Talk:Status of Gibraltar/Archive 3

message: Going to keep it protected for a few days at least. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected again

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi protected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Btw 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Year New Beginning ?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ==LIES==  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Oh I'm not going anywhere. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stuck between a Rock and a hard place ? ;) --Gibnews 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm 

message: 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)
thread_title: That Spanish claim

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gibraltar, the Russian Mafia and money laundering 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grammar? 

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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. 
(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)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: ......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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I've been thinking