyeSerene ^talk 13:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: Due to my unfamiliarity with much of the dispute's history I have listed the involved parties above pretty much indiscriminately based on article and talk page contribution. Many of those parties have and still are trying to work productively to reach consensus, so no implication is intended by my inclusion or omission of a name on the list. I ask that both the listed editors and the members of Arbcom, should they accept this case, forgive my lack of precision.

*For those not familiar with the subject, Gibraltar is a British overseas territory in the Mediterranean claimed by Spain.

Note 2: I've just been informed that a previous arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian, was heard relating to this area. However, because it deals specifically with one editor I don't think it affects anything I've written above. EyeSerene ^talk 13:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This filing is rather premature, it can still be sorted out at AN/I, if there is a will to do so.

Also a number of simply innocent bystanders have been caught in the crossfire. Its got nothing to do with Gibmetal77, Narson or Willdow. None of whom have caused a problem.

I would also tend to exclude Richard Keatinge, as although some of the things he has done has made the situation worse he sought to mediate the dispute. I'd also tend to exclude Cremallera as in the main, I think he was an innocent who got caught up in this. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I would add that there have been repeated attempts to link User:Gibnews and User:Gibraltarian. They've been repeatedly investigated and found to be false, I question why it has been raised again. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please, please take this on, including anyone that wants to be part of it. There are serious and long running problems in this article space concerning POV and COIs that need to be aired and adjucated beyond what other dispute resolutions can provide. These have boiled over into interpersonal spats making constructive editing and adherence to policies impossible. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Response to request for more information by Newyorkbrad

• (1) improper user conduct vs good-faith disagreements - improper user conduct - behaviours need to be changed. Let me know if I should provide details. It's now impossible to have a "good faith disagreement" on the page as you are always assumed to be acting in bad faith.
• (2) disregard of consensus vs inability to reach a consensus - it's impossible to reach consensus that a consensus has been reached - ie both are a problem
• (3) further dispute resolution short of arbitration - there is more than a "dispute" going on here. The article is under the de facto control of one, lately two pro-Gibraltar editors (one of whom is Gibraltarian and active in Gibraltar politics in real life) who use it as a platform to "defend" Gibraltar in cyberspace, and I and another editor have WP:COI concerns in that regard.
• (4) remedies - I would like explored the idea of topic bans, plus a permanent ban on use of the suite of websites that one particular editor has set up as sources or external links, if the COI allegations are upheld. (Note: providing the full COI evidence will WP:OUT the editor concerned, but without seeing it the full extent can't be understood.)

NB I would welcome having my contributions scrutinised as a part of this process.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The pro-Gibraltar editors I refer to above are User:Gibnews (who has the alleged COI issues) and User:Justin A Kuntz. The statement by Gibnews (since modified [1]) is a perfect demonstration of why we need this arbitration: he has just confirmed my words above about him using the article as a "platform to "defend" Gibraltar in cyberspace". This has been going on for too long now (since the end of 2005). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Per Red Hat I feel that authoritative arbitration is the only way forward here. I have no previous connection with this page or Gibraltar itself, but I responded on 9th December 2009 to a RfC from Atama (following failed mediation and months of argument). I tried to push forward a peace process, and after much covering of old ground we seemed to have a weary consensus and to be able to move on. A revert war ensued, and subsequent discussions have gone round the same old circle again. Nationalism, incompetence, the Last Word, straightforward personality differences, irritation, and incivility have all played their parts in this waste of time. I will say that I feel there is one and only one editor whose improvement or absence is essential to enable the discussion to progress. All others, however strong their opinions, seem open to rational debate. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've added myself as an outside editor who has had recent contact with Gibraltar article topics via WP:COIN. I strongly support arbitration, on grounds of the time this has been going on and all the previous attempts at solving it. As others have said, the surface problem is the extreme toxicity of discussion - collapse of good faith, general sniping, etc - that a long-running dispute has led to. But under that, there's a deeper problem that these articles' agenda is entirely controlled by a core group of users so locked in a regionalist dispute that it drives away any uninvolved editors; it's just too much hard work to get involved. With some regular participants of this dispute, I have no faith in their ability to see outside their bias and work by Wikipedia policies of verifiability and neutrality. There are also unresolved COI issues (which, much as I think they should be investigated, have led to overzealous investigation skating on the edge of WP:OUTING). But overall, having looked at previous discussions, I'd rate the core driving problem here as aggressive pro-Gibraltar regionalism and civil POV pushing and tendentious editing to that end. I don't see pro-Spanish regionalism as significant; I'd characterise it more that the pro-Gibraltar faction treats any source outside its worldview as pro-Spanish. I guess this could viewed as "good faith" in that it's a genuine perception of the subject, but if it permanently disrupts attempts to achieve WP:NPOV, it's not compatible with Wikipedia whatever the motive. I highly recommend Digwuren-style sanctions, and in some cases topic bans per WP:GREATWRONGS-style advocacy. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Addendum - looking at the diffs provided by Ecemaml, this situation is more appalling than I thought. Gibnews trying to expunge from Wikipedia notable historical individuals from pre-British Gibraltar is astonishingly overt bias. I'm even more decided that a topic ban would be appropriate. Come on you "Recuse" guys - what is arbitration here for, if not to handle situations like this where everything else has been tried? Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

First of all, PfainUK (named above) is away from the computer for a few days so won't be able to respond (he dropped me an e-mail). I think there are pros and cons to this case being taken on. What incivility there is comes from, in most, the frustration over the inability to move forward. There are a couple of editors who constantly drift over the line and at least one editor whose actions do so on a semi-occasional basis. Certainly issues like the WP:OUTING campaign are of interest to Arbcom, but things like the discussion over the content isn't. And there is a question over how much of the former is due to the latter. I tried to mediate the dispute over christmas, though this quickly failed as the moratorium broke down and we went back to old accusations being dredged up by some. Ultimatly I fear the consequences of Arbcom would be, overall, to the negative. Admin can easily correct behaviour that goes over the line (as has been seen with Gibnews and Ecemaml) and the recent 0RR or 1RR on the article should be allowed to run for a while and see how it works. Thereare also editors who I consider to have some good potential should they be directed into wider involvement in the project who I fear would receive a brutal treatment at an ArbCom intervention. I remain relativly confident I have little to fear from ArbCom involvement, but would still urge the ArbCom to wait. If they do chose to run with it, I fear this will just add more drama to an already daft situation. -- Narson ~ Talk • 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Edited to add that anyone saying that either 'side' (Really, this side thing is so not helpful, but I must bow to peer pressure in using it) is blameless and one side is responsible for everything or for the vast majority is entirely wrong. This is a pox on everyone's house and those who come here thinking they are blameless and the other side will be smited will more than likely get the odd bit of smiting themselves. -- Narson ~ Talk • 11:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Thanks for the pointers Newyorkbrad, they've been helpful. To set a starting point somewhere, since October 2009 there have been 2 mediation attempts, at least 3 Requests for Comment, a 'moratorium' as previously stated by Narson and several AN/I threads, to no tangible gain. Frankly, nothing in the current climate makes me foresee a different outcome in the event of conducting further dispute resolution processes other than authoritative arbitration. The tone of the debate has always been uncomfortable, ranging from perennial and mostly one sided incivility to some of the most blatantly abusive personal attacks I've seen in Wikipedia (I raise some diffs in which I am not an involved party to illustrate my point: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). No, I really wouldn't bet on informal dispute resolution anymore. Per Gordonofcartoon above, I'd suggest applying discretionary sanctions. Cremallera ( talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

For the sake of clarity, when I speak of 'mostly one sided incivility' I am strictly refering to users Justin the Evil Scotman and Gibnews, who are indeed responsible for the vast majority of WP:NPA violations. It is not my intention to imply that the rest are faultless. Cremallera ( talk) 15:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

NPOV means describing things fairly not giving foreign irredentist propaganda an equal say about Gibraltar.

There has been a sustained attempt to cover up things, and to minimise the developed nature of Gibraltar's self-government because this threatens the Spanish claim based on the assertion Gibraltarians are not the genuine people of Gibraltar and have no say in their future. These are promulgated in the Spanish media today. (google 'Landaluce Gibraltar')

I have spent an unhealthy amount of time in the last year trying to keep the Gibraltar and associated articles truthful.

There has been a dishonest attempt to get me banned.

• user:ecemaml has a long history of trying to make the articles more favourable to the Spanish position hopes to repeat his success in getting user:gibraltarian banned. He was blocked for extensive stalking of me in the past and recently for abusive behaviour. Otherwise, he is a good editor and an asset to wikipedia apart from pages on Gibraltar.

• user:RHOPF has from his first involvement been confrontational and of late has tried to get me banned from editing using any methods available including lies that I am a sock. He has attempted to get two websites gibnet.com and gibnews.net used for cites banned simply because I helped set them up. This has involved extensive forum shopping. There is no suggestion that the third party content referenced on these sites has been tampered with. He has further removed large chunks of established content because 'he does not like it' his actions have been disruptive and abusive. He is now attacking on the article Gibraltarian people.

EXAMPLES

1. Removal of the section about the conclusion of the IRA incusion. (even the Irish Republican editors accept this was OK)
2. Removal of the two line mention of the death of General Władysław Sikorski in Gibraltar
3. Removal of the section about Gibraltar winning its EU legal case on regional selectivity (Note: this was opposed by Spain and would have crippled the economy, the GoG considered it important enough to have declared a public holiday.)

Ban these two dissruptive editors from pages related to Gibraltar and normality will return. -- Gibnews ( talk) 21:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I support the arbitration of this case. IMHO the situation has deteriorated to the extreme in the last year. However, the roots of the problem may be traced back to late 2005. Here you have some samples of what has been going on for years:

1. Racist comments aganist Spaniards [8]
2. Constant verbal abuse against those that does not follow a given POV ( [9], [10], [11])
3. Use of reversion as editorial tool (example fully described here)
4. Countless conflicts (it's worthless to see this, as here there are no Spaniards involved)
5. Insertion of false information to discredit sources (see here and compare to this)
6. Absolute denial of NPOV as a given POV should be simply ignored ( [12], [13]).
7. Constant soapboxing ( [14], [15])
8. Misrepresentation of other editors' behaviour to discredit them ( [16], compare this with this, not an example, I must admit)
9. Productive and good faith editors being thrown away of these articles (as Asterion or ChrisO).
10. Use of web sites managed by a given editor ( gibnet.com) as a reliable source. Gibnews has openly claimed to be its webmaster ( [17]; although the diff is from an IP, 212.120.227.226 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), the analysis of its editions, the timing and [18] clarifies the issue); to control the publication of contents ( [19]); or to be its owner ( [20], [21]. Examples of its use are [22], [23], [24].
11. Promotion of unknown organizations presented as reliable sources ( [25]... the same organization whose "report" is introduced here) which happens either not to exist (see [26] and being a total invention (see this) or both things. Coordination in the use of such unreliable and, worse, invented, sources is obvious (see here)
12. Absurd edit wars. The one described in [27]. Considering the history of Gibraltar some notable Spanish guys born in Gibraltar were introduced in the section devoted to notable people born in Gibraltar ( [28]). My edition was removed as it was " ridiculous". Gibnews tried to speedy delete the persons listed (see here, here and here).
13. A serious undeclared conflict of interest by one of the participants in this case. It has not been declared and can be not only a COI but a case similar to that of the Scientology in which Scientology members coordinated their actions to bias the Gibraltar-related articles. In this case, prominent members of organizations heavily involved in the political activity of Gibraltar and with virulent anti-Spanish agenda are taking part in this case. I've provided privately the info to the ArbCom. It's important to notice that such COI (or organized action) is one or the root causes of all the improper behaviours listed below.

My proposal is: banning of editing the articles listed by EyeSerene for two weeks; strict enforcement of 0RR; inmmediate block of anyone verbally abusing any of the participants, their countries or nationalities; inclusion of gibnet.com in the black list and one year block of the editor undeclaring his COI. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 12:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

1) About "issues of improper user conduct": IMO, the problem is not confrontation between pro-Spanish and pro-Gibraltarian editors. But mainly a case of some specific editors (Justin and Gibnews) ”protecting” the article in some "sensitive" (from a nationalist Gibraltarian POV) areas way beyond what WP policy would support, sometimes showing an aggressive attitude (e.g., User:Justin A Kuntz has thrown very offensive insults –see below-, reverted several times my comments in the article talk page, accused of sock- and meat-puppettry...; User:Gibnews has threatened with legal action; on the other hand, IMO they were driven by the tension in the discussion and apologised afterwards). These behaviour and attitudes tend to drive away less involved editors and result in "sensitive" areas being tilted towards a Gibraltarian nationalistic POV: it has taken -so far- SEVEN months just to try to make slight changes in only THREE sentences. As a result, outside users interested in Gib will probably be getting biased info. Some examples regarding attitudes (evidence of behaviour too lengthy for now):

• User:Justin A Kuntz: " You have single mindedly set out to minimise the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government and using wikipedia as a propaganda weapon for a Fascist irrdentist dream and wounded macho pride. Don't pretend for one second that it was about improving the article, it never was. You're clever about it, I'll give you that but I don't see any difference between you and that Fascist fuckwit. Enjoy your little victories but don't pretend there is anything but a fascist racist agenda behind them."
• User:Gibnews in this page (downsized afterwards):" There is a view in Gibraltar that Spain is out to get us. Having failed militarily, having failed with sanctions, the last resort is to engage with Gibraltarian aspirations in Sport, commerce, the EU, and in places like Wikipedia. NPOV means describing this fairly not giving Spanish interests an equal say about Gibraltar because Spain has no say about Gibraltar post 1704 when they lost the territory."
• IMHO, all other editors (British, Gibraltarians, Spanish…) have either not shown a strong nationalistic POV or have not engaged in long discussions and edit wars.

2) Mostly, it has been inability to reach consensus.

3) I'm an optimistic person, so I think that mediation maybe could work. But it’ll require a long and strong effort (maybe more than any normal mediator is ready to dedicate). Also, I think that some very POVed editors (Justin and Gibnews) should get some feedback about their attitude. Probably, arbitration has the highest probability to solve the problems.

4) I would agree with discretionary sanctions.

I would thank very much the involvement of arbitrators and their feedback to all involved editors (including me) about their attitude and behaviour. Thank you very much.

(downsized to < 500 words) -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've been watching the Gibraltar page for around five months and have more recently tried to find a final solution to these disputes (as have many before me). I don't think that the whole page is being owned by a few, as I have made edits to this page in the past, uncontested (albeit quite small edits and alterations). It's quite clear here though that there is no good faith amongst editors. Recent contention in particular has been whether to mention a nearby town, and whether Gibraltar is self-governing due to conflicting sources. These are simple matters, grossly complicated by assumptions of Nationalism by pro-Spanish and pro-Gibraltar editors (there are definitely two "sides") . The paranoia leads to nothing but bitter arguments and personal attacks. If each editor was reported to the letter of the law for what goes on in the Talk Page, I'm sure that most would have been blocked at least a few times if not more. I think a consensus could possibly be reached, but there needs to be some kind of VERY strict overseeing of this to ensure the long winded bickering doesn't break out again. Time and time again I have asked people to stay on topic and give very short answers, but essay after essay blots out serious discussion and everyone is back to square one. If you take a peek here you may see what I mean ("Lets state our preference and briefly why. Shall we say 50 word limit to avoid this dragging out?") A few replies are short and to the point, then the usual deviation and lengthy blah blah blahing comes back. I think this article just needs someone to take it by the scruff of the neck whilst discussion takes place (and some sort of article protection to avoid vigilante editors or socks taking things into their own hands. _Will^Dow (Talk) 09:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/2/0)

• Recuse   Roger Davies ^talk 13:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'd welcome input on (1) the extent to which there are issues here of improper user conduct, as opposed to good-faith disagreements over article content; (2) the extent to which there have been episodes of disregard of consensus once reached, as opposed to inability to reach a consensus; and (3) the extent to which affected editors believe that further dispute resolution should of arbitration would be helpful, and if so, what they see as a productive next step; and (4) what types of remedies would be helpful here, which could bear on the scope of any case if accepted, or whether we could potentially proceed by a "discretionary sanctions" type motion without a full case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Accept, and I will offer to be one of the drafters. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Recuse. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 09:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept To examine user conduct, not content. Looks like another wiki nationalist feud a la WP:ARBMAC2, Ireland, East Europe, Mid East, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept Oh joy. Please note. we're not going to be deciding what the articles should say, that's the community's job. SirFozzie ( talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept; this is fuming and about to blow, but we might be able to act in time yet. —  Coren  ^(talk) 11:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept - KnightLago ( talk) 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept Shell ^babelfish 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept. - Mailer Diablo 21:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Conduct and decorum

2) All editors are expected to adhere to Wikipedia's code of conduct. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly or uncollaborative conduct, such as personal attacks, disrespect toward other editors, uncivil commments, harassment, unjustified failure to assume good faith, using Wikipedia as a battleground, or comments containing unnecessary ethnic or national references concerning editors, all are inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of another editor, if they cannot be resolved directly with the editors, should be addressed in the appropriate forums.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

3) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

4) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fact versus opinion

5) In drafting articles and especially in discussing disputed article content, editors should take appropriate care to distinguish reasonably agreed-upon facts from statements of opinion or partisan views. When the accuracy of a statement cannot reasonably be contested, it is inappropriate in discussing article content to deny that the statement is true, although it may still be entirely appropriate to question whether the fact is relevant to a particular article or has been given undue weight in that article When a statement is a matter of opinion, however, the article should make clear who or what side of a dispute holds that opinion and

ensure that competing opinions with a reasonable degree of support are also represented.

Passed 7 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts

6) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their views rather than editing neutrally. They should take this natural tendency into account while they are editing and participating in talkpage discussions.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity and conflicts of interest

7) Wikipedia's policies allowing anonymous editing while discouraging conflicts of interest create a tension that necessarily is imperfectly resolved. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high degree of sensitivity to the competing concerns.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is user conduct relating to editing of Gibraltar and related articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User conduct on Gibraltar

2) Several editors on Gibraltar and related articles have engaged in poor behavior over a prolonged period of time, including gross incivility and personal attacks and abuse directed toward other editors, tendentious editing, persistent edit-warring, failing to cite reliable sources or relying excessively on partisan sources, and failing to respect consensus. The effect of these editors' conduct has been to produce an ongoing battlefield mentality and to drive other, more neutral editors away from Gibraltar and related articles.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews

3) Over an extended period of time, Gibnews ( talk · contribs) has edit-warred and edited tendentiously and non-neutrally with respect to the history and political status of Gibraltar, and has made comments of a nationally or ethnically offensive nature.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz

4) Justin A Kuntz ( talk · contribs) (who signs as "Justin the Evil Scotsman") has made a series of uncivil comments, assumed bad faith, and engaged in personal attacks during interactions with other editors concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecemaml

6) At times, Ecemaml ( talk · contribs) has assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.

Passed 5 to 1, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Gibraltar; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and the misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to do so may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Superseded by an alternate sanction, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Superseded by an alternate sanction, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Gibnews topic-banned

3) Gibnews ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews warned

4) Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz topic-banned

5) Justin A Kuntz ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecemaml

7.1) Ecemaml ( talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.

Passed 7 to 1, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors reminded

8) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real- world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.

In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Area X and who finds himself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent conflict between Area X and Area Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Area X.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

9) Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions

10) Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

10) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Gibraltar and its history, people, and political status, broadly interpreted.

Passed 7 to 1 by Motion, 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement of discretionary sanctions

1) Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement of decision sanctions

2) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator, unless the applicable remedy itself provides for a more severe sanction. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions rescinded (November 2014)

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.

Passed 11 to 0 by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)