Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
Active
 * Blnguyen
 * FloNight
 * Fred Bauder
 * Jdforrester
 * Jpgordon
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Mackensen
 * Matthew Brown (Morven)
 * SimonP
 * UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive
 * Charles Matthews
 * Flcelloguy
 * Neutrality (Ben)
 * Paul August
 * Raul654

Editor comments on the case
As said on the main project page, "non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page", So I guess I am allowed to write here... I'm discovering that this arbitration has included suddenly a section to judge my behavior here in wikipedia as expressed with a "demonstrated a clear unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's conduct policies". The "other side", as a proven complete lack of explanations to support their defence in this arbitration to which they were brought (not me), has decided to derive the discussion against my person. The arbitration is now composed about a 80% of accusations against me, instead than defending their opinion on the related articles. Do admins understand why? I hope it is clear what tactics are these users using.

On the other hand, these users may link to my block log as many times as they wish, but should I remind everybody that every time a criminal fullfills his sentence in real life, he is supposed to have paid his debt to society.

It has been months since my last block, and being a user who is scrutinized in every single word written in wikipedia, I find completely useless to judge me now for my past mistakes.

You are invited to read every single comment made by me since my last block. You won't find any more "mistakes". Some users that are accusing me now, like Dunadan, even expressed new sentiments towards me as "I appreciate your positive attitude in presenting your arguments. I agree with some, not with all, but I do appreciate and thank you for presenting them in a constructive and amicable way. Let me offer you a response" or "Thank you for your comments presented in a constructive way again".

Cheers. --Maurice27 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Petition to Arbitrators
I understand the limitations inherent to this process in terms of the free time you have and the prescribed actions that you can recommend. However, I would ask all arbitrators to please review the evidence provided thoroughly and comprehensively even if that delays your response by another month.

Based on Blnguyen's comments, I am afraid that some of the evidenced have not been reviewed. Evidently, calling someone a "little boy" or perhaps calling the content of an article "stinking bulsh*t", like Maurice27 did, does not merit a permanent blockage, but arbitrators cannot ignore the blatant disrespect, insults, article ownership, and very disruptive behavior, and repeated violations of the rules that can be seen by following the links provided in the Evidence page. In the same way, by reading Blnguyen comments on Obama's nationality, I am also afraid he might have missed some of the important issues raised in the Evidence page. Basically that (1) the very constitution of Spain says that the country is composed of nationalities of which Catalonia is one (i.e. WP:Verifiability); but most importantly, that (2) the edits did not even mentioned the word nationality! Originally, the article read that Gaudi was Catalan. Maurice27 reverted it to say that Gaudi was Spanish, not Catalan (because there is no Catalan "nationality" [passport]) [i.e. John Smith is British not Welsh]; after all Catalan and Spanish are not mutually exclusive [and as such the Obama analogy does not apply]. I do not intend you to rule on content, or to say whether Gaudi is Catalan, Spanish, both or none. I simply want to point out that Maurice27's behavior, as can be seen in his history of contribution and the selected edits listed in the Evidence page, portrays his personal vendetta against Catalan culture and not his concern for national/grammar accuracy as might have been the "exceptional" case -if at all- in that particular edit.

Secondly, I also ask administrators to take affirmative actions -within the prescribed limitations of the process itself- instead of simply "encouraging" users to obey all Wikipedia rules. We encouraged ad nauseum Maurice27 and other users to debate amicably, and to abide by the rules of our community, to no avail. Even after his seventh blockage his attitude is still detrimental to the project to this day (just now he is engaging in an edit war simply because he dislikes the source provided by Benimerin at Valencian Community; on what grounds is he rejecting his source? None except his own opinion). Moreover, Physchim62's misuse of his administrative powers and the lack of affirmative administrative actions to stop him and other disruptive users will only drive good-intentioned users away (like Joanot), who are tired of being insulted and cursed in their face, and of dealing with endless diatribes and continuous reversions of users cannot produce sources to back up their claims, sometimes preposterous claims (like "Catalan, Valencian and bullocks [sic] are dialects of Lemousin [sic])". All users have POVs, but the majority put some effort into debating amicably and providing sources to substantiate their claims. Maurice27 has not.

Thank you in advance, for your response -- the D únadan 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking approximately the same since some days ago. Some of the points which are voted are quite general and evident. And I miss some "real solutions", even if you don't evaluate the content. I was expecting some solutions more in the way as the proposed in the Workshop (this doesen't mean exactly these ones, but something more than "continue discussing politely" (when this solution seems impossible for some user(s)). I also miss at least some recomendation to Maurice27 to avoid putting (or perhaps better removing) some content of his user page which is not apropiate to be there.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

May these two edits by these two users be used as a perfect example of what is happening. They are not interested in improving wikipedia articles', but just to get me banned because I prevent them to freely add their POV to the articles.

- Dunadan, again, argues the Spanish Constitution to explicitly name Catalonia as a nationality. This statement is false, false, false and each and every time, false. He has been proved, argued, explained that the Spanish Constitution does not name any single one of the spanish territorial subdivisions by its name. But even after losing quite some hours of our times to explain it to him, he will keep trying until the other users get banned or blocked as he is trying to do with me right now.

-About Antoni Gaudi being of catalan nationality... Well, may the admins take a fast look at their encyclopedias at home and get the answers by themselves. Gaudi had spanish nationality. When I made the change to get the article right (not even another POV, but the simple truth), I got attacked by the "team of users" to get me blocked. As you may see, everytime one of them "tries" another way to get me blocked, there will always another one of them backing the first one... Always!

-About the Valencian Community matter. It is funny how they defend one of his "team mates" (user:Benimerin is a confessed sockpuppeteer, who is still able to contribute because of every admin is waiting to the arbitration to resolute), as he made a incongruent edit using a source or reference which doesn't even explain the same matter. They didn't take the time to read it. They just accuse me of preventing him to edit. May I indicate that the very same user Xtv (signing above), just before me, did revert another user's edits (because of "vandalism") without even explaining why...

And finally, after having to search around the whole wikipedia to find where these users are accusing me to admins (instead of using the arbitration page), I would like them to explain me what is that "content of his user page which is not apropiate to be there".--Maurice27 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The first to use this discussion page was you Maurice (and you can see it above) and the second one was the socketpuppet Owkdi making some assertions so I don't understand why you complain when other users do the same you did before. --GillesV 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And here comes "team mate #3" backing his team mates.... Just like a clockwork! Gilles, Because I don't understand why Dunadan feels in the need to repeat the very same accusations against me in every single page in finds available. Is there a need to say the same thing in 4 (maybe 2, maybe 7, I lost the count) pages at the same time? And because I don't understand the urge to get me banned at all costs. It only proves my point to the admins... I care about the articles, you all only care about getting rid of opposing users. As simple as that! --Maurice27 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the target of this arbitration is to try to calm down the situation on Catalonia and Valencian Community and other catalan-related articles. As I said in my first statement I thought that at least in the article Catalonia the arbitration was unnecessary because a group of users was trying to buld a new consensus calmly. I would like to remember you that it was user:Physchim62 who opened this arbitration neither Dúnadan, Xtv, Casaforra Joan sense nick or me so it is obvious that the target was not to ban you. If you read the first Physchim62 statement you will see that the target was not to ban you.  In fact the problem is that the arbirtation started with an strange statement and all parties, and some non-parties like me, wanted to clarify their opinion about the situation. In the evidence page seems that some of the analysis about your attitude are quite similar and are supported with lots quotes so why should you condemn that editors? Should the Community hide your editions on catalan-related topics? I don't believe that this is possible after 6 blocks and less without you giving any sign of change and remaining in your particular style.   --GillesV 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop chasing, besieging, intimidating and accusing other users falsely.

It doesn't need more words.

And GuillesV, you have to read your own contributions: "Now that open proxy is blocked for 5 years".

Five days ago.

The Arbcom have all my personal info (IPCONFIG, ROUTER settings, plus the Wikipedia logs, ips). And they know that I'm opened to any question or test. Please, review your words.

--Owdki 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I updated the situation in the evidence page. Welcome again and I'm happy you solved your security problems with your connection. --GillesV 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proof of disruptive content and blatant rejection of reputable primary sources
The above comment only proves that Maurice27 cannot engage in a debate simply because he does not read neither the sources nor the comments of other users, which makes the discussion circular ad infinitum. I am tired of being ludicrously and spuriously accused by him, so I ask arbitrators to please bear with me, as I try to explain to him, for the last time -and for the benefit of all external arbitrators/readers- one of the main points out of which the majority of discussions have revolved regarding Catalonia and Catalan culture. I know you will not rule on content, but I will try to prove that Maurice27 has been proven, argued and explained the political structure of Spain, and that he has been rejecting reputable primary sources with nothing to back him up but his mere demagogy and insults.

First I will cite the Constitution of Spain, Preliminary Title, Section 2: " The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all. [bold mine].

Since devolution in Spain was highly asymmetrical (, Keating, OECD, p.24), it recognized the dichotomy of "historic nationalities" and regions (idem) but granted self-government to both groups, but with varying degrees of autonomy. All are constituted as "autonomous communities" according to the stipulations set forth in the 143 and 144 articles of the Spanish constitution.

The Spanish Parliament described -or rather sanctioned the description of- each autonomous community as either a nationality or a region [or "provinces of historical identity", according to the 143 article stated above] in a set of constitutional or organic laws individually called "Statutes of Autonomy", one per autonomous community, which are each community's basic institutional law. At first, the original 4 "nationalities" were recognized and described as such (Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia and Andalusia) and in time, three additional communities now have the same description. All Statutes of Autonomy are first approved by the local Parliaments and then reviewed, modified and approved by the Spanish National Parliament. In most cases it is also approved by the citizens by referendum. Amongst the sanctioned descriptions we find the following:
 * From the Statute approved for Catalonia: "Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with this Estatut, which is its basic institutional law." [bold mine].
 * From the Statute approved for the Basque Country: "The Basque People or «Euskal-Herria», as an expression of their nationality and in order to accede to self-government, constitute an Autonomous Community within the Spanish State under the name of «Euskadi» or the Basque Country, in accordance with the Constitution and with this Statute, which lays down its basic institutional rules."
 * From the Statute approved for the Galicia: "Galicia, historic nationality, constitutes itself as an autonomous community to accede to its self-government, in accordance with the Constitution of Spain and with this Statute which is its basic institutional law" [bold and translation mine].

The Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, cited above, also included a statement of the Parliaments approval of the word "nation" to describe Catalonia. However, it contextualizes the concept (which it calls "national reality") by claiming that The Spanish Constitution, in its second Article, recognises the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality''" (please follow the link to read the full text of the Preamble).

Note: The term "nationality" in this context does not imply -and has never been intended to imply- the status of statehood, of which a state-citizenship is recognized by the international community, but rather the recognition of "historical identity" or, in Keating's words, "national identity" (in other words, no one has ever claimed that Gaudí was Catalan as a "state-citizenship", he was a Spanish citizen because he was from Catalonia, a constituent "nationality" of the Spanish State).

Please note too that this same term, "nationality" is also applied, in a similar fashion, to the constituent countries of the United Kingdom (Keating, p.25). Britannica also uses the term in the article of Spain to describe the four nationalities of Spain. Most importantly, it is the official, constitutional and/or statutory definition for some of the constituent political entities within Spain (the majority of which have a different native language: Catalan, Euskera or Galician, for example).

What have we claimed?
 * Dúnadan has claimed:
 * The constitution distinguishes between "regions" and "nationalities"... Complying and in accordance with the Constitution, the Statute of Autonomy, states that: "''Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government on 20 May. From which a long discussion ensued about the "constitutional" [i.e. organic law, regardless of name or set of laws] status of Catalonia as a "nationality", and why the article Catalonia should state that "Catalonia as a nationality, constitutes itself as an autonomous community" which is a verbatim definition from the Statute of Autonomy.
 * Addressing Maurice27: You've said it yourself. The constitution accepted (and coined) the term for those regions (you're word, not mine) wishing to make use of it. Well, then the Statue of Autonomy... says that Catalonia is a nationality is in full compliance with articles 2, 137, AND 143 (of the constitution). Therefore, the Statute of Autonomy is valid in using the word "nationality" which the constitution allows for.
 * At RforA: The constitution recognizes ...and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed" Section 2, thus using a middle-ground term "nationalities". This term was later picked up by some of the autonomous communities of Spain in their set of constitutional/organic laws called "Statues of Autonomy" to define themselves, amongst them Catalonia


 * GillesV has claimed:
 * The compromise was to move that declaration of Catalonia as a nation to the preamble of the Statute and leave in the preliminary article the term nationality. The Statute was approved by Catalan and Spanish Parlamients and also by the Catalan citizens in referendum.
 * It is not the Constitution who defines Catalonia as a nationality, the Constitution leaves to the territories of Spain two options: nationality or region. Catalonia in its Statute chooses nationality because as in the preamble explains it is the way to reflect its national reality.
 * Addressing Maurice27, But are you sure that you have read my edition? Obviously,the constitution only gives the option but not defines it all it is the Catalan Statute who states that : Catalonia as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution


 * Joan sense nick claimed:
 * An encyclopedia should not use opinions as definitions... The definition of Catalonia included in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia (as a nationality) was proposed by the Parliament of Catalonia, passed by the Parliament and the Senate of Spain, and approved by the citizens of Catalonia in referendum.

What have the other users claimed -namely Maurice27 and Boynamedsue, with whom Physchim62 agrees and therefore did not include in the set of "culprits"?
 * Maurice27 has claimed:
 * Catalonia is to be described as what it is, an autonomous community. Because if not, people could start to call it whatever they like, "Land of the Catalans, Land of Sardana, Pujolland!, Land that Time Forgot, Landudno!, Land me a Tenner Mate!!, Land me tender Land me sweet, The moon Landings, The Normandy Landings, The Ill-fated Sitges Landings!!! or Hotel Catalonia by the eagles!!!... (Kudos to BNS)" And it is compulsory to use the term described on the constitution, which is Autonomous Community, not what it is described in the statute. [bold mine]
 * Boynamedsue is right, the spa(nish) const(itutuion) should not be used to define catalonia as nationality
 * Wanting to describe Catalonia as a nationality as described by the spanish constitution (which is false) (His logic is as follows: since the constitution only states the dichotomy of "nationalities" and "regions" but does not claims verbatim the particularity of "Catalonia" as a nationality, then Catalonia cannot be a nationality even if the Statute of Autonomy, also approved by the Spanish Parliament, does describe Catalonia as such).


 * Boynamedsue has claimed:
 * We can't have catalonia as a "nationality". "Catalan" may be a nationality, "Catalonia" may be a nation, but a territory can not be a nationality. [bold mine]
 * Are we bound by the Spanish constitution or not? If the Israeli government says that Jerusalem is its capital, do we put "Capital-Jerusalem" or say "claims Jerusalem as its capital". In something like this there is no magic bullet, I would say that the term nationality should appear in the consitutional status section, given it is very ambiguous... [bold mine]
 * The Genenralitat of Catalunya (in the Statute of Autonomy) defines Catalonia as a "nationality" constituted within the unity of the Spanish state". But this is merely the opinion of the Generalitat, it is POV. [bold mine; note: the "Generalitat" is composed by the Catalan Parliament which approved the Statute of Autonomy, which was then reviewed and sanctioned by the Spanish Parliament, and then finally approved by referendum].
 * What I am saying is that to define Catalonia as a "Nationality", one first has to ignore the meaning of that word. If the Spanish constitution said I was a chemical element, with an atomic weight of 73, it would not be true, it would merely mean that I was defined as such in existing legislation. Catalonia can't, logically, be a nationality, so it can't be included without the caveat "The Generalitatat/Spanish government says Catalonia is a nationality". There are many people who believe that this is not the case, conservatives, non-nationalists, centralists and people who own dictionaries. This is why this paragraph belongs in the legal status section, it is the law, but it can't possibly be true. [bold mine].
 * The truth is, nationality in its constitutional use, means precisely nothing. We are all aware that it is there for that precise reason, it is a silly little phrase agreed by a commitee who had guns pointing at them. It was just enough to shut the nationalists up and avoid bloodshed from either party.
 * I know that people here have agreed to this change, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. These feeble and pointless attempts at including the term "nationality" in the opening paragraph are compromising the quality of the article. Bin the legalise and report the facts. Looks like AC, smells like AC, Tastes like AC (with tomato on), is an AC..
 * However, to state "nationality" is an opinion, as is to state "not a nationality". The Spanish constitution states that there are "nationalities" in Spain, but not that Catalonia is one.

And many other examples can be linked of their comments, but these suffice to prove that they reject reliable sources even after we have explained and proved that their opinions, while laudable, should not be included in the article. After all, threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "truth" (or rather what they perceive to be "true") but WP:Verifiability. Even if half of their claims against the use of the term "nationality" were true (but they have failed to present sources to back up their claims), constitutional and statutory primary sources properly cited and given their due weight satisfy all the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Why do they have such an animosity towards Catalan and its status as a "nationality" of Spain?
 * Maurice labels any definition of Catalonia as a nationality, as a "nationalistic" [oftentimes "Catalanistic" or even "imperialistic"] attempt on our part. He says he opposes e all "nationalisms" of any kind [i.e. "regionalisms" of Spain], and anything that portrays Catalan culture instead of Spanish culture (i.e. his stern objection to say that Catalan was the language proper to Catalonia because it "negliged" [sic] the Spanish language)..
 * Boynamedsue declared to have a special interest in escaping from catalunya as soon as feasably possible, as the only thing he fears is a casteller falling on his head. He would appreciate help with logging in to Conservapedia, as in this day and age there are few opportunities to ethically troll..

Finally, I must add that was suspected of being a sock puppet of Maurice27. At first he was blocked for possibly using a proxy. Nonetheless, no IP verification has been made in relation to Maurice27 (just a verification to see if he was indeed using a proxy), and he was unblocked. Owdki claims that the process has proved his innocence. However, administrator Picaroon simply said that an IP check vis-à-vis Maurice27 should be performed by the Arbitration Committee. Given the evidence provided (and just as my IP address and Benimerin's were also checked), I ask ArbCom to verify if Owdki is actually Maurice27 or not.

-- the D únadan 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

>>>

I agree with you, Dúnadan: this checkuser is necessary.

Sorry, I see clearly the more we write, the more we are lost.

--Owdki 09:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True, and if you are not a sock puppet, I apologize sincerely. Please understand that we need to review this cases given the gravity of the situation. My IP was checked and so was Benimerin's. If you are proven not to be a sock puppet, then I apologize for all the misunderstanding and welcome you to Wikipedia. -- the D únadan 14:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A kilometer long explanation by Dunadan perfect to prove my point. The spanish constitution does cite Catalonia as a nationality!. Thanks a lot Dunadan, but we already explained this to you some months ago. --Maurice27 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, a proof that you do not read the comments of other users. If you had read the quoted comments above (dated on 20 May!) it was us who made the distinction between the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy (even if they are both legal binding texts approved both by the Spanish Parliament). You, blatantly rejected, as it can be seen above, the Statute of Autonomy, and BNS even implied that the constitution/statute were biased. You have been insisting that Catalonia should not be described as a "nationality" of Spain -contextualized, of course within the definition of historic identity- based on ludicrous arguments such as the ones I cited above. -- the D únadan 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting primary sources
I'll try to answer in "Grave" tempo far from "Vivacissimos" or silly symphonies.

The argumentum ad hominem (or ex concessis) relating to my newcomer condition or a "possible" extreme technical sockpuppeting with useless checkuser, is just that: argumentum ad hominem used to discredit. The wording, in all cases, reveals that intention. I think it's a clear evidence of bad faith. It could be nice if you give me a chance for a while.

As I said, in order to clearing any doubt, I'm opened to any question or test. I'm waiting for it desperately. That's why I sent all my personal info to the Arbcom. In them I trust, and I'm sure they know the way to eliminate these extreme suspicions.

On the other hand I would like to point here, after these primary sources enunciated by Dúnadan, the same reflexion which I made in the talk page and the same reason that brought me to the talk page from the Catalonia article: some editors are not respecting the objectivity, and as we were discussing, in the same way they would be doing in other wikiprojects.

As Dúnadan shows we have two reputable primary sources: Spanish Constitution and Catalan Statute of Autonomy. The problem resides in the way you're wording. You're interpreting the law while you're creating an essay with one central argument: "Catalonia" is an isolated concept related to "Spain" by law. But this is not true.

We have too another reputable source in the Generalitat de Catalunya, "institutional system around which Catalonia's self-government is politically organised". This institutional system interprets the new Statute of Autonomy in accordance to the Spanish Constitution in this way:


 * "Catalonia is an autonomous community and exercises its self-government in accordance with the Constitution and with the Statute of Autonomy, which is its basic institutional law"

You have showed your interpretation here, but it's your own interpretation, opinion and thesis (without objectivity). If we attend to the official interpretation of the sources, we have no nation, no nationality or similar. Catalonia is an autonomous community. The new Statute doesn't affect to the Catalonia definition used by the "institutional system around which Catalonia's self-government is politically organised". It has not changed. You could find references to nation or nationality in "National Symbols", "History"... But far from the core and the basic definition (and there isn't legal status neither). --Owdki 03:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to discuss content, I wrote the above to prove that we used sources which are blatantly rejected by other users through the use of demagogy (or mere rejection). But if you insist, I have not interpreted anything. I am just citing, verbatim, what the Statute of Autonomy said. The political organization of Catalonia is that of an autonomous community (your link). There is no question about it, and nobody has ever denied it. It is also one of the "nationalities" of Spain, according to the same texts that we are citing verbatim; texts that were approved by the Generalitat de Catalunya (through the Parliament) and by the Spanish Parliament. Why the insistence on eliminating a constitutional and statutory definition? If an "official interpretation" is a citation of the web page of the Generalitat, why not cite the page where the Statute of Autonomy is being quoted verbatim or even, other "official" pages which refer to it as a "country"? Who is actually interpreting? Me, Gilles and Joan sense nick, which simply quote, verbatim, the legal texts approved by the Spanish people (through their representatives in the Spanish Parliament)? I really doubt it. Why should we be selective with the constitutional or statutory laws, to pick the political system but ignore the definition of its identity? Catalonia, administratively is an autonomous community, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that it is also recognized as a "nationality". But we can discuss it at Talk:Catalonia.
 * -- the D únadan 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, Dunadan, are you really believing what you just said? Are you trying to say that you quote "verbatim" both the SC and the SA? --Maurice27 09:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read the above Evidence or are we going to discuss in circles again? Yes, I quoted, above, as you can read for yourself, the SC and the SA. -- the D únadan 16:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Dúnadan, I wasn't discussing contents; I was trying to explain what I see as a systematic information biasing: interpreting sources, biased wording, random application of Wikipedia policies, lack of ethics, lack of coherence... I'm just using the common sense. I know sometimes I can being wrong due my ignorance of policies. But I think most of the policies flows from the common sense. I prefer to continue in your talk page. --Owdki talk 03:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A question
I've found in the "Joan sense nick" talk page (wikiproject in catalan) this comment :

The user Dúnadan salutes "Joan sense nick" with "Hello Xtv!". This could signify that "Xtv" and "Joan sense nick" are the same user, both participants of this Request.

Before ask for a checkuser, I would like to make Dúnadan the following question:


 * Are "Xtv" and "Joan sense nick" the same user?

If the answer is YES, I would like to ask to the Clerks and Arbitrators what repercussion would have it in this Request for arbitration (one user with two accounts giving "evidences", and others knowing this fact). Is it "sockpuppeting"?

Thanks.

--Owdki talk 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Owkdi, if you want add more ""strong and linking evidence"" to your accusation: Dúnadan adressed to Xtv, Joan sense nick  and me   at the same hour and calling all of us Xtv. The message advertises us that Pschy62 opened the arbitration. Don't you feel that probably Dúnadan was making a copy&paste? I hope arbitrators can check that Xtv, Dúnadan, Joan sense nick and me are different users just like Dúnadan and me requested to check that you and Maurice27 are not the same user.--GillesV 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If they were all the same user then he wouldn't have felt the need to leave three messages, would he? Gilles' explanation makes sense. Picaroon (t) 19:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense. The question is answered: sorry for the inconvenience. I hadn't seen the other comments. I beg for excuses, Dúnadan, Xtv and Joan sense nick.

He, he, he... GillesV, cool down brotha. The fact is that I've asked a question. You could say "a clumsy accusation with weakly and unlinked evidences" if I would have named it "Strong evidences to think..." instead "A question". I was waiting for the answer before request a checkuser. I didn't ask for a request directly. Because often (for example, this case), the reality is more simple. Thanks. --Owdki talk 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a mistake of copy/paste, and I am pretty sure that neither user would have any objection if an IP verification is done, since they would have nothing to hide. It amazes me that a new user would spend so much time digging into the history of contributions of other users and finding "evidence" of violations of WP:SOCK, and all topics related to this Request of Arbitration, instead of, well... editing articles. It is also interesting that he hasn't devoted any time to do the same analysis -that would convey some very obvious evidence of misbehavior- of those users he has declared he agrees with, namely Maurice27 and Boynamedsue. -- the D únadan 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you say (what do you suggest under that rhetoric)?


 * I'm here because of you. Why do you become amazed? Those users I has declared I agree with, namely Boynamedsue, Maurice27 and Physchim62 don't need my analysis. All of you have done an exhaustive work (I think disruptive). We'll see in the future how you manage this.


 * And I've read more than your editions. Every day I read the Wikipedia. For example today, Pau Gasol (nationality: Catalan - player of the Spain National Basketball Team... Spain Nation and catalan nationality). Another example, my last reading in the english wikipedia: Jack Kerouac.


 * The answer: the systematic hyperPOV (hyper, because it's extreme and it's transversal and affects others wikiprojects). And making a motto from the Ovidi's quote "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo" to fix the POV. Dripping hollows out rock: the drop of water bores the stone, not its force, but its constancy in falling. Some editors, acting like the drop of water, can bore other editors, disrupting and being a trigger for incivility. --Owdki talk 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Two things:
 * Why do you keep up bringing articles in which I have NOT edited, as if that was my POV? Isn't that evidently ludicrous? What does an article that I have not edited have to do with me? I read Demographics of Argentina and it is quite POV. Does that have anything to do with you?
 * If you claim that our edits [our? really ours?] are disruptive and Maurice27's aren't, then we must have infinitely opposite parameters to measure disruptive behavior. Thankfully, WP:Etiquette, WP:3RR, WP:OWN and WP:UNDUE are a safe parameters -the ones I use- and neither I, nor any of the "culprits" have ever violated a single one of them. That is why we have a clean block log slate. Do you honestly think Maurice27 hasn't either? Do you honestly think they don't "need your analysis" [sic]? I mean, honestly...? It seems that 6 arbitrators agree with me. Besides using the same rhetoric, it is comments like yours which do make me wonder whether there isn't a case of WP:SOCK with any of the three users you agree that must still be reviewed.
 * -- the D únadan 00:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dúnadan, please don't interpret my words.


 * Thing 1. Are you talking about the Jack Kerouac's article? It was just an example about my readings, answering you about "spend so much time digging into the history of contributions of other users... instead of, well... editing articles".
 * Thing 2. I've said what I've said. Nothing more, nothing less. You are adding words to my words. Six Arbitrators agree with you!! Argumentum ad verecundiam. I asked for a checkuser or similar, for me and Maurice27, to clarify it, but I haven't had your luck.


 * --Owdki talk 01:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

btw, I'm not Xtv. All this edit wars and arbitration stuff became more and more boring, guys. --Joan sense nick 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)