Richard Keatinge (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→Arbcom case: new section |
||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
For these considerations I have to thank my fiancée, who is doing a PhD on the presentation of embarrassing episodes in history, starting with the British [[Atlantic slave trade]]. We've had some interesting discussions! [[User:Richard Keatinge|Richard Keatinge]] ([[User talk:Richard Keatinge|talk]]) 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) |
For these considerations I have to thank my fiancée, who is doing a PhD on the presentation of embarrassing episodes in history, starting with the British [[Atlantic slave trade]]. We've had some interesting discussions! [[User:Richard Keatinge|Richard Keatinge]] ([[User talk:Richard Keatinge|talk]]) 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Arbcom case == |
|||
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gibraltar]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration]]; |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]]. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:34, 5 March 2010
Please do not edit archive contents |
No Troll feeding! |
Messages from users considered inappropriate or time wasting will be deleted. Life is short and there are other things to do than argue pointlessly. |
WP:ANI
Someone has posted about your actions at ANI The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Before you remove this as harassment, know that I had come here as well to let you know, but RHPF beat me to it. That was just a courtesy note, he didn't create the ANI report and hasn't commented at it (as of yet). -- Atama頭 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Gibnet.com
Gibnews, I have warned you that inclusions needed to be discussed, especially when they get removed per a (a.o.) WP:RSN discussion (here). You however insert the link again here. I again, strongly suggest you to discuss additions, and especially re-additions (and to check if your additions are actually re-additions). You know that there were several editors agreeing it was not a reliable source. Also, the document you are linking to is not an original, but seems to be a scan of a document. I'd like you to be careful with such additions, and to carefully take into account to link to the original, or to just name the document and not link to it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware the document is not available anywhere else, and as you say it is a scan of an original official document that was issued to me. I'd be very happy if someone could find an alternative but I think its important that there is some reference to support what was a major change in relations between Spain and Gibraltar.
- However, if you are referring to an IP editor that ain't me, it could be anyone, including someone who wants to get me banned. --Gibnews (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I did make a mistake, the IP added a scanned document, which is not original, you added a text-document which was not original. I am sorry for the confusion, but well, in the end, they are only copies. And no, both are available elsewhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- If both are available elsewhere, then it would be nice if the editor removing the existing link replaced it with one that pointed to the document. A quick search does not find a copy of the cordoba agreement. Putting original documents online is rather hard as they are paper :) However the electronic versions have the same legal status. --Gibnews (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that an original source would be better and a good secondary source even better, and that the typing of an editor who has a strong point of view is not as reliable a source as I would like. (Gibnews, how happy would you feel about relying on a text transmitted only by a Spanish nationalist?) But, rather than remove the reference, I'd prefer to see it tagged. A quick Google does indeed find no independent text of the document which Gibnews has kindly transcribed. Within limits, and until something better can be found or someone complains that it isn't actually right, it has its uses. Dirk, could you give us the reference you have found? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, if the editor could not find it. But if the documents are not the original, and if the source they are now sourced from is not reliable (as asserted), then the sources should be removed (maybe in combination with the information), as leaving these references there gives a feeling of reliability which is not there.
- Regarding http://www.gibnet.com/texts/trip_1.htm, that document is available from e.g. liberal.gi (liberal party), gbc.gi (a newspaper), gibraltarinformation.com, gibraltar.gi (official gibraltar website??), panorama.gi (another newspaper), gibfocus.gi (site now for sale). Please discuss the sources and their appropriateness on the talkpages, I'd go for either the liberal party, and/or for one of the newspapers, seems more reliable then this site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- See for examples: this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- But wait, the reference is to the Cordoba Agreement, what Panorama shows is the last trilateral meeting which is different. The coverage by GBC is incomplete and their website (like the liberals) only recently has documents. The Liberals have re-typed the documents I scanned, but seem to be the ONLY other site with decent content. Perhaps someone might like to compare the ones on Gibnet.com to see if they have been altered in any way. --Gibnews (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care to spend time on the comparison, because I trust you to have reported them correctly. That isn't quite the point; we need, as a general rule and as enshrined in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to avoid being in a position where we trust certain types of source. As I say, you might not want to trust a version reported only by someone with strong views that disagree with yours. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I take the point, but the documents section of gibnet.com does not have 'strong views' on any subject. Its a collection of original documents. The website presents them in a neutral manner carefully labelled as to their origin, with comment labelled as such and documents identified as to their source. Some of them are hard/impossible to find elsewhere although people are getting better at Internet publishing, that site has the advantage its been running for 15 years and is stable. GBC recently revised their website as did the liberal party and voided any old links. We also recently saw an example that an organisation was willing to allow its material to be published on Gibnet, but had reservations about the licence terms for Wikipedia. On the talk Gibraltar page someone cited PWC as a reliable source, and what they had on their site was utter nonsense. If anyone compares the documents on Gibnet.com to others on the net if there are any differences, I'd be interested to hear.
- I thought I saw about 40 hits, I only did a quick scan of some of them. I still think that the talkpage is the best place to discuss it all, and to see which one is deemed the best; I am not a specialist in this issue, people on the respective talkpages may be. I would see if you can get to a consensus, maybe 2-3 different sources together are the best (though I don't expect any of them (except maybe for a typo left or right) to be different). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Break
Gibnews, I think it is clear from my previous posts that I declined blacklisting (until now) on the basis of the absence of widescale uncontrollable abuse (and I think that that is still the case). I do however see the problems with reliability of the site. I also do note that you are affiliated with the site, which would give you, to a certain extend, a conflict of interest. Now that guideline does not forbid you to edit, it does however suggest to take extreme care. That is why I strictly ask you to not re-insert references to your site yourself, and to do a bit of checking before including references to your site (I am worried that I so easily find several hits with Google regarding the only two documents I checked ...). Please err on the save side, and discuss, even if your doubt is minimal. The area you are editing in is often disputed, there is even a history of POV sock-editors, etc. etc. Discuss things on the talkpage, choose the best references when editing directly (and when that is on gibnet.com, explain that choice when you use it, or discuss it first anyway), I don't like pre-emptive blacklisting of sites which may be of interest (and force discussion through blacklisting), but, as an other editor once said it, sometimes a mosquito net is more effective than swatting the mosquito's. And I do see that other regulars do feel it may be appropriate to blacklist. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, were you to look at my editing history of late you might find I have been trying to use other sources since another editor complained about me citing Government press releases on gibnews.net rather than the Government site. The problem is that gibnet.com has the best collection of documents. However rather than enter into long discussions and be accused of all sorts of things, I may have a word with the owners of the site and suggest locking out incoming links from wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And why would you do that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Ownership of gibnews.com
Hi Gibnews, I've been off for some weeks (paternity leave, you know :-)). I haven't taken part in the discussions on your sites, but after a quick reading I feel very surprised about your "loose" affiliation with both gibnews.com and gibnews.net. With regard to the first one, I can remember that you are the owner of the site (see here and here). Obviously your conflict of interest is clear. Just for the sake of clarity. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I note that you found the material on gibnet.com worthwhile enough to copy and paste onto wikipedia including a typo. I find the suggestion that both sites are in any way disreputable rather offensive and based on ignorance. Yes I created the code and scripts that manage the sites. The content is from its authors and the suggestion its rubbish imputes them more than me. The suggestion that there is ANY conflict of interest is simply a way of discrediting a useful repository of documents and lists of information.
- The section describing the ten year struggle to get the Eurovote is referenced and the opposition to preventing EU citizens being democratically represented factual, although it should bring shame to the UK for not having done it before it was forced, and even more shame to Spain for its opposition.
- At some point in the future, your children will read the story of how a large nation used all the dirty tricks in the book to disadvantage a group of 30,000 people simply because they did not want to be annexed. Unless you manage to rewrite and cover it up by the sort of tactics I see used on wikipedia.
- But for the moment I have other more pressing concerns.
Sorry, Gibnews, I'm not really interested in your obsessions. They have made us waste huge amounts of effort. I just wanted to highlight that, in the past, you've claimed to be the owner of the site (not the creator or the person in charge of the maintenance). It makes it an unacceptable COI from your side (not the only one, but the most obvious nowadays). Not to talk about your contradictions (sometimes you're the owner, sometimes you're an employee...). --Ecemaml (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I have stated the sites are owned by companies, I am responsible for the HTML and scripts. I am not interested in the Spanish obsession about Gibraltar feel free to waste however much time you have on promoting the cause, but its a non starter.. --Gibnews (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Your evasive tactics seems laughable :-) I'm not really interested in knowing the stakeholders of your company and the way it runs web sites. I've just pointed out that in the past you said you were the owner of gibnews.com and now you deny everything, showing yourself as a low-rank employee. A quick search in google shows that gibnews.com is owned by Interlink Communications Limited (see here) and, at the same time, a guy claims he runs gibnews.com, gibnews.net and maryceleste.net (I won't provide links unless you're intereted in them; I want to keep privacy). What a coincidence!!! (BTW, such a guy seems to be the spokeperson of the VOGG, a "non-political" group according to you). Funny, isn't it? --Ecemaml (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) PS: yes, I've spent a lot of time in promoting the cause. The same cannot be said of you.
- I would like to remind everyone that there is a solution to this problem which does not involve personal sniping. That is, to avoid wherever possible the use of a site of which an involved Wikipedia editor has personal control, where such sites must be used then to use them with great caution per policy and guidelines, and to avoid irrelevant personal comments. This will allow us to get on with useful business. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't think this discussion is achieving much unless its yet another attempt to piss me off.
No, it isn't. It's simply a provision of references on your conflict of interest, not only in the case of the sites you run, but also in the pressure groups you speak for. --Ecemaml (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is bordering on attempts at outing. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. The proper location for discussions of potential conflicts of interest is the Conflicts of interest noticeboard. There has been at least one recent discussion there that concluded that Gibnews posting links to content hosted at Gibnews.net was not in in itself a conflict of interest. Unless you have specific accusations or points of evidence that were not considered in the recent discussion, you should present them there in a neutral non-accusatory manner. The nature of the discussion on this page smells very like harassment. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I really do not care for this, as it has the look and feel of a personal attack. Yes I register websites, I currently own one which is used by the Conservatives in the European Parliament. However the CONTENT on that site is theirs not mine. Similarly with gibnews.net the CONTENT linked to wikipedia is generated by others. --Gibnews (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do not care for this either. Ecemaml, to investigate a possible conflict of interest is reasonable and so is requesting evidence that documents on sites that Gibnews runs are actually faithful to the originals, but "outing" is not acceptable and nor are persistent assumptions of bad faith. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries
You are aware that the /* */ stuff is only for section headers, right? If you want to add to the edit summary you do that after the */. Not in the middle of it which produces a link to a non-existant section on the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is exactly what I'm talking about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
San Roque
On Talk:Gibraltar you suggest: "It was always a matter of trying to push a Spanish POV onto an article about Gibraltar. However since 1704 Gibraltar has not been part of Spain. The article is about Gibraltar and not happenings in a nearby foreign state unless they affect Gibraltar and San Roque does not (apart from the pollution from the CEPSA refinery)." I'd like to reassure you that I at least have no interest in pushing any Spanish claims. If I did, I'd want to avoid mentioning San Roque. The plain fact is that, in the 21st century, any claim based on SR is pathetic and goes against any ideas about self-determination. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your statement fully, however if you read some of the things other editors have said on that page, it includes claims that when the UN discuss decolonisation of Gibraltar the 'people of Gibraltar' are the ones of San Roque !
- Similarly when we held the 2002 referendum, the Spanish said it was unfair because we did not allow the people in San Roque a vote.
- Yes its BS but its also very real. That is why I would rather avoid mentioning the town, which did not exist as such at the time, and simply mention adjoining areas of Spain, which is neutral and accurate.--Gibnews (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your point. I'm very sure that you also appreciate mine and I'm grateful for your reasoned approach. Personally I feel that anyone who bases a modern Spanish claim on San Roque is actually weakening their cause, because it really is obvious rubbish. And - this is a personal feeling - that from that point of view a good encyclopedia article should mention, at least, the agreed fact about SR as a destination. Without that, readers may come to the irredentist argument without any knowledge of the fact, and the argument may seem more valid as a result. With it, irredentism fits into a known picture and we can reasonably hope for sensible readers to slot its claims in where they belong, as a silly idea based on a rather distant event.
For these considerations I have to thank my fiancée, who is doing a PhD on the presentation of embarrassing episodes in history, starting with the British Atlantic slave trade. We've had some interesting discussions! Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom case
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gibraltar and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—