Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:56, 12 August 2009

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Gibraltar
Status	New
Request date	15:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Imalbornoz User:Justin_A_Kuntz User:Gibnews User:RedCoat10 User:Gibmetal77 User:Narson User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick User:BritishWatcher User:Pfainuk

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Gibraltar and Talk:Gibraltar

Who is involved?

• User:Imalbornoz
• User:Justin_A_Kuntz
• User:Gibnews
• User:RedCoat10
• User:Gibmetal77
• User:Narson
• User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
• User:BritishWatcher
• User:Pfainuk

What is the dispute?

One party wants to:

a) return the expression in the lead "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory" to its pre-April 5 2009 status "Gibraltar is a British overseas territory" (and keep the governing status for the Politics section, as it was in the previous 7 years).

or b) qualify the "self-governing" expression so that it reflects more literally the official situation (e.g. the position of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs "Gibraltar has almost complete self-government", or of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office "Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government") and include in the lead that Gibraltar is listed in the UN's list of non self-governing territories.

The other party wants to:

keep the expression "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory" and keep any details in the rest of the article and wikilinks.

Some editors are in between the two parties.

What would you like to change about this?

I would like that:

• Disputing editors explain in more detail their arguments at the request of the other party.
• There is a consensus on standards for sources, citations and how to place the evidence from the source in the article so that it is not out of context and cannot be misinterpreted.
• There is an agreement on the text of the lead of the article, according to those standards.

How do you think we can help?

• Help to better structure the discussion.

• Provide a neutral opinion on what standards for cites, sources and their references are if they have to comply with WP's policies and guidelines in the context of the article.

• Provide a neutral opinion on whether some text in the lead can be or cannot be misinterpreted by several types of readers.

• Provide a neutral opinion on whether some text in the lead is superfluous or not, according to WP's policies and guidelines.

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

Discussion

I suggest that any potential mediator takes a look at Talk:Gibraltar and the reams of tendentious edits from the originator. In this case no less than 5 separate editors explained at length the issues to the originator. The originator has moved the goalposts several times first of all claiming that the text was controversial, then it was biased, then it may be misleading. The originator is also misrepresenting the position of other editors (a common feature of the discussions on the talk page); their point is that the lead already indicates the limits on the jurisdication of the Gibraltar Government. Finally, I would also draw the attention to the opinions expressed by the originator off-wiki as they indicate a strong Spanish nationalist POV.

I also suggest they have a look at the fact that the originator of this request is asking the mediation cabal to apply a ruling. Clearly he doesn't understand the process.

To be honest after the frustration of discussions with this editor always return to re-iterating the same point repeatedly, I am disinclined to think that mediation will serve any useful purpose. Justin talk 16:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Imalbornoz clearly has a bee in his bonnet about Gibraltar being self governing; after failing in editing this out of the lead on the Gibraltar page and arguing with Justin he then tried to solicit support for the cause - which some see as the suppression of democracy in Gibraltar by Spain at any cost - and when that and his extended arguments on the talk page did not get any support, its off to the mediation cabel. --Gibnews (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I can't see that mediation can possibly serve any purpose. The discussion appears to have degenerated into a cycle whereby Imalbornoz argues his points and others rebut. Imalbornoz does not rebut the rebuttal, s/he just repeats the points that have just been rebutted. I see very little reason to accept mediation in these circumstances because I do not see any way in which a mediator could improve the situation.

I also think it's clear that Imalbornoz does not actually want mediation: s/he wants a policy ruling, which is something that medcab will not provide. I don't blame him/her for the misunderstanding, but equally I don't see that we need to carry on through mediation because of this misunderstanding. Pfainuk talk 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for any mediation on this matter, plenty of sources have been provided to back up the statement, it also goes against common sense but this one editor refuses to accept clear consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

While I can't say I care too much in this debate (I'm one of those who is between the two positions, in that I can see the virtue in either approach to a degree, so I am happy to flow with consensus), I do not think mediation from the MedCab will be useful because all either side wants is a simple definitive answer. We have editors from both sides (Gibraltan and Spanish) who want their version of The Truth so mediation won't bridge that gulf. This is one of those things that is best left to the article talk and seeing if something appears that everyone likes. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal new cases