Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-12/Gibraltar: The British period

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Gibraltar: The British period
Status	Open
Request date	17:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Justin_A_Kuntz, User:Gibnews, User:Ecemaml, User:Imalbornoz
Mediator(s)	Atama頭
Comment	The parties involved have shown interest in continuing with myself as mediator.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Gibraltar: The British period]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Gibraltar: The British period]]

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Gibraltar#The_British_period

Who is involved?

• User:Justin_A_Kuntz
• User:Gibnews
• User:Ecemaml
• User:Imalbornoz

What is the dispute?

Two users (Ecemaml and Imalbornoz) believe that several facts should be included in the article at the beginning of the British period. We find this inclusion is justified because these facts are sourced and we think they explain why almost all the population of Gibraltar changed in a few days in 1704. These facts are the following:

• English and Dutch sailors and marines committed rapes, lootings and desecrations after the surrender
• Villagers murdered English and Dutchmen in reprisal after the surrender.
• Almost all villagers decided to leave and found the nearby town of San Roque

An edit supported by these two users can be found here.

The opposing view point is that the edit initially proposed simply listed alleged atrocities by the British side, whilst ignoring the atrocities committed by the Spanish side. When a balanced NPOV amendment is added to the article, it becomes unbalanced, focusing in too much detail on one period in the history. It is not proposed that this material is not included, rather the level of detail being added to an overview article (already at a length greater than recommended by guidelines) is not appropriate and unbalances an article intended to provide a brief overview of a number of topics. This material is already included at History of Gibraltar and the level of summary detail in the article at present is appropriate for an article of this nature.

Whilst not really part of the mediation process, I believe it would be healthy for a neutral third party to explain the purpose of the talk page and the need to establish a consensus in the talk page before adding an edit to an article. Further that whilst an edit remains disputed it is unhealthy to edit war to try to force it into an article. Finally, accusing fellow editors of bias and suppressing information is unhealthy, stifles discussion and is counter to the wikipedia way of doing things.

What would you like to change about this?

The discussion should be better structured. For example, helping users to decide what criteria should be used for what is relevant and what is not, then apply those criteria to the section of the article under dispute.

How do you think we can help?

You can help as a third, neutral party structuring the discussion. Also, you cand give your opinion regarding what criteria should be used to decide what detail is relevant or not - not taking sides on the specific content of the article, but on the criteria that should be used in any article (or at least any History section of a main article) in order to decide what type of facts are relevant enough to be included or not.

Mediator notes

I am willing to mediate this dispute. I will be reviewing the history of the events for a while. If everyone is willing to not unilaterally escalate the issue (no RfAR or ANI unless agreed upon in mediation), and to stop editing and listen to what everyone has to say, I think this issue can be defused. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Gibnews unilaterally broke mediation. User:Justin_A_Kuntz has declared no confidence in the process. Without all parties being willing to mediate, the mediation cannot continue, and has stalled out. I suggest that the parties to the dispute consider formal mediation with MedCom, there is little more that MedCab can do. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The above is not an accurate statement, I did not express any problem with the mediation process, I expressed a lack of confidence in the mediation efforts of Irbisgreif. Justin talk 10:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 10:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A note from the new mediator: The mediation is very active, and has been ongoing at Talk:Gibraltar. We've made progress but there are ongoing disputes over details between two groups of editors, and we're working through it. -- Atama頭 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The mediation has closed, with a compromise on wording reached as below:

The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By August 7 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed.

There is still a continuing dispute as to whether the Gibraltar article should mention San Roque as the eventual destination for many of the residents who left Gibraltar following its surrender to the British. There is a deadlock on that point, with one side declaring that it can't be mentioned and another side declaring that it must be. For now the mention is left out, and I've suggested opening an RfC to get some outside opinions. I've pledged to help them set that up. -- Atama頭 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Statement by Gibnews

Contrary to the suggestion by the Spanish editors I actually want LESS in the main article about the circumstances of ending of the Spanish occupation of Gibraltar.

The Gibraltar article is now quite long, and there is an article entitled The History of Gibraltar in which the detail of the capture can be described. I am of the view that the Spanish editors wish to use the detail to suggest that the Spanish population were badly treated, and it is part of Spains territorial claim that the 'real' population of Gibraltar moved to San Roque and that the Gibraltarians are mere colonists with no rights. This is highly offensive. The accounts cited report that there was disorder in the first few days of the surrender, however order was quickly restored and there is no reason to give this or the Spanish inhabitants breaking the terms of their surrender prominence in the main article.

This detail may seem more important to Spanish editors, and other aspects of Gibraltar less so, but the view of Gibraltar in Spain is grossly incorrect and the remedy for that is not bringing bias into the English wikipedia article. --Gibnews (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ecemaml

First of all, I must admit that I have had very bad experiences in Gibraltar-related articles. Since then, I've tried to stick firmly to the wikipedia policies and to what was requested by the administrators I had to deal with.

Having said that, it's common knowledge that Gibraltar-related articles are a field of hot arguments and therefore, the best way to proceed is to stick to policies. With regard to the point we're discussing with, the best way to avoid endless discussions about edit warring and POV-editing is strictly adhere to relevant policies, mainly to WP:SECONDARY. That is, the best way to avoid arguments about undue height to a given set of facts is just going to reliable secondary sources and use them. Regarding the exodus of the Spanish population of what nowadays is Gibraltar, I've provided at least three sources: one by a military historian, former British governor of Gibraltar; other by a British historian, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (usually discredited by Gibraltarian editors, without any relevant secondary source stating the same, see here for instance; I mean, it seems sort of pattern, access to reliable sources is replaced by personal feeling and investigation... just the opposite to wikipedia's principles); and an additional one by a Spanish historian, lecturer in the biggest Spanish university.

As easily shown, Imalbornoz's edition relies in such sources and therefore cannot be seen as POV. The main reason to constantly revert such an edition is not what is stated in secondary sources, but personal interpretation of editors. See here ("Its simply and expression of the Spanish POV that 'we was robbed' rather than accepting a military defeat and the status quo which has prevailed thereafter"), for instance. Again, secondary sources are replaced by personal interpretation, carried out as a result of current political issues. I mean, it's not the role of wikipedia fixing any past or current alleged injustice (otherwise, it would be a usual case of WP:COI). Avoiding the description of a past historical issue just because some part in a conflict think that can be used as an argument in the current dispute goes against the wikipedia policies (it's just as if we write an article on the history of the region of Palestine and avoid to talk about the Naqba, just because it can be used by Hamas to support its terrorist campaign).

On the other hand, constant allusions to moving the info the History of Gibraltar article are contradicted by the presence of petty details such as what is currently in the disputed isthmus, the arrival of the Deutchland ship during the Spanish Civil War, the presence of Wladyslaw Sikorski (important for the history of Poland, but irrelevant for Gibraltar, the "number" of Spanish incursions into British Waters around Gibraltar (mind that stating that they are British waters is just a POV)...

However, what seem more strange is the current version of the article, as constantly pushed by Justin. It's strange just because it's not POV, but simply false. The edition says "In the chaos after the surrender, the behaviour of British sailors (despite the effors of their commanders to maintain order) and a fear of reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch sailors meant that few inhabitants dared to remain". There is no source saying that. However, while accusing Imalbornoz of POV editting, such a false edition is constantly introduced. The summary ("v to version that doesn't have an unnecessary list of atrocities by one side. Noted that editor failed to mention Spanish atrocities") is revealing. It's not the editor the one that should choose what is relevant or not. It's the reliable sources that are being used (and see here that the source that is used is the British one, so it cannot be seen as pro-Spanish)

To sum up, in such difficult articles, it's mandatory to avoid personal feelings and just trusting sources. However, I think that one of the parties does not follow such basic principle. Best regards and sorry for the verbose comment --Ecemaml (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it shows where this is coming from when Ecemaml finds it necessary to state that British Waters around Gibraltar is just a POV. No, its a FACT which arises from United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. --Gibnews (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Justin A Kuntz

The above rather neatly summarises the problem. The editors pushing for this edit refuse to discuss the content, rather they focus on personal attacks and constantly mischaracterise the comments of other editors. My comments bear no relation to the selective quotations summarised above. They can't accept that other editors have relevant comments on content and that simply because a comment can be sourced does not mean that it can receive disproportionate coverage in an article.

Hence, I feel it is necessary to defend myself and attempt to bring to your attention what has happened in the past.

That Gibraltar arguments have resulted in heated exchanges might have something to do with the conduct of the editors choosing to try and introduce a POV agenda into that article. As an example, I would bring to your attention my first interaction with Ecemaml [1]. I give a clear edit summary explaining the reason for my revert of his edit, does he take that comment in good faith? No he does not, he immediately reverts ignoring the comment see [2]. And again [3] and again [4]. Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see [5]. And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see [6]. Further Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, he really should have known better than to edit war over a content dispute. However, I draw your attention to the fact I repeatedly tried to engage the discussion on the talk page first. I'd also draw your attention to comments on the Spanish wikipedia [7] where basically Ecemaml asserts that I cannot be trusted and that I got him blocked on the English wikipedia. Which is interesting, because though I could quite legitimately have reported Ecemaml for a 3RR violation, I deliberately did not do so in the hope of defusing tension; though when I inadvertently stepped over the line (2 reverts one day, 2 the next but within 24 hr) he was off like a shot to report me (completely missing my self-revert in the rush). I also found the accusation of an anti-Spanish bias intensely amusing as I am half-Spanish, clearly there is a certain lack of good faith.

I think it is fair to also suggest that Imalbornoz has approached the article in exactly the same way. In a very short career at wikipedia he has managed to achieve canvassing, forum shopping (at one point raising the same issue on 4 forums), edit warring and exhibiting a tendency to try and own an edit. I have found interacting with him so frustrating that I took a wikibreak to get away from it.

Anticipating that the issue of a recent spat on es.wikipedia may be brought up and in the interest of full disclosure. Yes I messed up, language skills let me down and on the basis of a misunderstanding I stepped way out of line and made several commments that were out of order. I didn't try to excuse my conduct, I apologised unreservedly for it [8], [9].

That discussions on Gibraltar have become heated might have something to do with the repeated accusations of bias, suppressing information or even accusing editors of lying directed at British and Gibraltarian editors. The difference being that those responsible have not acknowledged their behaviour as problematic. There we go. Now having dealt with the issue of user conduct, can we please for once, move away from focusing on personalities and consider the content?

And again as I have repeatedly pointed out to Ecemaml, the edit he claims is unsourced is not. What he means is that the sources do not verbatim state in exactly the same words. However, the comments are a summary of several comments and the text condenses a number of issues; the sources support all the issues raised. Ecemaml claims somewhat disingenuously that WP:V and WP:RS require that sources state verbatim the claims repeated in wikipedia. Its a fallacious argument, we could never construct an article without a copyright violation if we followed sources verbatim. However, each fact in the summary is supported by the sources. Its not a personal interpretation influenced by current events but I would suggest that insisting on a one sided edit that focuses on the excesses of one side, whilst ignoring the excesses of the other is most definitely. Particularly when both sides are reflected in the sources. I have made the same point to Imalbornoz.

As to the comment that the edit is supported by sources therefore it must be POV. That is clearly nonsense. Anyone can create a POV article through selective quotation of sources.

Further neither Gibnews or myself have ever stated the material doesn't belong in an article, rather it belongs in the History of Gibraltar article. Shoe horning disproportionate coverage of one event into a summary article is what is inappropriate per WP:UNDUE. Justin talk 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Imalbornoz

I also have many complaints about other editors' behaviour in the Gibraltar article (believe me). On the other hand, I think this is not the place to express those complaints, but to have a third party help us reach consensus. I would rather focus on the article, its sources and its content.

That being said, I summarise my position in the following points:

• The version proposed by Ecemaml and myself is only 5 words longer than the previous one.
• It adds relevant facts that explain the situation that led to almost all the previous population of Gibraltar leaving their homes after the capture.
• It does not go into more detail on one side than the other: one side raped, looted and desecrated; the other side murdered. Those are facts, and the proposed edit does not go into further detail in one side or the other.
• All of that content is supported by reliable sources.
• The previous version (and the current one supported by Justin and Gibnews) says that the previous population of Gibraltar left "for fear of reprisals", but I have not seen anywhere in those sources (or other sources, for that matter) even an indirect reference that suggests that the previous population of Gibraltar left for that reason. Of course, I may have overlooked something. In that case, Justin or Gibnews can indicate the source that supports this statement and explain why they think it says that villagers left for fear of reprisals.

I suggest again that we do not go into further discussions about behaviour or motivations (I promise will not do it myself) and focus on the article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Several comments.

1) Your final and penultimate paragraphs are incompatible; the penultimate paragraph singles out two editors.

2) Your comments on the paragraph in question are incorrect. See above, the sources already present in the article together with detailed quotes reflect it. It is also supported by all other contributors to the article; those not named in the listing.

3) The proposed version with 5 extra words is not compatible with WP:NPOV, since it selectively uses the sources to dwell on alleged atrocities committed by the Anglo-Dutch forces. Noticeably it also expunges references to alleged atrocities on the Spanish side. When the latter is corrected the change becomes a lot longer than only 5 words.

4) Its unhelpful for mediation if you misrepresent what you are doing, or more importantly what other editors have proposed. Also denying what the sources in the article already support is not productive.

5) I had no intention of raising editor behaviour as an issue, I did not do so when I edited the locii of the dispute above. I limited my request to a neutral third party to explain wiki processes, since whenever I have attempted to do so, you have responded with bad faith accusations against your fellow editors. If you have many complaints about editor behaviour, go ahead and raise them. I really have nothing to fear from you doing so and can clearly demonstrate from the written record that tension has been raised by your unnecessarily combative and aggressive approach; not to mention the frustration of painstakingly explaining something to you only for you to endlessly repeat the same circular argument. I'm happy to focus on content but if you impugn other editors expect them to defend themselves. Justin talk 09:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we really need a mediator. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you expect a mediator to wave a magic wand and separate the sheep from the goats, then you are bound to be disappointed. I suggest you adopt a dialectical aproach rather than ask for some sort of abitration or judgment. Wikipedia works through consensus. RedCoat10 • talk 17:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RedCoat, please rest assured that it's precisely in order to get that dialectical approach functioning why I think that a mediator is badly needed (i.e. to help us structure and maintain a rational discussion).

(Regarding your comment that I might be expecting a metaphorical Harry Potter-turned-mediator to separate metaphorical sheep from metaphorical goats... I must say it’s a bit patronising. Anyway, I must admit that it is quite a powerful post-modern image –mixing web 2.0 with pop-culture characters in pastoral environs. In fact, maybe it could be included in an article called “WP:What MedCab is not”) ;) --Imalbornoz (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In other news, there is a mediator now, and hopefully we can move forward. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)