Talk:Status of Gibraltar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Moving forward

Regardless of the vandalisms by User:Gibraltarian, History of Gibraltar seems to have reached a good shape. I've removed items more related to the disputed status of Gibraltar and show, when necessary, the different interpretations of different events in the history of the territory. Sources have been provided. My suggestion with regard to such article would following the discussion, if necessary, in the relevant talk page (that is, Talk:History of Gibraltar).

The second step would be the disputed status of the isthmus (Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain), following the layout I've proposed below:

1. Description. Which is the territory about which a Spanish claim exists?
2. Current position: UK accept that the sovereignty basis of the isthmus is different from that of the Rock and based on Prescriptive Rights; Spain does not accept such an argument claiming that it never stopped complaining about such "occupation" and has historically distinguished such a claim from that of the rest of Gibraltar; Gibraltarians say that...

(insert) Gibraltar belongs to the Gibraltarians, and that Gibraltar extends from three miles south of the lighthouse to the frontier fence, and everything in between is ours and is staying that way and is no concern of anyone else (/insert) --Gibnews

1. Timeline: significant milestones related to the consolidation of the isthmus as Gibraltar territory (just facts and maps where available, without questioning the justification or not). 1713: the Treaty; 1728: creation of the neutral ground, Peninsular Wars: military encampments in the isthmus; 1815: sanitary encampments in the neutral ground; 1854: new sanitary encampments with erection of a sentry line; 186x: the "sunshades" incident; 1909: the border fence is set up; 1938: construction of the airport; 1942: Spain occupies the part of the neutral ground outside the fence; sixties: Spain includes a separate claim on the isthmus in his conversations with Britain; 198x: the airport agreement...
2. Arguments from each side: those of each side (developping the second item), with supportive documentation when available.

I'm working on them. Spanish position has a lot of supportive information and the official British statement can be got from both the documentation on Overseas Territories or House of Commons reports. I won't work in the Gibraltarian position. I'll left it for them. Discussion on the isthmus should be had in the relevant talk page (Talk:Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain).

Finally, once finished, we'd could return here to provide a history of the Spanish claim and information about all positions. --Ecemaml 13:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml, the ONLY one "vandalising" anything is you. You always dismiss anything which disagrees with "The Gospel according to Ecemaml" as vandalism. If you seriously think that your warped versions of the truth, and your massively POV edits will remain as the "accepted" version you are very much mistaken. There is no place in WP or anywhere else for your racist views. Gibraltarian

Protected again

Going to keep it protected for a few days at least. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi protected

The page is semi protected. It's new. It means that accounts older than 4 days will be able to edit the page, but anons will not, including Gibraltarian's socks. So. Now. You should be able to edit the pages like normal even though it has the protected page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is getting a bit daft, when a racist like Ecemaml can post whatever he likes, but my perfectly valid edits are dismissed as "vandalism" by someone who knows nothing about the issue.--Yanito 10:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what you say. It's how you say it that I care about. I'm not sure what part of "neutral admin" you don't understand. You always make it sound like I'm in cahoots with others here. I am not. I live in Madison, WI, USA. I have no interest in this. Zero. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw

Our old buddy Gibraltarian is literally sending me the same email (with the text of "Unblock me now!") 9 times in a row in succession. If that doesn't define a "troll" nothing does. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually that describes an abusive emailer, not a troll which is something +quite+ different. Heres a link 'Gibraltarian' makes the same error in describing Ecemam1 as a troll, he is not--Gibnews 00:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I like this semi-protection policy—it seems to be doing wonders already, and probably could be applied in the same dispute on the Spanish wikipedia. Anyway, Woohookitty, thanks for your work here; I'm inexperienced with blocking people for offenses greater than simple vandalism, and was a little uncertain in the realm of blocking for more complex policy infringements. I appreciate your taking the time to help keep this situation under control. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on using such semi-protection feature in es:, but it seems that is not activated. I'm investigating, but it's slightly confussing. BTW, do you know of any documentation to activate it? --Ecemaml 07:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would contact User:Brion VIBBER to ask him how it's done. He's a developer. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw 2

I blocked every IP that Gibraltarian could possibly use. We have 0 evidence of anyone else using those IPs. Its for 48 hours. If this clears with no complaints, it might be coming for a week or so. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that a legitimate user, Gibnews also accesses from Gibraltar and therefore could use the same ISP... The blocking could be a problem for him. :-( --Ecemaml 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe he uses the same ISP. If he did, he would've been blocked by the other range blocks I've done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian has said that there's only one ISP in Gibraltar, and that blocking the entire range means blocking an entire country from being able to contribute. I wasn't able to make him understand that he's bringing it on himself, but that's his problem. Anyway, would such a block also block all users using those IP numbers, even though you're not blocking the specific users? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think so. I'm telling that since I've suffered the same problem when an administrator has blocked an IP address from Telefónica (my ISP). The result has been that even accessing as a user, I've been prevented from editing anything. On the other hand, it seems that there are two ISPs in Gibraltar (as Communications in Gibraltar accounts). The block (212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255) nowadays affects the gibnynex network (now Gibconnect). The other ISP (Gibnet) is not affected by the block (195.166.196.0 - 195.166.196.255). --Ecemaml 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, according to RIPE, gibnynex has another IP address range: 195.244.192.0 - 195.244.223.255. --Ecemaml 16:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So far I've gotten 0 complaints. If people are blocked due to this, they will let me know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As you have blocked out 95% of the users in Gibraltar you are unlikely to see complaints from them ! I begin to see why 'Gibraltarian' calls you names Mr (cat scratches).

I have told you on your personal discussion board that the address range you planned to block represents the entire Gibraltar ADSL pool used by the majority of people here INCLUDING me. If you have a dispute with one person, killing everyone is not the way forward.

The other IP block is used by business clients with dedicated expensive lines, like me.

Please remove this block.--Gibnews 17:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You have many misconceptions about this Gibnews. #1, it's not my "personal discussion board". it's email. #2 yes people will complain to me if they are blocked, just like you did. When we block people and others are blocked because of it, they email the admin who did the blocking, just like you did. #3 I'm not the bad guy here. Gibraltarian is. #4 This isn't just "me in a dispute". I've had TML1988, Dmcdevit and others revert him just like I have. Also, I've never really been involved in this article or the other Gibraltar article he has hit. Ecemaml was being attacked by G on a daily basis and I warned G and then eventually blocked him. As I've stated many times, I haven't even read these 2 articles. It's not my job to. My job is to uphold policy and G violated the No Personal Attacks policy again and again. The thing is, we have over 600 admins. If any of them had an issue with my blocks, they could've reversed them. If you look at my talk page or any admin's talk page, you will see that we get yelled at by others for what we do quite often and we're reversed if something is done that is against policy.

Finally, the block has expired already. It was only for 48 hours. I did it as a test. Obviously it failed. Fine. I won't do a range block again. So basically, we're out of options. We can't really semi protect talk pages. It's against the spirit of the semi protection policy. So I guess we're going to be stuck reverting him like we have been. *sigh* Oh well. Sorry if I seem defensive here, Gibnews, but I did nothing wrong. I was actually told by other admins to try a 48 hour range block over 3 weeks ago, but I was holding off. I'm not the bad guy here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it not in the spirit of WP:SPP? I quote, "Semi-protection is only applied if the page in question is facing a serious vandalism problem." There's no mention of talk pages on the policy page. I thought the point was to prevent vandalism, and if it's happening regularly, then we can address it, whether it's here or on the article itself. It's better than having to deal with vandalism constantly. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally, talk pages are not protected or semi protected. It's in the Protection policy and I need to add it to the SP policy. It just isn't done except in extreme circumstances. SP this page will happen if G continues for another few days. So far, the block has expired and he's been quiet. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What seems rather strange is the statement by Gibnews to Woohookitty: If you have a dispute with one person... I've seen Gibnews complaining very fast about the range block (and he's right), but I've not seen a similar complaint to the source of all this mess, Gibraltarian, a person that has proved beyond any doubt that can't work in a place with rules and guidelines such as wikipedia. Maybe if he stopped insulting everyone on a daily basis, understood that the neutral point of view not only allows, but requires, all POVs, and stuck to very clearly defined wikipedia policies such as WP:CITE or Wikipedia:Verifiability, we'd not be in this situation. --Ecemaml 07:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No you won't see any complaints from Gibraltarian as you have succeeded in having his account suspended AND locking out the entire ADSL pool which covers 95% of the users in Gibraltar. You may succeed with the former but the latter is not on.--Gibnews 12:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've talked about "complaints to" and not "from". And yes, Gibraltarian has succeeded in having his account suspended and locking out the entire ADSL. If he hadn't behaved as he's done, no problem would have come out. --Ecemaml 12:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe he learnt his bad manners whilst attempting to remove the defamatory material on the .es pages and adopted abusive tactics as nobody wanted to listen. However, that does not excuse his activity here. 'Gibraltarian' is dead, but there are plenty of Gibraltarians left and it seems locking us all out of this wiki will not be so easy as it was with the Spanish one.--Gibnews 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well

I'm done with the 2 Gibraltar pages. Have fun! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never been to Gibraltar. I barely know where it is. I've never read these articles. I have no Spanish in my blood...none whatsoever. The English I have in my blood is so miniscule it basically isn't there. I've never made a real edit to either Gibraltar article that is part of this dispute. But apparently, I'm racist, a censorer and I'm on a campaign to censor the entire colony of Gibraltar. Yeah. So I'll let you guys have fun with Gibraltarian. Enjoy! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK; Firstly the reference to a warning about the implications of blocking the ADSL pool went to the discussion section on the Woohookitty user page as well as here, thus the reference to personal message board.

I have already offered to resolve any problems with any abusive Gibraltar users at a local level. That offer is real and effective.

The lockout affected all pages, including the complaints section.--Gibnews 12:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New Year New Beginning ?

I see the disputed header has gone, and trust that this is with everyones approval, it was not removed by me.

Well, in fact it was actually removed by you (see here), but I've got no objection (the Spanish position has to be improved and sourced, but that's my task, I'm afraid). --Ecemaml 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to get into an edit war, but although the article about the status of Gibraltar territorial waters is on my website, it is by an authority on the law of the sea. It should not be attributed to the website in the link. The page shows a map from the House of Commons library, which was simply coloured in by me to make it more interesting otherwise no changes and the Spanish position as included in the UN Convention referenced is shown.

If anyone is +really+ interested in territorial waters, there is another 40 pages on it available.

Although the website is billed as 'the Unofficial Homepage' it presents many official documents and that content is clearly labeled.--Gibnews 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just two points to consider. The first one is how to include external links in an article with different POVs. As WP:EL states: On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.. That's is, it's necessary to identify each of them for the reader to know which POV it supports. On the other hand, I mentioned the unofficial homepage because it was the only clue I had. I've got no problem with regard to your last edition, since it states clearly it's a Gibraltar lawyer (BTW, you insist a lot on qualifying things as 'Gibraltar' and not 'Gibraltarian'; is there a reason? I'm not a native speaker and I'm not able to distinguish the nuance between them). --Ecemaml 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, however if you read the link, you will see it does present the topic very fairly and references the official Spanish position, rather than the ill-informed one often heard in discussion forums.

Gibraltarian would describe his personal status, Gibraltar means he is based in the jurisdiction, indeed I know another 'Gibraltar lawyer' who is Irish and lives in Spain.

On the whole, the pages are beginning to look reasonable to me, I await some input from the historical gang as my personal database only covers the events of the last 25 years.

Is there anything which causes you concern currently ?

Minor edit

Someone needs to remove the es: interlangauge link, as that page doesn't seem to exist... 68.39.174.238 16:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Isthmus claim

I removed the line that 'many Gibraltarians feel that spain only claims it because it contains an airport' I think we can all agree they would claim the area if it comprised nothing more than cigarette ends. chewing gum residue and seagull droppings.

Certainly this Gibraltarian thinks that. it adds little to the topic anyway.--Gibnews 09:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you there, while spain does indeed wish to annex the whole of Gibraltar, they only make the Isthmus a seperate issue, subject to a distinct claim as it contains an airport. This is clear from the fact that in the past they made a claim to the whole of Gibraltar, not the itshmus & the rest as seperate issues. If it contained "cigarette ends. chewing gum residue and seagull droppings" they would not give the area the importance they do, and the claim would be part of the main claim, not a distinct one.

The fact is that the titles for the sovereignty on each part are different (the Treaty of Utrecht for one of them, so-called "prescriptive rights" for the other). And while the Spanish claim for the main part of Gibraltar is not based in any legal argument, the claim for the isthmus is. And, yes, you're right: a key element for the survival of the territory and its feasibility as independent country is on a ground over which its legal titles are dubious. So that, it's quite sensible that the alleged owner of the ground complains, especially considering the importance of what has been build in such a terrain. But anyway, my statements add very little to the topic, so that... --Ecemaml 09:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Although everyone focuses on the airport, the isthmus area also includes a large slice of traditional public sector housing, including the Laguna and Glacis estates, the idea that that part of what has traditionally been the territory of Gibraltar could be seperated out and merged with another state is not practical and certainly covered by the UN position on 'territorial integrity'. Apart from the fact that it contains an area suitable for a small airport, its worthless to Spain, however because things are worthless does not stop them being wanted - in this case the wants and needs of the people living there exceed all others.

If you look at the MAE map, there are also other areas not covered by the ToU, including Eastern Beach, the main summer recreational area, which are technically another 'issue of sovereignty'.

However, the present dispute over the airport is one that needs to be resolved as it is creating unpleasent anomalies. See this News story --Gibnews 10:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, possibly if the Gibraltar government stopped blocking the 1987 agreement on the airport... --Ecemaml 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In order to implement the 1987 'airport agreement' the Gibraltar Government need to implement legisalation and doing so would be [somewhat unpopular.]

A thorough look at the issue will show that the area IS indeed covered by Utrecht "together with forts, forticications etc". If spain complied with it's EU obligations that would be a good starting point.

Well, your oppinion is interesting but irrelevant. It only represents you and you doesn't seem to be a reputable lawyer or historian. UK doesn't seem to think that the isthmust is covered by the Treaty of Utrecht. Otherwise, it wouldn't distinguish between the the titles to the isthmus ("Our title to the southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to Spain is based on continuous possession over a long period") and the rest of Gibraltar ("British title to the Rock of Gibraltar is based on Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, signed in 1713"), as you can see in http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/OT13.pdf. But, since you keep on pretending that the source of wikipedia articles should be your refined analysis (i.e. a primary source) and not proper sources (as WP:V and WP:CITE states) we're in the same everlasting discussion. --Ecemaml 14:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a lawyer or a historian, but know both. In the fullness of time the problems of the past can be explained, the present and the future need to be sorted out first.

In the meantime in relation to the status of the Isthmus your attention is politely drawn to [this]--Gibnews 00:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

==LIES==

How interesting! I am the bad guy simply for not allowing a proven racist Ecemaml from posting his propaganda????? I brought NOTHING upon myself, Ecemaml DELIBERATELY created the whole dispute.....he knows this, which is why I called him a troll. He started off in .es, which although better now, has spent much of it's time descibing Gibraltar as a den of smugglers, theives, money launderers etc etc ad nauseum. I will NOT allow Ecemaml, or anyone else to use WP or any other forum for this purpose. Ecemaml is of the opinion that only HE knows the truth about Gibraltar, and anyone who disagrees with him is a vandal. This began on .es, where he and several others abused their positions as Admins, and blocked the WHOLE of Gibraltar from editing. This is unacceptable on ANY branch of WP. WP is a FREE encyclopedia. It is NOT a site for Ecemaml to vent his frustration at his country not being able to annex Gibraltar, or anything else. FREE means that ANYONE can edit with only 2 provisos....they must write fact, and it must be NPOV. Ecemaml has proved repeatedly that he is capable of neither. No doubt this will be deemed a "personal attack". It is not. It is merely a statement of fact. If someone talks and behaves like a racist, then maybe he is, and telling him so is not an attack. Writing the defamatory nosense that has been written by many about Gibraltar IS an attack....and it MUST STOP!

Ecemaml has obsessively followed me around WP automatically reverting most of my posts, for no other reason than they do not agree with the "Gospel according to Ecemaml". ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! He has DELIBERATELY engineered this whole dispute. I do not edit the page on for example the history of Timbuktu. There is a good reaon for this. I know nothing about it. Many of those who edit the Gibraltar articles, both here and .es know nothing about the subject either, but have been fed a diet of hatred of all things Gibraltarian, which was inspired by the Franco regime, and unfortunately is still very much alive in many places.

On the other hand I do not edit the page about bullfighting. There is a good reason for this also. I detest the "sport" and find it barbaric in the extreme. Therefore I know I would not be able to write anything about it that would be NPOV. For the same reasons, people like Ecemaml should stay well away from Gibraltar articles, because he and others clearly lack either the knowledge or objectivity (and in some cases both) to do so effectively.

It would be a sad day for WP for racism to be allowed to roam unchecked. It would be a sad day for WP if only people who had no knowledge on a subject were able to post on it. It was a VERY sad day for WP when over 90% of Gibraltar internet users were unable to correct statements on the Gibraltar article on the whim of Ecemaml who created this dispute precisely for that purpose. Stop thinking of ways to block people and start asking yourselves whether you should be doing so.

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.

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"?

I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!

I AM CERTAINLY NOT THE BAD GUY HERE. I will not be made the scapegoat. Gibraltarian.

Please keep the above post from our "friend". Why? Because it's basically what he is emailing me every single day when he isn't emailing me "UNBLOCK ME NOW!!". Btw Gibraltarian, you are in continual violation of no personal attacks. It's good to keep on here the kind of stuff that he's been sending me, katefan0 and others daily. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

Since his arbitration case went final, we've had nothing from Gibraltarian. Maybe it's time to attempt an unprotection. Thoughts? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be gone this weekend, so if you'd like to wait until the beginning of next week, I'll be around to keep an eye on the article and watch for the need to re-semi-protect it. But I have no objection to removing the protection now; hopefully if it gets out of control someone will notice and re-apply the protection. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. What do you think, Ecemahl? I'm keeping it on my watchlist, so if it does go bad again, I'll see. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Expect things to warm up as the Spanish try and stake a claim to the wreck of HMS Sussex. The importance of the article about Gibraltar's territorial waters will now be seen. Things get dirty when there is big money involved. They have already sent a gunboat but the UK have larger ones. No doubt someone will have a go at revising the text to eliminate Gibraltar waters. Trouble ahoy, arrrr --Gibnews 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the article from my watchlist now, as I only came here to clean up. My changes have stood the test of time so I'll be moving on. With one less set of eyes watching, and with the Sussex affair brewing, you might want to keep semi protection for a while. --kingboyk 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect G is still monitoring this in some way or another - he HAS struck several times this week - on WP:Arb and, according to Ecemaml, on his evidence page (let the ugliness speak for itself - I don't want to get into it because it sinks my mood). I think removing SP will likely cause him to activate again, so let's give it another week (or even months, if necessary) and see if he strikes again. --TML1988 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected it. The thing is, we have about 10 admins (literally) with this on their watch list. If he strikes again, it'll be reprotected faster than you can say "Gibraltarian". I figure it's worth a shot. I am leaving the History of Gibraltar article SP for now pending the results here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping a very close eye on things, and suspect thatGibraltarian does not want to start a fight with me. Whether all the accounts are down to him or there are a number of angry locals is open to debate. Attempts to include Gibraltar into the territory of Spain and allegations that Gibraltarians are drug smuggling money laundering criminals have also declined. The .es version is however, still defamatory, and the Spanish foreign ministy is again telling porkies about Gibraltar so no doubt someone new will attempt to include their nonsense here shortly. Watch this space --Gibnews 11:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm not going anywhere. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Stuck between a Rock and a hard place ? ;) --Gibnews 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Constant vandalising by Gibnews and NPOV tag

Gibnews has been constantly reverting well sourced edits by a number of people to this extremely tendentious page. The section on the economy is a joke! If Gibnews was German instead of from Gibraltar right now he would be denying the holocaust. Neutrality of this article disputed (not just by me). He wont even admit that anyone disagrees with his page by reverting the NPOV tag...--Ismael76 14:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down and get your facts right. Its illegal in Germany to engage in Holocast revisionism, but there are no restrictions on being factual about Gibraltar here.

Those unfamiliar with this argument style should now readThis

If there is something on this page that is incorrect, please discuss it here, otherwise including a 'totally disputed' tag without substantiation is simple vandalism.

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.--Gibnews 19:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I fail to see what is funny about the Economy section. Does the fact that it is factual and NPOV upset you? Would you prefer it to be filled with lies and propaganda? If there is something there that it either incorrect, untrue or POV, then state precisely what it is. And make your sources proper ones. Some Moronic throwback from the fascist era peddling his poison does NOT constitute a "source".

By the way the IMF has recently conducted yet another inspection of the Gibraltar Finance Centre, and although it's report is yet to be published, we are all confident that it will be given a clean bill of health JUST LIKE THEY DID LAST TIME!

Incidentally have you seen the recent corruption/money laundering scandals in spain? -- 212.120.224.209

Note you have replied to something three weeks ago thats dead and things have generally quietened down on the Gibraltar pages, lets keep it that way--Gibnews 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That Spanish claim

72.160.221.245 thinks 'pro-british bias, needs to be balanced!

But declines to introduce any material here in support of an immoral claim. --Gibnews 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is officially disputed!

I am not, repeat am not, gonna be dragged into any sort of debate here. Others are free to respond to me, but I will not respond to them. I have marked this article as disputed, and the tag needs to be left up there for some time and discussed among people of different points of view here in order to reach a more balanced article. I'm not gonna go into everything that's wrong with the article, but the "Both sides' positions" section strikes me as particuarly biased - both in its content and tone. While it's written so as to superficially appear NPOV (using the 3rd person and such), the bias is none the less quite clear.

Only one paragraph is devoted to the Spanish opinion, and it reads like someone's characterization of his opponent's position (probably because that's what it is!). The British/Gibralter-colonist opionion is given four paragraphs and they read like a true believer eloquently arguing for his position (probably because that's what they are!).

At any rate, I've said what I have to say about this, and judging for the talk page, there are others here which share my view on this and can continue an ongoing discussion. I am actively disputing this article's neutrality, so I will revert any removal of the NPOV-tag in the next week unless substantial changes are made. Gibolds 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What you have said does not amount to anything of substance, apart from wanting to label Gibraltarians as 'British colonists' which is both inaccurate and deliberatly insulting. I see you have difficulty in 'assuming good faith'.

The Spanish Claim, has been discussed 'ad nausiam' and unless you have something meaningful to add, please don't waste time and space with threats and insults.--Gibnews 23:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gibolds, you need to make a good faith effort to solve the NPOV problem, either by citing specific examples of things that should be fixed (the one vs. four paragraph thing is a good start, but what exactly should be added?) or making improvements yourself. It's not acceptable to simply say "I dispute the neutrality of this article" and then walk away. Please discuss this and suggest specific changes. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 13:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is totally subjetive. It's a shame! --80.37.139.14 03:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar in 2006 is the result of the work and investment of its people and they and only they have the right to determine its future. At present nobody wants to be part of Spain. That all anyone needs to know about the dispute. --Gibnews

Gibnews: you are wrong there, sorry. I know many a soul that would gladly make a huge sacrifice just to be part of Spain. I volunteer! I do want to be a part of Spain! I love that country! Ask Mario Vargas Llosa why he chose to be a Spanish citizen, for example.

Regards, --AVM 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What Gibraltarians want

There is no evidence that there are any Gibraltarians who want to be part of the Spanish state. If there are they can easily go and live there. The recent referendum did not ask that question.

--Gibnews

Title of this talk page: change proposal

Until a fair percentage of this talk page's useless contents are finally removed, it would be fair to change its name to Talk:Disputed status of User:Gibraltarian. I expected to read a civilized discussion on the background issues behind the dispute between England and Spain, but instead one finds only acrid, pointless disputes between Wikipedians. I fully agree with the comment from an anonymous user above (9 June 2006): It's a shame! --AVM 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The real shame is that Spain persists with a three hundred year old territorial claim with no chance of success, and squanders Spanish taxpayers money on worthless causes, like Spain v United Kingdom (C-145/04) and blocking all EU legislation that mentions Gibraltar.

But I would love to change the title to 'Territorial claim abandoned by a progressive Government'

--Gibnews

AVM, I'm not quite sure what the difference is between talking about Gibraltarian on this page and making a change request that isn't going to get approved. Your statement has as little to do with the disputed status of Gibraltatar as people talking about Gibraltarian. There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking about someone like Gibraltarian on a talk page like this. It's related to the this article because for several months, Gibraltarian terrorized this article. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If any of you are particularly missing user:gibraltarian I would be quite happy to put a letter in the dailies and on Radio Gibraltar asking for people to follow his example, theres a pool of around 4000 ADSL users ...

--Gibnews

That would be very stupid. We do not need more trolling but constructive and collaborative edits instead. Anyone can edit wikipedia but editwarriors on a mission like Gibraltarian set out the wrong example. This is all I have to say. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar, the Russian Mafia and money laundering

The current economy section reads:

Repeated stories in the Spanish media that Gibraltar banks are used for tax evasion and money laundering have been found baseless by an inquiry by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, as Gibraltar complies with all international and EU requirements to prevent such activity.

The Spanish Government has also accused Gibraltarian motorboats of helping in tobacco smuggling. However, there is a law against fast launches, making it illegal to own them locally, or even to bring them into Gibraltar waters.

I have checked Spanish internet-based media and have not found much related to illegal activities in Gibraltar. However, I have checked the english language media and I have found this:

• http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12236
• http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/031117/yukos.html
• http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8338
• http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.culture.baltics/msg04356.html
• http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:xPyhFsPJcgwJ:www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/TJF_2-2_on-screen_edition_2006.pdf+Yukos,+which+belongs+to+the+Gibraltar-.+based+Group+Menatep&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
• http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tdDicZGlPWMJ:www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/staff/acad/12722.dld+Menatep%2BGibraltar%2Blaundering&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19
• http://archive.thisisdorset.net/2004/8/9/64354.html

I am not going to comment but I recommend wikipedians to read these sources one by one. It is clear that the economy section (or crime section) should be modified slightly:-).

In any case, accusations against Gibraltar seem to come from the rest of the world rather than from Spain.

As for Gibraltar's role in the Prestige disaster, (Gibnews frequently uses it as an example of Spanish bias), I have found this article on the Observer

• http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/ethics/story/0,,846687,00.html

--Burgas00 19:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The introductory section

The UN resolutions driven by Spain require a citation, in my opinion. In fact a whole lot of the introduction requires verifiable sources linked from within the text (I see that the References section has two print sources - this is great - but linking them to individual statements would be excellent.) Nach0king 17:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got most of the UN resolutions on www.gibnet.com/texts, if you want to cite them there. Some are quite hard to find as they are long before things internet were commonplace. --Gibnews 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, will take a look at that this evening; thanks! Nach0king 11:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think any of them are appropriate link them in, I don't want to do it incase someone suggests I'm plugging my site, however they are reproduced 'as-is' without comment and the site will be there longterm. --Gibnews

Economy

This is an encyclopedia not a political pamphlet engaged in Spain-bashing. Lets keep it objective and make sure it mirrors the equivalent section in the main article on Gibraltar.

Burgas

Grammar?

In "both sides' positions", the sentence:

The Gibraltar Government has pointed out that since Gibraltar, as a colony, and therefore by definition not an integral part of any other state, Spain's territorial integrity cannot be affected by anything that occurs in Gibraltar, and the decolonisation of Gibraltar cannot affect the territorial integrity of a country of which it does not form part

doesn't scan right to me; should it actually be (the italicised bits):

since Gibraltar is a colony, and therefore

or possibly

since Gibraltar, as a colony, is by definition

? Carre 16:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, I thought talk pages weren't meant to be treated as forums; unfortunately, this (and various other Gib related talk pages) seem like forums, complete with flame wars)

References

Gibnews, the sources that Burgas provided are equally verifiable as yours (and vice versa). Please remember that what counts in wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Wikipedia does *not* do truth. As long as neither of the opinions are put on Wikipedia voice (or given undue weight), this is what really matters. It is up to the readers to make up their minds. I have placed a note on the sources dispute at the administrators' noticeboard, requesting informal mediation. I hope both parties involved will agree to this. If you do not oppose, I will take this to the Mediation Cabal. Best regards, --Asterion^talk 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Having read the article in 'Time' he refers to, it clearly does not support the claims he makes of it, so I simply put in what it does say. Similarly there is no need to transplant a large chunk of material from the economy of Gibraltar article, when a link works better and makes maintenance of the text easier.

There is no desire for another edit war, however there is no reason for propaganda. According to Burgas00 Accusations are not produced out of thin air - we should not be looking at accusations but things that are backed with evidence, or facts as they can be called.

I note he has deleted large chunks of appropriate material with references, and so have reverted and suggested dialogue.

--Gibnews 19:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

User:Burgas00 wants to include the following:

despite the fact that the territory has been linked to a number of corruption and money laundering scandals, most recently regarding the stocks of Yukos/Menatep.[1] Nevertheless, Gibraltar is now complying with all international and EU requirements to prevent such activity.

• This asserts that Gibraltar has been linked to criminal activity.
• The article cited does not say this
• Gibraltar has not suddenly started complying with international requirements, it always has done so, indeed we are used as a model in other jurisdictions.

In an earlier edit he stated:

The reputation of Gibraltar in the 80s and 90s as a financial tax haven associated with international crime have tarnished the image of the colony to this day.

There is no evidence of that, indeed the Foreign Affairs Committee produced an extensive report (114 pages cost 18 pounds) which states:

The use of lurid language by the Spanish authorities to vilify Gibraltar has a long pedigree

They go on to dismiss the accusations of institutional criminality etc.

That these accusations exist is a fact and should be shown, that they are baseless propaganda and not true also needs to be clear.

Read the full report for free on the Internet Here it provides a good introduction to the problem with Spain.

--Gibnews 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Where have you been living over the past 20 years Gibnews? Do you walk around with a plastic bag on your head? You dont know that Gibraltar has laundered the money of practically every transnational criminal organisation in existence throughout the 90s. Its just plain fact. Everyone else seems to know, and it seems its only you who disputes it. It seems you know very little about your financial centre and its past history. Gibraltar is used by the Russian mafia to launder money which then goes straight into the Costa Real estate and thus to London. Very convenient for all of us. --Burgas00 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know as its been done so well that there is no evidence. Its also coincidence that the unfounded reports of this activity come from Spain. No doubt the reason for the Spanish campaign to prevent Gibraltar joining UEFA is connected to money laundering? There is however evidence of endemic corruption in Spain which is why we want nothing to do with the place politically. Again you demonstrate you are more of a victim of this sad conspiracy than the people of Gibraltar. Lets not inflict it on the rest of the world via Wikipedia.

--Gibnews

Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón has run up against the airtight secrecy of authorities in several tax havens, which is frustrating his campaign of investigations into alleged money laundering, tax evasion and embezzlement of funds, and even possible blackmail payments to the illegal Basque organisation ETA.

Garzón has not received solid responses to his formal requests for information from Gibraltar, Cayman Islands, Monaco, Puerto Rico, Liechtenstein, the British isle of Jersey, and the northeastern U.S. state of Delaware, a legal source told IPS.

One tax haven that greatly affects Spain is Gibraltar, a British enclave in Spanish territory. Madrid is calling for sovereignty over the area. The companies based in Gibraltar, home to 28,000 people, are exempt from taxes and the authorities allow account holders to maintain anonymity. These rules explain why there are more than six companies per inhabitant of the island and most, say experts, are registered there only for the purpose of opening bank accounts.

International Press Service, April 2002. Retreived in Global Policy. [2]

(unsigned) 15:11:19 Burgas00

Utter nonsense;

1. We all know Gibraltar is not an Island

2. The majority of Companies registered in Gibraltar are not exempt from tax.

3. The 'six times the number of companies for every Gibraltarian' figure quoted is quite meaningless as company numbers are issued sequentially. Company number one is the Gibraltar Gas Company Limited. It ceased trading years ago.

4. Garzón has not received solid responses to his formal requests for information from Gibraltar - he has never made any; The Spanish do not recognise the competence of Gibraltar authorities and will not communicate.

--Gibnews 19:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking

......Gibraltar was occupied by the Moors from the 8th century until 1462 - almost 700 years. It was then occupied by Spain (as a united country from 1492) from 1462 until 1706 - 242 years. It has been occupied by the United Kingdom (united since 1707) from 1704 and is so today (as of 2006) - 302 years. As it has been occupied by the United Kingdom for a longer period than modern Spanish occupation, surely then Britain has the more advanced claim? --Segafreak2

Well it depends what your definition of Spain is. The modern political entity known as Spain did not exist until 1492, when the Kingdoms of Castille and Aragon were united and the kingdom of Granada was conquered. Nevertheless Gibraltar was part of Muslim Spain (Al Andalus) and of Visigothic Spain (or Hispania) before that. Its native population has always been Hispanic until the British conquest in the 18th century. Your statement is akin to saying that Algiers should remain French because it has been in French hands for longer than it has been in Algerian hands -since the modern political entity of Algeria did not exist until 1964. --Burgas00 23:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let us remember the purpose of this page is to discuss material for inclusion in wikipeadia and not to discuss the merits of any territorial claim. However, currently Gibraltarians occupy the territory - unless anyone is planning genocide - we are here, will remain, and have no interest in being Spanish.

--Gibnews 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Has the Spanish Government made a proposal about what they would propose to do with the native population post their requested hand over of sovereignty? It seems clear that the people do not want to become part of Spain, which would suggest that they would either be subjected to foreign rule against their will, or removed. If they are to be removed, where to? The Gibraltarians are not British colonists (i.e. sent over from Britain to settle) so to remove them to Britain would seem to be done by due to a presumed ethnicity (again, I understand the Gibraltarians to be rather ethnically distinct - mixed British/Spanish/and more(Genoese?))which would be both factually incorrect and, even if they were ethnically British, something akin to ethnic cleansing. Has a proposal been made for a solution?

The Spanish Government is not the least bit concerned about what the Gibraltarians think, they are only interested in the territory. But the good news is whatever they do and whatever they want is quite immaterial to the way things are and will be.

--Gibnews 08:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a hypothetical change in sovereignty would barely affect the residents of Gibraltar. They would keep their British nationality, continue living in Gibraltar and since both countries are in the EU they would have the same rights to live and work in Spain or Britain as any other EU citizen.--Burgas00 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Shops used to display a sign that said Please do not ask for credit as a refusal often offends the same applies to the subject of joint sovereignty, which is something the Gibraltarians have rejected totally. Continually going on about it does no good, its off the menu. --Gibnews

Ok! I was just answering his question... I think ethnic cleansing is also off the menu...--Burgas00 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)