Gibraltarian, apart for refusing taking part in the dispute resolution process, keep on his personal attacks on me.
The following are what I consider a handful of violations of policies and guidelines:
Violation of 3RR policy and other unfair reversions:
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).
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). See here (I decided to stop reporting revertions). Anyway, you can see that Gibraltarian has removed the {{disputed}} template 8 times:
- 18:02, 5 December 2005, [1] (with the usual amount of insults: No specific facts have been disputed. A single troll causing trouble does not constitute a "dispute")
- 16:53, 5 December 2005, [2]
- 16:24, 4 December 2005, [3] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.226.198 (see contributions)
- 12:32, 2 December 2005, [4] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.182 (see contributions). The label is insulting as usual: The antics of a mischeivous malicious troll (Ecemaml) hardly constitute a valid dispute and comes immediately after a reversion by the administrator in charge of the dispute with a explicit label: I'd say that if you two can manage to fill up a talk page with arguing over this stuff, that that is a dispute
- 16:16, 1 December 2005, [5]
- 10:53, 28 November 2005, [6]
- 19:58, 26 November 2005, [7]
- 12:22, 25 November 2005, [8]
He's done the same with Disputed status of Gibraltar, beginning one day after the protection was removed:
- 12:34, 2 December 2005, [9] (this time also anonymously, as 212.120.229.182)
And also afterwards:
- 16:25, 4 December 2005, [10] (anonymously, as 212.120.226.198)
- 16:56, 5 December 2005, [11]
- 18:03, 5 December 2005, [12]
Violation of "No personal attacks" policy:
- The history of History of Gibraltar is full of insults in the labels of editions: a troll causing trouble, trolls not welcome, troll edits removed, troll removal, your clear racist attitude towards Gibraltarians, No specific facts have been disputed. A single troll causing trouble does not constitute a "dispute" [13], The antics of a mischeivous malicious troll (Ecemaml) [14], No specific facts have been disputed. A single troll causing trouble does not constitute a "dispute" [15]
- Insulting requests in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection such as This page should be unprotected. Ecemaml is a troll whose sole objective was to get the page blocked. He should not be allowed to get away with this. Block HIM, but let the rest of us get on with it [16], This article has been the target of a troll called Ecemaml. Instead of protecting the article, the Ecemaml troll should be blocked and the article released [17], [18], [19], Ban the Ecemaml troll, and problem solved [20], The Admin involved has made an incorrect decision in blocking the article, when the correct course of action would be to block the troll creating the dispute (Ecemaml) [21]
- Insulting comments in the Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar/1 such as troll [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], liar [28], [29], Your behaviour is disgraceful, an affront the the principles of WP and of basic common decency [30], bigot [31], fascist [32]. Ecemaml, and his compatriots have been exposed to this Goebbels type "news" for any years, and appear unable to distinguish this from reality. [33], His intent is purely malicious [34]. Your arguments are pure semantics and sophistry, and are mischievous in intent [35], your original motive was solely to create discord [36], By the way, the only LIAR here is YOU Ecemaml....be aware that I certainly will not give in to your pathetic lies and intimidation....Franco's fascist policies should have died along with him....why are YOU trying to keep them alive? [37], calling you a troll is not an insult, it is a staement of fact [38], You are an obsessed troll! [39], Yes, Wikipedians SHOULD work together, however your conduct ... proves that you are not a "wikipedian", merely a troll with a destructive agenda. It is not possible to work with anyone on that basis. [40], You clearly have no concept of neutrality.....merely a warped mind inspired by Franco. [41], The only reason you disagree with anything is because you are an obsessed troll, whose sole agenda is causing discord [42]
Misunderstanding of NPOV:
I think that this is the underlaying source of the dispute, since Gibraltarian claims that:
- WP is NOT a discussion forum, and an article about a country, territory or city should be simply information about it, presented in a neutral fashion. Sometimes alternative POV's on an issue can be presented, but most of the time it is quite possible to word something from a neutral viewpoint without being at all controversial [43]
- It is indeed possible to word many things in a neutral format, which avoids controversy. [44]
- It is perfectly possible (and IMHO) preferable for something to be worded in neutral language, reflecting the facts, but not favouring any opinion. [45]
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 other POVs than his (providing that, of course, he defines what is neutral).
Refusal to provide sources:
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 it's difficult to know what to do when the other party just says: "I have no need to "justify" anything to an obsessed troll" (label in edition in [46]) or "I will NOT spend my days justifying myself to a troll!" in ([47]), Ecemaml, I am not here to jump through hoops for your benefit. Your purpose here is purely to create discord [48], YOU are the expert on propaganda, you should know. I need no source to show that your "source" collapses at the slightest examination [49], I will not be jumping through hoops for the benefit of a malicious troll! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM ECEMAML. [50], I will NOT spend my days justifying myself to a troll! [51]
I've proposed a process to solve this dispute:
- First of all, fix History of Gibraltar. As long as plenty of sources are available it should be easy to determine what is true, what is false and what has just different interpretations.
- Secondly, proceed with the discussion on the isthmus (part of Disputed status of Gibraltar). Here again we have sources that describe the process and the positions of involved partied.
- Finally, the whole Disputed status of Gibraltar. Here, a neutral party will be essential to neutralize the possitions of each part.