Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia

Statement by Xtv
As an involved part in all those talk pages, I am quite surprised of the selection of the involved parties made by Physchim62. Let me then please take part of this discussion.

First of all, I was astonished to read Physchim62 arguments. It seemed he was talking about other articles, other users...

He starts accusing to act as a group, which is completely false, since we have also different opinions in many aspects as it can be seen in many discussions (here and in the Catalan Wikipedia). However, it is normal that we have a similar opinion relating to evident, trivial, clear facts.

Then he accuses of deleting sentences with reliable sources and adding other sentences without sources. Well, it puzzles me to hear it from somebody who doubts that Catalan and Valencian are the very same language. It's ironic he defends exactly the ones who give wrong sources and attack who defend versions with consensus. Let's remark that 4 administrators of the Catalan Wikipedia have been involved in those discussions, respected in ca-wiki without any significant dispute and with a clean block log. In the other side, there are people as Mountolive, with whom it has been possible to discuss and find a consensus in some quite problematic points as the aforementioned Catalan/Valencian, but some other with a rich block log who unilaterally have modified exactly those consensual points.

This all together with his multiple false accusations of sockpuppetry and his premature block of users (just because someone shares some opinions with a vandal), makes me doubt about his administrator aptitudes.

How can somebody accuse and request a checkuser for a respected user as Dúnadan of culprit and sockpuppetry and forget to mention Maurice27, with 5 blocks for personal attacking, trolling, 3RR, etc. (and continuing even after the last block)? -and this is not a judgment against him, it's just an evidence that the request has been incomplete and POVish.

Therefore, I don't simply ask for an arbitration, but I beg it. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by GillesV
I'm only editing on the Talk page of Catalonia and I don't understand a request including Dúnadan who usually is contributing with sources that are WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV (laws approved by both parlamients of Spain and Catalonia by an ample majority are not NPOV?) and that usually tries to reach a compromise with other editors.

Moreover I look at the page Resolving_disputes and I don't feel that the administrator making this proposal followed that way at least in Catalonia. In Catalonia there has been no mediation and Physchim62 has not contributed in the talk page since 1 of june of 2007 so I think he is ignoring the "First step: Talk to the other parties involved". About the proposal I don't understand why some users are in and others are out: if one includes Dúnadan then it should also include Maurice, BNS, Montoulive, Joan sense nick, Xtv, me, etc etc because the situation is not created only by 3 users.

In fact at Catalonia's talk page I remember a discussion between Dúnadan and me saying that we should reach reach a new consensus because the rough consensus reached by a minor group of users that included Dúnadan,Xtv, me and the same Physchim62   was not agreed by another group of users (I think that Maurice and two anons...)

seeing then a request for an Arbitration for Catalonia by Physchim62 after ignoring that point in the discussion page is confusing me -> after reading that I understand what happened with user:Dúnadan ,seems that users cannot ask to admin Physchim62 what he says that is "his business". --GillesV 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the situation in Valencian Community but if there the situation is different then the proposal should be at least splitted but Physchim62 I think that excluding the opinion (probably backed with sources) of some editors seems not to be the smartest way to include all the points of view. In fact I think it is near to an abuse.

PD:sorry, but seeing Maurice saying : ''I agree with this request. Each change or edit even if proven with legal and/or graphic sources has to be discussed, sometimes even for weeks, on talk-pages. --Maurice27 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)'' is simply awesome :) is this irony? --GillesV 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

PD2:In Catalonia there has been no mediation because some users pronnounced (mainly Maurice in his talk page) that they will not sign it. In case of an arbitration I think that it should include more users and probably exclude the ones who are reasonable and support with sources their opinion.

PD3:I see in the policy that arbitration is the last resort, in Catalonia I feel that we can try a mediation first but I think that during the last days BNS, Dúnadan and me were trying to build a new compromise...and I think it was working.

--GillesV 20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we be expecting a final resolution any time soon?
It's been over a month since this case was first presented and we haven't received any response/resolution whatsoever from administrators. We do need the attention of the administrator since User:Maurice27 (and enough has been said of him and his behavior in the Evidence page) is resorting again to continuous reversions of other users edits offering little to no explanation and willingness to amicably participate in debates  as well as laughing at and using ad hominem arguments against other editors. While premature, the striking similarities between the sarcasm/ad hominem arguments of the "new" User:Owdki with the comments of Maurice27 and possibly User:Boynamedsue might suggest a violation of WP:SOCK. We do need the attention of administrators. -- the D únadan 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The case is in the voting stage; you can see progress at Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Proposed decision. If you believe is a sockpuppet, you can file a requests for checkuser with the evidence you think ties him to another account. Any violations of the three revert rule can go to administrators' noticeboard/3RR, and incivility can go to administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Picaroon (t) 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, from my point of view Owdki probably is a sockpuppet, and in my mind the first to come is Maurice :) Reasons: His style, ad hominem arguments in the first edition and the use of bold text in the same way Maurice does. The problem is that there is no evidence to prove that and that if I was Maurice I would not use the same IP knowing as him that the checkusers exist. Can a user request a checkuser without evidence and only by weak arguments like the ones I presented here? Thanks. --GillesV 03:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm Owdki: I know who I am and now I know who's Dúnadan and GillesV. I hope you get a quick response about me and your requests for checkuser: you'll know that I am me and not Maurice, Sisi or William the Great. Thanks for your words of justice, Picaroon. I'm new here and I'm very scared. This makes think about mafia or cartel inclinations in the Wikipedia. Awesome: work in the back. I arrived here following Maurice27 links. Now I feel harassed by that cartel working in the shadows, to backs: please, how can I act to report this? This is an invitation to the outcome! My God! I'm flipping! Please, help!!! i'm just arrived and I feel now out! What defenselessness, HELP! Argh! If you not think like them you are a sockpuppet dissing "ad hominem" (you like this expression too much). It had been really, really sad to find this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Owdki Making unrelated quotes from philosophers or writers? What's this? PLEASE, HELP. --Owdki 05:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The behavioral pattern and verbosity, open questions and sarcasm are strikingly similar. In any case, is Owdki sure he followed Maurice27's links, or his own links, which he himself found and added to Maurice27's talk page when requesting desperately for help?. His request for an immediate answer (like if we are online precisely when he demands so) and his comments that he is "still waiting" and that I "had plenty of time to give an answer" (less than 12 hours) follow the pattern of Maurice's words before., not to mention the style of using quotes.  If Owdki is not Maurice27, I apologize. Please read WP:SOCK, it will tell you that when somebody accuses you of being a sockpuppet, you shouldn't take it personally; usually your own edits (over the threshold of 100) are solid enough to prove your innocence. If there is no sockpuppetry, and the checkuser proves it,  I apologize to both. But as Maurice27 well knows (and after a spurious filing of sockpuppetry cases against me and others within this Request for Arbitration) this request is necessary, even if I am proven wrong. -- the D únadan  04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong reasons to think that Owdki is behind an open proxy

 * Sorry for my poor english. It seems that Owdki was using the following proxy: 81.36.173.154 . I know it is an open proxy  after requesting a proxy check solved by user:Prodego yesterday. He pointed out that this IP was a proxy server.

Then, why should a good faith user use an open proxy to edit in wikipedia? If he is behind a proxy I think it is obvious that he is a sockpuppet from another experienced user. Seems that Owdki ignored the policy: No_open_proxies and that like Dúnadan suspects he is not a newbie. --GillesV 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can see my request 05:28, 21 ag 2007 here.
 * Now that open proxy is blocked for 5 years.
 * To understand why I think Owdki was using that open proxy see the following links: only anonymous contribution from the open proxy and the first edition of Owdki.

This decision should be made by Arbcom
I did file a request to check Owdki and Maurice27's IP address, but was declined. According to them, since the purported sock puppeteer is involved in this RforA, it must be the ArbCom itself who should check his IP address and confirm if indeed Owdki was his sock puppet or not. . -- the D únadan 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not enough
Once the arbitrators have decided, I'd like to say my opinion: All in all, I already know this post is useless, but I want to say clearly that, in my opinion, Maurice27's blocking for 30 days is not enough, and letting Physchim62 go without him having to respond for his partiality is not fair at all. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 15:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The user Maurice27 has been blocked for 30 days. Taking a look to his numerous previous blocks I disagree: It's not enough. He'll come back enraged and will act as before, disruptively and uncivil, trolling.
 * The admin Physchim62 uses to block whoever he dislikes, as he did with Onofre Bouvila, who is blocked indefinitely. I say that Maurice27's attitude has been longer for time and more severe in his edits.
 * The admin Physchim62 began this ArbCom accusing 3 users (being me one of them). None of them has been punished by the arbitrators in any way, none of his accusations has been been taken into account. Actually, I'd say that the ArbCom was counter-productive for Physchim62 since his protected Maurice27 has been stated to be the only culprit.
 * I strongly disagree that the admin Physchim62 is not somehow punished:
 * The accused (and innocent) users have showed many examples of Physchim62's lenience towards Maurice27.
 * Physchim62 is eager to block following his own POV. Cases such as Joanot/Benimerin (blocked by him and who had to proof his innocence) are only one example. Also, when anybody disputes his decisions (as Dúnadan did) receive a check-user and a climate of undefense from his administrative powers, I'd point at the discussion they two had, it shows clearly Physchim62's abuse of his administrative powers.
 * In last term, Physchim62 opened this ArbCom because he had no excuse to block any of those 3 users and he couldn't make his own POV to prevail. And the accused users have proven that the only bad thing was the attitude of a user who took profit of the sympathy Physchim62 has for his POV, thus acting in ways any of those 3 users would have been blocked many time ago.


 * I completely agree with Casaforra. None of the important issues were resolved: the evident disruption caused by Maurice27 who has been blocked temporarily seven times and Physchim62's misuse of his administrative privileges. Any administrator could have blocked Marucie27 just by reading Talk:Catalonia and Talk:Valencian Community. ArbCom should have done more than what a simple administrator could have done in those cases.
 * Encouraging users to obey the rules is not enough. We encouraged Marucie27 and Boynamedsue ad nauseaum to observe WP:Etiquette, WP:CITE, WP:Verifiability, WP:OWN, WP:3RR and he dismissed all. His blatant rejection of primary reputable sources is an evidence that a simple "encouragement to reach a consensus" is not enough. In fact, both Maurice27 and Boynamedsue's verbally expressed (and verbatim!) their wish to "destroy the consensus" that was agreed not by 3 but by 6 users, and did it with continuous reversions and insults. Lack of affirmative action from administrators will only drive away good-intentioned editors who have behaved well and have contributed positively to this wikipedia, but who are unwilling to deal with disruptive users who insult them anymore. -- the D únadan 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)