Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence

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/w/index.php?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.

Evidence presented by Ecemaml[edit]

First assertion[edit]

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:

12:22, 25 November 2005, [2]
19:58, 26 November 2005, [3]
10:53, 28 November 2005, [4]
16:16, 1 December 2005, [5]
12:32, 2 December 2005, [6] (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 of his removal 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 [7]
16:24, 4 December 2005, [8] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.226.198 (see contributions)
16:53, 5 December 2005, [9]
18:02, 5 December 2005, [10] (with the usual amount of insults: No specific facts have been disputed. A single troll causing trouble does not constitute a "dispute")
08:25, 6 December 2005, [11] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.231.78)
10:26, 6 December 2005, [12] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.228.25)
17:32, 6 December 2005, [13]
18:03, 6 December 2005, [14]
08:31, 7 December 2005, [15]
09:50, 7 December 2005, [16]
09:30, 8 December 2005, [17]. This one has reverted also information from other wikipedians and come immediately after that Woohookitty urged him to give evidences in this arbitration case [18]
10:16, 9 December 2005, [19]. This one was especially interesting since, apart from removing the template, the list of Spanish sources used in the article was removed.
12:56, 9 December 2005, [20]
15:21, 11 December 2005, [21] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.227.120)
19:52, 11 December 2005, [22] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.226.165)
22:25, 11 December 2005, [23] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.226.135)
08:41, 13 December 2005, [24] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.228.42)
11:56, 13 December 2005, [25] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.54)
19:18, 13 December 2005, [26] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.226.114)
09:00, 14 December 2005, [27] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.91)
10:39, 14 December 2005, [28] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.189)
12:47, 14 December 2005, [29] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.231.36)
09:23, 15 December 2005, [30] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.132)
10:07, 15 December 2005, [31] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.184)
11:12, 15 December 2005, [32] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.184)
22:12, 15 December 2005, [33] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.228.159)
10:01, 16 December 2005, [34] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.97)
12:22, 16 December 2005, [35] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.228.178, with the summary Removed Ecemaml's vandalism)
21:33, 18 December 2005, [36] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.168 - this comes shortly after protection was removed)
09:45, 19 December 2005, [37] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.167)
12:43, 19 December 2005, [38] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.167)
11:06, 20 December 2005, [39] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.249)
11:08, 20 December 2005, [40] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.249)
09:59, 21 December 2005, [41] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.165)
12:46, 21 December 2005, [42] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.165)
12:51, 21 December 2005, [43] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.165)
12:55, 21 December 2005, [44] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.165)
16:49, 21 December 2005, [45] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.227.180)
17:30, 21 December 2005, [46] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.227.180, with the summary Removed Ecemaml trolls edits)
17:36, 21 December 2005, [47] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.227.180, with the summary No room for Ecemaml's racism)

He's done the same with Disputed status of Gibraltar, beginning one day after the protection was removed:

12:34, 2 December 2005, [48] (this time also anonymously, as 212.120.229.182)

And also afterwards:

16:25, 4 December 2005, [49] (anonymously, as 212.120.226.198)
16:56, 5 December 2005, [50]
18:03, 5 December 2005, [51]
08:27, 6 December 2005, [52] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.231.78)
10:27, 6 December 2005, [53] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.228.25)
17:32, 6 December 2005, [54]
18:03, 6 December 2005, [55]
08:31, 7 December 2005, [56]
09:51, 7 December 2005, [57]
09:30, 8 December 2005, [58]. This one immediately after that Woohookitty urged him to give evidences in this arbitration case [59]
10:16, 9 December 2005, [60]
12:57, 9 December 2005, [61]
15:21, 11 December 2005, [62] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.227.120)
19:52, 11 December 2005, [63] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.226.165)
21:04, 11 December 2005, [64] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.226.135)
22:25, 11 December 2005, [65] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.226.135)
08:44, 12 December 2005, [66] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.231.152)
21:35, 18 December 2005, [67] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.168 - this comes shortly after protection was removed)
09:46, 19 December 2005, [68] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.167)
12:44, 19 December 2005, [69] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.167)
11:06, 20 December 2005, [70] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.249)
11:07, 20 December 2005, [71] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.249)
11:08, 20 December 2005, [72] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.230.249)
10:00, 21 December 2005, [73] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.165)
12:51, 21 December 2005, [74] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.229.165)
16:53, 21 December 2005, [75] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.227.180)
17:30, 21 December 2005, [76] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.227.180, with the summary Removed Ecemaml troll's edits)
17:35, 21 December 2005, [77] (this time anonymously, as 212.120.227.180, with the summary No room for your racist views Ecemaml)

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.

Second assertion[edit]

Gibraltarian makes personal attacks. It's his usual way of behaving:

The history of History of Gibraltar is full of insults in the edit summaries:
- a troll causing trouble [80]
- trolls not welcome [81], [82]
- troll edits removed [83]
- troll removal [84]
- No specific facts have been disputed. A single troll causing trouble does not constitute a "dispute" [85]
- The antics of a mischeivous malicious troll (Ecemaml) [86]
- No specific facts have been disputed. A single troll causing trouble does not constitute a "dispute" [87]
- troll input removed [88]
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 [89]
- 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 [90], [91], [92]
- Ban the Ecemaml troll, and problem solved [93]
- 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) [94]
Insulting comments in the Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar/1 such as:
- troll [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]
- liar [101], [102]
- Your behaviour is disgraceful, an affront the the principles of WP and of basic common decency [103]
- bigot [104]
- fascist [105]
- Ecemaml, and his compatriots have been exposed to this Goebbels type "news" for any years, and appear unable to distinguish this from reality. [106]
- His intent is purely malicious [107]
- Your arguments are pure semantics and sophistry, and are mischievous in intent [108]
- your original motive was solely to create discord [109]
- 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? [110]
- calling you a troll is not an insult, it is a staement of fact [111]
- You are an obsessed troll! [112]
- 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. [113]
- You clearly have no concept of neutrality.....merely a warped mind inspired by Franco. [114]
- The only reason you disagree with anything is because you are an obsessed troll, whose sole agenda is causing discord [115]
Others, such as in the article Spain:
- it is not possible to reach agreements with obsessive trolls [116]

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)

Third assertion[edit]

Gibraltarian doesn't seem to understand what NPOV is:

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 [121]
It is indeed possible to word many things in a neutral format, which avoids controversy. [122]
It is perfectly possible (and IMHO) preferable for something to be worded in neutral language, reflecting the facts, but not favouring any opinion. [123]

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).

Fourth assertion[edit]

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 have no need to "justify" anything to an obsessed troll" (label in edition in [124])
"I will NOT spend my days justifying myself to a troll!" in ([125])
Ecemaml, I am not here to jump through hoops for your benefit. Your purpose here is purely to create discord [126]
YOU are the expert on propaganda, you should know. I need no source to show that your "source" collapses at the slightest examination [127]
I will not be jumping through hoops for the benefit of a malicious troll! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM ECEMAML. [128]
I will NOT spend my days justifying myself to a troll! [129]
No specific facts have been disputed. A single troll causing trouble does not constitute a "dispute" (label in edition in [130]

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....

Fifth assertion[edit]

Gibraltarian doesn't want to solve this dispute by any means:

I've provided a step-by-step process to solve the dispute (see [131]). It was, more or less, something like:
- 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.

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]

Evidence presented by Woohookitty[edit]

First assertion[edit]

I'm going to continue the section on No Personal Attacks since even after this opened, Gibraltarian is still engaging in them:

December 3rd

Telling Ecemaml to "get lost"

December 7th

Evidence presented by TML1988[edit]

First assertion[edit]

I don't know what Gibraltarian's motives for his anti-Ecemaml campaign are, but it simply hasn't gotten any better with time:

11:01, 14 December 2005, [136]
12:52, 14 December 2005, [137]
20:00, 17 December 2005, [138]
16:53, 21 December 2005, [139]

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.

Postscript From Gibnews[edit]

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."

1. The Spanish Position

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)[reply]

This is not a forum, Gibnews, but I'd ask you to refrain from using personal attacks when refering to me. "aggressor" or "There may not be trolls but there is something nasty" are not very polite. And the articles are written according to the rules and guidelines of Wipipedia, something that Gibraltarian refuses to understand --Ecemaml 11:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC) PS: and yes, I recognize it. I've prodded him not accepting the violation of the rules (and, come on, telling that bullfighting is the national preoccupation of Spain is a quite coarse prejudice and indeed very funny).[reply]

Nice try, but wrong place to pick a fight. --Gibnews 11:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Gibraltarian[edit]

The reason I have not bothered to "defend" myself on here previously is because Ecemaml is behaving as if he were in a school playground, and I have done nothing requiring defence. Ecemaml is a troll. Simple fact. He has made massively POV edits, with the precise intention of causing masyhem & discord. This is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. The spanish version of WP has been even worse with Ecemaml and others accusing us of being smugglers, crooks, money launderers, and even of ethnic cleansing. From his posts it is clear that he is a product of the Franco schooling, whereby they are taught to hate all things Gibraltarian. He has proven that not only does he have sufficient knowledge to edit a Gibraltar article, but lacks the necessary objectivity to do so.

For sure. You of course have such a objectivity. --Ecemaml 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not edit the article on the history of Timbuktu for one simple reason....I know nothing about it. Similarly I do not edit the article on bullfighting as I detest the "sport" and find it barbaric in the extreme. Therefore I recognise that anything I did post would hardly be NPOV. Ecemaml should adopt the same idea. He knows little of fact about Gibraltar, just regurgitated, fascist inspired, racist propaganda.

I do know a lot of Gibraltar history. From the beginning of your "crusade", I've read three books on that (one Spanish, two British, the ones that I provide as references). That's much more than what you've read up to know (since the only sources you've provided are those of Gibraltarian propaganda; as biased and useless as Spanish one). I'm simply providing facts, backed with proper references and, when including the Spanish POV, it's correctly identified as such. On the other hand, you forget to mention that you simply remove sourced information simply because you don't like it, including your own interpretation on the facts (thats original research) as it were the alleged NPOV. Can you explain this? --Ecemaml 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has engineered this whole issue deliberately, and it is amazing that few of you seem to realise this. He behaves as if the is the arbiter of truth, and only edits approved by him are acceptable. One example of his ridiculous and pedantic behaviour was his insistence on including a tale to the effect that upon capturing Gibraltar in 1704 on behalf on the Archduke Charles of Austria, the British forces threw down the Archduke's flag, replaced it with the British one, and claimed Gibraltar in the name of Queen Anne. I challenged him to source this story correctly, as although it periodically comes to the fore (from mischeivous spanish sources) it has been proven to be total nonsense. After some time he accepted that the story was simply not true....that the British troops who had raised their flag on the New Mole had done so merely to signal their presence to the ships and avoid being shelled by their own side. However he then demanded that the story be left in place........albeit with a small footnote pointing out that it is not true. With this attitude WP would become a total farce........indeed I could write a whole article accusing anyone of anything.......then put a note saying "By the way none of the above is true".

Very funny indeed. You've forgotten to add that such a story has been common knowledge not only in Spanish sources but also in British ones for many centuries (as shown in the article when you don't remove them). I mainly use British sources (those that you remove again and again). And also saying that apart from them, you've removed other information --Ecemaml 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecemaml seems to think that he somehow "owns" the Gibraltar articles, and any deviation from the "Bible according to Ecemaml" is labelled "vandalism". He has done this countless times.......following me around WP reverting almost any edit I make, irrespective of content. He is obssessed with blackening the name of Gibraltar. As long as my posts are accurate and NPOV I have as much right to make them as anyone, and do not require Ecemaml's "approval" to do so. After he has purposely created dispute after dispute.....he should not get upset at being called a troll. If someone doesn't wash for a month he cannot get upset when people call him smelly. Similarly if someone acts like a troll and a racist, talks like a troll and a racist, then he can only expect to be called one.

"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)[reply]

It is NOT vandalism to remove things which are offensive to my compatriots. It is NOT vandalism to correct falsehoods. It is NOT vandalism to neutralise POV edits. It is NOT vandalism to provide alternative arguments. It is NOT vandalism to call a troll a troll.

Frankly I am disgusted with Ecemaml's behaviour and attitude, and that of some others here as well.

I advise you all to do what I shall do............treat Ecemaml with the contempt that he deserves.

Remove my blockage. It is unjust. It is unfair. It is WRONG!

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.

Yes. Take this one. --Ecemaml 09:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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"?

Simply stating that they violate Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing Sources. --Ecemaml 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!

More evidences. It's possible take also this series of editions by the last Gibraltarian sockpuppet (Calpe): [150] In it he:

Removes sourced statements (references are far from being pro-Spanish, as long as both are British sources and one of them comes from a very British Governor of Gibraltar, also a military historian?)

Includes POV analysis (with regard to the demolition of the Spanish forts) when the current version (according to a relevant source) states that there is no record about the issue and many different POVs could be valid (as conclusion I removed all, since all of them could be speculation)

Makes a UN Resolution say something that it doesn't say. He replaces "explicitly accepts the Spanish position on the territorial integrity" with "refers to UN Resolution 1514(XV), which guarantees the right of self-determination of all peoples". Taking into account that said resolution (2353) says that: "Considering that any colonial situation that complete or partially destroys the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the UN, and specifically with paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 1514", it seems strange that he says that "Ecemaml didn't like them no-one has been able to show any of them to be either factually incorrect or POV"

Regards --Ecemaml 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sockpuppet: Tobaila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Diff between his and Calpe/Gibraltarian's edition: here --Ecemaml 16:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

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)[reply]

Gibraltarian has returned[edit]

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)[reply]