User talk:Gibnews/Archive 6

WP:ANI

Someone has posted about your actions at ANI The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you remove this as harassment, know that I had come here as well to let you know, but RHPF beat me to it. That was just a courtesy note, he didn't create the ANI report and hasn't commented at it (as of yet). -- Atama頭 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnet.com

Gibnews, I have warned you that inclusions needed to be discussed, especially when they get removed per a (a.o.) WP:RSN discussion (here). You however insert the link again here. I again, strongly suggest you to discuss additions, and especially re-additions (and to check if your additions are actually re-additions). You know that there were several editors agreeing it was not a reliable source. Also, the document you are linking to is not an original, but seems to be a scan of a document. I'd like you to be careful with such additions, and to carefully take into account to link to the original, or to just name the document and not link to it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the document is not available anywhere else, and as you say it is a scan of an original official document that was issued to me. I'd be very happy if someone could find an alternative but I think its important that there is some reference to support what was a major change in relations between Spain and Gibraltar.

However, if you are referring to an IP editor that ain't me, it could be anyone, including someone who wants to get me banned. --Gibnews (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I did make a mistake, the IP added a scanned document, which is not original, you added a text-document which was not original. I am sorry for the confusion, but well, in the end, they are only copies. And no, both are available elsewhere. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If both are available elsewhere, then it would be nice if the editor removing the existing link replaced it with one that pointed to the document. A quick search does not find a copy of the cordoba agreement. Putting original documents online is rather hard as they are paper :) However the electronic versions have the same legal status. --Gibnews (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an original source would be better and a good secondary source even better, and that the typing of an editor who has a strong point of view is not as reliable a source as I would like. (Gibnews, how happy would you feel about relying on a text transmitted only by a Spanish nationalist?) But, rather than remove the reference, I'd prefer to see it tagged. A quick Google does indeed find no independent text of the document which Gibnews has kindly transcribed. Within limits, and until something better can be found or someone complains that it isn't actually right, it has its uses. Dirk, could you give us the reference you have found? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I can say that no typing was involved in the case of the tripartite agreement and the observers report on the referendum. --Gibnews (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, if the editor could not find it. But if the documents are not the original, and if the source they are now sourced from is not reliable (as asserted), then the sources should be removed (maybe in combination with the information), as leaving these references there gives a feeling of reliability which is not there.

Regarding http://www.gibnet.com/texts/trip_1.htm, that document is available from e.g. liberal.gi (liberal party), gbc.gi (a newspaper), gibraltarinformation.com, gibraltar.gi (official gibraltar website??), panorama.gi (another newspaper), gibfocus.gi (site now for sale). Please discuss the sources and their appropriateness on the talkpages, I'd go for either the liberal party, and/or for one of the newspapers, seems more reliable then this site. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See for examples: this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But wait, the reference is to the Cordoba Agreement, what Panorama shows is the last trilateral meeting which is different. The coverage by GBC is incomplete and their website (like the liberals) only recently has documents. The Liberals have re-typed the documents I scanned, but seem to be the ONLY other site with decent content. Perhaps someone might like to compare the ones on Gibnet.com to see if they have been altered in any way. --Gibnews (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care to spend time on the comparison, because I trust you to have reported them correctly. That isn't quite the point; we need, as a general rule and as enshrined in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to avoid being in a position where we trust certain types of source. As I say, you might not want to trust a version reported only by someone with strong views that disagree with yours. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I take the point, but the documents section of gibnet.com does not have 'strong views' on any subject. Its a collection of original documents. The website presents them in a neutral manner carefully labelled as to their origin, with comment labelled as such and documents identified as to their source. Some of them are hard/impossible to find elsewhere although people are getting better at Internet publishing, that site has the advantage its been running for 15 years and is stable. GBC recently revised their website as did the liberal party and voided any old links. We also recently saw an example that an organisation was willing to allow its material to be published on Gibnet, but had reservations about the licence terms for Wikipedia. On the talk Gibraltar page someone cited PWC as a reliable source, and what they had on their site was utter nonsense. If anyone compares the documents on Gibnet.com to others on the net if there are any differences, I'd be interested to hear.

There is incidentally material from the MAE and the Spanish equivalent of Chatham House included with consent and presented in a neutral manner. --Gibnews (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saw about 40 hits, I only did a quick scan of some of them. I still think that the talkpage is the best place to discuss it all, and to see which one is deemed the best; I am not a specialist in this issue, people on the respective talkpages may be. I would see if you can get to a consensus, maybe 2-3 different sources together are the best (though I don't expect any of them (except maybe for a typo left or right) to be different). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Break

Gibnews, I think it is clear from my previous posts that I declined blacklisting (until now) on the basis of the absence of widescale uncontrollable abuse (and I think that that is still the case). I do however see the problems with reliability of the site. I also do note that you are affiliated with the site, which would give you, to a certain extend, a conflict of interest. Now that guideline does not forbid you to edit, it does however suggest to take extreme care. That is why I strictly ask you to not re-insert references to your site yourself, and to do a bit of checking before including references to your site (I am worried that I so easily find several hits with Google regarding the only two documents I checked ...). Please err on the save side, and discuss, even if your doubt is minimal. The area you are editing in is often disputed, there is even a history of POV sock-editors, etc. etc. Discuss things on the talkpage, choose the best references when editing directly (and when that is on gibnet.com, explain that choice when you use it, or discuss it first anyway), I don't like pre-emptive blacklisting of sites which may be of interest (and force discussion through blacklisting), but, as an other editor once said it, sometimes a mosquito net is more effective than swatting the mosquito's. And I do see that other regulars do feel it may be appropriate to blacklist. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, were you to look at my editing history of late you might find I have been trying to use other sources since another editor complained about me citing Government press releases on gibnews.net rather than the Government site. The problem is that gibnet.com has the best collection of documents. However rather than enter into long discussions and be accused of all sorts of things, I may have a word with the owners of the site and suggest locking out incoming links from wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And why would you do that? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of gibnews.com

Hi Gibnews, I've been off for some weeks (paternity leave, you know :-)). I haven't taken part in the discussions on your sites, but after a quick reading I feel very surprised about your "loose" affiliation with both gibnews.com and gibnews.net. With regard to the first one, I can remember that you are the owner of the site (see here and here). Obviously your conflict of interest is clear. Just for the sake of clarity. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that you found the material on gibnet.com worthwhile enough to copy and paste onto wikipedia including a typo. I find the suggestion that both sites are in any way disreputable rather offensive and based on ignorance. Yes I created the code and scripts that manage the sites. The content is from its authors and the suggestion its rubbish imputes them more than me. The suggestion that there is ANY conflict of interest is simply a way of discrediting a useful repository of documents and lists of information.

The section describing the ten year struggle to get the Eurovote is referenced and the opposition to preventing EU citizens being democratically represented factual, although it should bring shame to the UK for not having done it before it was forced, and even more shame to Spain for its opposition.

At some point in the future, your children will read the story of how a large nation used all the dirty tricks in the book to disadvantage a group of 30,000 people simply because they did not want to be annexed. Unless you manage to rewrite and cover it up by the sort of tactics I see used on wikipedia.

But for the moment I have other more pressing concerns.

As I have stated the sites are owned by companies. --Gibnews (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gibnews, I'm not really interested in your obsessions. They have made us waste huge amounts of effort. I just wanted to highlight that, in the past, you've claimed to be the owner of the site (not the creator or the person in charge of the maintenance). It makes it an unacceptable COI from your side (not the only one, but the most obvious nowadays). Not to talk about your contradictions (sometimes you're the owner, sometimes you're an employee...). --Ecemaml (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated the sites are owned by companies, I am responsible for the HTML and scripts. I am not interested in the Spanish obsession about Gibraltar feel free to waste however much time you have on promoting the cause, but its a non starter.. --Gibnews (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your evasive tactics seems laughable :-) I'm not really interested in knowing the stakeholders of your company and the way it runs web sites. I've just pointed out that in the past you said you were the owner of gibnews.com and now you deny everything, showing yourself as a low-rank employee. A quick search in google shows that gibnews.com is owned by Interlink Communications Limited (see here) and, at the same time, a guy claims he runs gibnews.com, gibnews.net and maryceleste.net (I won't provide links unless you're intereted in them; I want to keep privacy). What a coincidence!!! (BTW, such a guy seems to be the spokeperson of the VOGG, a "non-political" group according to you). Funny, isn't it? --Ecemaml (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) PS: yes, I've spent a lot of time in promoting the cause. The same cannot be said of you.

I would like to remind everyone that there is a solution to this problem which does not involve personal sniping. That is, to avoid wherever possible the use of a site of which an involved Wikipedia editor has personal control, where such sites must be used then to use them with great caution per policy and guidelines, and to avoid irrelevant personal comments. This will allow us to get on with useful business. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think this discussion is achieving much unless its yet another attempt to piss me off.

IT ENDS HERE. --Gibnews (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's simply a provision of references on your conflict of interest, not only in the case of the sites you run, but also in the pressure groups you speak for. --Ecemaml (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is bordering on attempts at outing. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The proper location for discussions of potential conflicts of interest is the Conflicts of interest noticeboard. There has been at least one recent discussion there that concluded that Gibnews posting links to content hosted at Gibnews.net was not in in itself a conflict of interest. Unless you have specific accusations or points of evidence that were not considered in the recent discussion, you should present them there in a neutral non-accusatory manner. The nature of the discussion on this page smells very like harassment. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I really do not care for this, as it has the look and feel of a personal attack. Yes I register websites, I currently own one which is used by the Conservatives in the European Parliament. However the CONTENT on that site is theirs not mine. Similarly with gibnews.net the CONTENT linked to wikipedia is generated by others. --Gibnews (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not care for this either. Ecemaml, to investigate a possible conflict of interest is reasonable and so is requesting evidence that documents on sites that Gibnews runs are actually faithful to the originals, but "outing" is not acceptable and nor are persistent assumptions of bad faith. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You are aware that the /* */ stuff is only for section headers, right? If you want to add to the edit summary you do that after the */. Not in the middle of it which produces a link to a non-existant section on the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

San Roque

On Talk:Gibraltar you suggest: "It was always a matter of trying to push a Spanish POV onto an article about Gibraltar. However since 1704 Gibraltar has not been part of Spain. The article is about Gibraltar and not happenings in a nearby foreign state unless they affect Gibraltar and San Roque does not (apart from the pollution from the CEPSA refinery)." I'd like to reassure you that I at least have no interest in pushing any Spanish claims. If I did, I'd want to avoid mentioning San Roque. The plain fact is that, in the 21st century, any claim based on SR is pathetic and goes against any ideas about self-determination. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your statement fully, however if you read some of the things other editors have said on that page, it includes claims that when the UN discuss decolonisation of Gibraltar the 'people of Gibraltar' are the ones of San Roque !

Similarly when we held the 2002 referendum, the Spanish said it was unfair because we did not allow the people in San Roque a vote.

Yes its BS but its also very real. That is why I would rather avoid mentioning the town, which did not exist as such at the time, and simply mention adjoining areas of Spain, which is neutral and accurate.--Gibnews (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. I'm very sure that you also appreciate mine and I'm grateful for your reasoned approach. Personally I feel that anyone who bases a modern Spanish claim on San Roque is actually weakening their cause, because it really is obvious rubbish. And - this is a personal feeling - that from that point of view a good encyclopedia article should mention, at least, the agreed fact about SR as a destination. Without that, readers may come to the irredentist argument without any knowledge of the fact, and the argument may seem more valid as a result. With it, irredentism fits into a known picture and we can reasonably hope for sensible readers to slot its claims in where they belong, as a silly idea based on a rather distant event.

For these considerations I have to thank my fiancée, who is doing a PhD on the presentation of embarrassing episodes in history, starting with the British Atlantic slave trade. We've had some interesting discussions! Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gibraltar and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gibraltar

Hello Gibnews. Please be aware that there is a 500 word limit for all statements at the arbitration request page. Your statement is over 800 words long. Please shorten it to within 500 words within the next 24 hours or it will be removed completely. You're welcome to write a longer statement somewhere in your userspace and link to it on the main request page. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and refactored your statement so it now stands at 488 words. When you return, please feel free to change the statement around so that it is below 500 words in your own way. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On a similar theme, threaded discussion is not allowed on the main request page. Please only post in your section. If you want to comment to others, try adding a new title in your section (E.g. ;@USERNAME) - but remember, you must keep below your 500 word limit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

In case you're unaware, the current statements on ArbCom are for the merits of hearing of the case, not to outline evidence. As it seems it has been accepted, it looks like we will all have the opportunity to present our "evidence" such as diffs at a later time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case has opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI - re women's group, gay group removal

I responded to a mistake you made [1]. I think you got confused over this diff I posted at WP:COIN - that's your edit in 2006. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence

Hello Gibnews. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1150 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed your evidence to take it under the 1000 word limit. Feel free to edit your evidence futher, but don't increase the number of words from what it is at present. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Gib, suggesting that other editors are engaging in any form of genocide or activities that amount to it is possibly some of the most offensive stuff I've seen on Wikipedia and does not belong there at all. Please consier redacting, rewording or just scrapping because that level of absurd hyperbole is not only offensive, but makes the process laughable. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, Gibnews stated "cybergenocide", not "genocide". There is a quite obvious difference, and taking offense to it is silly. That said, I also think the cybergenocide comment is silly - it amounts to Making Up Words in order to escalate what are essentially censorship claims to a stratospheric level. I would imagine that ArbCom will take it for what it's worth. Tan | 39 20:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the use of the term is justified as there is a deliberate and consistent attempt by the Government of Spain to deny that the Gibraltarians exist as a people as from this would follow our right to self-determination and the territory in which we live.

That is the 'real world' situation, where the Government of Spain has spared no expense to prevent Gibraltar joining UEFA as it fears that being part of an international organisation implies that Gibraltarians are a people. That is why we do not participate in the Olympics, although we do have Olympic class athletes.

Quoting from 'The Spanish Proposals for Gibraltar' - Fernando Castiella the Spanish Foreign Minister said the Gibraltarians were

An artificially constituted human group

“ Gibraltar is also a human aggregate, and this is another aspect of the problem. Great Britain's pretension is today that the inhabitants of the Rock should decide upon its future, thus linking by the method of self-determination the territory with its inhabitants; this basically alters the original terms of the situation, which was that of a bilateral relationship between England and Spain, but from which, however, Spain has been ousted for the benefit of a third party. But this third party is not valid because, firstly, Gibraltar is merely a military Base and a Base can only belong, either to the country that occupies it or to the country in whose territory it stands. Anything else would be as absurd as, for instance, to maintain that the American Base at Guantanamo, in Cuba, should stop being American, without reverting to Cuba either, but should have its fate decided by an alleged population residing there. Hong Kong presents a similar, though not formally identical situation. The Observer expressed the opinion, on July 10th 1949, that there could be no question of preparing the island for independence, as Hong Kong should either continue being British, or else revert to China.

Secondly, there is no real or profound link between the inhabitants of Gibraltar and the territory, because, apart from the fact that the authentic population of the Rock was obliged to abandon it by reason of the military occupation, the later inhabitants are a product of a British political operation aimed at successively fabricating and refabricating the so-called population with ethnical groups uprooted from their original countries; they are inhabitants without any real political identity of their own or any real autonomy as such, and they constitute a demographic group which is entirely subsidiary to a Base enclosed in a territory of two square miles, almost all of it a military zone and Crown property. How can this group be considered a true population capable of political self-determination with a right to dispose of a territory which belongs to it neither historically or legally?

”

This remains the Spanish position in the United Nations.

In order to promote this POV its essential to build up the myth that the Spanish settlers who left in 1704 are the real people of Gibraltar with a legitimate title to the territory. That is why we have had the extended debate on Wikipedia about the significance inhabitants of San Roque and why there has been a sustained attempt to apply the term Gibraltarian retrospectively to them despite the fact the term has only ever been applied to the current inhabitants of the Rock.

Until Spain joined the EU and NATO military intervention was considered a possibility, and a full battalion of the British Army was stationed on the Rock. Military action is no longer an option. Spain no longer jams our television station, blocks our telephones and refuses to allow ships that have docked in Gibraltar entry to Spanish ports - however successive Governments of Spain have engaged in all sorts of nastiness in an attempt to deny the existence of the Gibraltarians as a people as it is detrimental to their sovereignty claim, which even takes precedence over the well being of their citizens living in the adjoining area.

INCIPE (Spanish foreign affairs research group)research paper 1999

“ The principal objective for Spain is the recovery of sovereignty over the territory. Everything else is secondary. ”

Spain has used the EU to attack Gibraltarians, she mounted legal actions to prevent Gibraltar voting in elections for the European Parliament, fighting all the way, despite the ECHR ruling in Matthews v United Kingdom.

Spain has blocked the progress of a number of significant EU measures on the grounds that they have included Gibraltar, as they wish to deny Gibraltarians EU rights. For example Hague Convention 1996

Speaking in the House of Commons about its non ratification, Sir John Stanley said:

“ Why has the 1996 Hague convention, a vital convention for the protection of children, not been ratified so far by the EU? The answer is one word, and that word, extraordinarily and reprehensibly, is Gibraltar. It is because the British Government and the Spanish Government are unable to agree on how the 1996 convention should be operated within Gibraltar that children throughout the world are being denied the crucial protection and fundamental rights that they would otherwise have under the 1996 Hague convention. It is because of the dispute over Gibraltar and how the convention should be operated in Gibraltar that, although the Hague convention came into force in January 2002, now—four and a half years later—we still have no EU ratification. ”

Denying the existence of Gibraltarians as a distinct people on the internet is what I mean by the term cybergenocide it is real, it is nasty, and I hope it will not be be allowed on Wikipedia.

Although it remains policy of successive Spanish Governments, I am not claiming it is necessarily that of the cabal of Spanish editors on wikipedia, however they are influenced by their Government's propaganda.

Certainly grinding down and eliminating dissenting editors who prefer to see the truth rather than propaganda, like myself and Justin is on the agenda. --Gibnews (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

William Alberto Davies

Hi Gibnews. This article has been listed for deletion as a hoax. I for one have never heard of him, have you? It has a page in Jackson's book as a reference, but I've just checked and there's nothing there nor in the index... --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked and there's nothing in Dr Garcia's book either. RedCoat10 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not that well informed on the early years of the AACR the name does not sound familiar to me at all. As there are no references, it should be deleted. Minister for Transport sounds nonsense and it was not the HoA then it was LegCo. 1st april is suspicious and there is a shortage of anyone called Davies in the rosia area in the 1975 telephone book, which is the earliest I have.

No mention in Garcia's book so inclined to believe its a well thought out hoax. --Gibnews (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Great work, thanks guys! --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your editions in Communications in Gibraltar

Gibnews, most of the figures in the article dates back to 2006. A lot of time has passed and they are obviously outdated. That's the obvious meaning of the template. Instead of removing it you could try to update the figures.

On the other hand, it seems as if you've not learnt anything from the recent arbitration case. Per WP:BRD you're supposed to explain why you remove El Faro de Gibraltar instead of simply reverting. I guess you have a reason but unless stated your edition is faulty (not to talk about you lack of edition summary). --Ecemaml (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is not out of date, because little has changed, however as you reqested an update I did one removing references to Vox and el faro as they no longer exist and mentioning the 3G network etc. So whats the problem? Its now current.--Gibnews (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

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

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment

1. Noted

2. Given the bias shown to foreign editors promoting a fictitious view of Gibraltar, a subject I have first hand knowledge about, I no longer consider Wikipedia a reliable or worthwhile source of information.

3. I note that there were submissions made to the arbitrators concerning myself which I have not seen. and consider it would have been courtesy to copy these to me on email and allow me the right of reply. This was requested but never happened. --Gibnews (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)