Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.


Note that this arbitration case is about the articles Catalonia and Valencian Community, not just Catalonia. However, including them both in the case name would make it too long.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey, use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Casaforra

First of all I want to complain for being brought to this ArbCom by Physchim62 without being aware of the reasons why. A brief look on the many archived talk pages shall prove that there have been angrier debates than the current ones.

[edit] Casaforra never edited on Catalonia or Talk:Catalonia

I can prove easily that I have never edited on the Catalonia article [2], or on its Talk page [3]. If anybody believes I'm using a sockpuppet or I'm editing anonymously please ask for a check-user, but you won't find me there.

I'm only involved in the Valencian Community article. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On July, 9 Maurice27 accused me of having edited on Catalonia [4] "discussing and arguing for months" in a contradictory way as I demand in Valencian Community. Well, I proved I haven't edited there, so I asked him twice ([5] and the PD in [6]) to recognize his mistake and apologize for using a falsity to counter-attack my proposals. He hasn't yet, I'm still waiting... But in the meanwhile he has edited my talk page 3 times!

[edit] Issues on Valencian Community

There have many polemical issues regarding the Valencian Community article. This is a mirror of real life situation, where two small but active political minorities are fighting a "symbols war" (the "Valencia's battle": Name of the region, Name of the language, and Flag). One side (mainly leftist and demanding self-government) states that, since Valencian is a part of the Catalan language, then stronger relationships should be tied with Catalonia, obviously, this is the "Catalanist side". An opposing side is the "Blaverist", who claim Valencian to be a different language than Catalan, this group is mainly right-winged and pro-Spain. By the way, just in case, the term "Blaver" is not derogative and they themselves use it.

[edit] Valencian flag

The Valencian flag was a part of that Valencia's battle in the 1970s and 1980s, Blaverists wanted the Valencia city's flag to be the proper of the whole region (which has a blue band, hence their name), while Catalanists wanted it to be the Pennon of the Conquest brought by the king James I of Aragon, resulting to be exactly the same than Catalonian and Aragonese flags. After angry debates, the legal flag is the "blavera" one.

In wp:en, the debate is regarding the size: Some people want 2:3 and some others 1:2. This argument is mainly carried by User:Maurice27 and User:Benimerin. At first Benimerin logged in as User:Joanot but he quitted tired of futile and angry arguments with Maurice27, who attacked him personally many times, for which he was blocked [7]. Now they carried the debate to its own new proper article, Flag of Valencia.

As for me, I haven't ever taken part in this debate since I'm not into flags and I couldn't care less (see below, third comment). Psychim62 gives 2 diffs that try to prove I'm into that debate ([8]and [9], unfortunately for his claims none of them regards the flag but the name of the language.

[edit] Name of the language

The name of the language was another of the big issues during the "Valencia's battle". Popularly, the language is called Valencian, the differences with Catalan are noticed, but only a minority (the Blaverists) claim them to be two different languages. Linguists around the world agree that Valencian is a dialect of Catalan and there's no debate about it in the universities [10] [11] [12].

Due to the argument raised here and there, politicians created the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua with a mixture of politicians, linguists and writers chosen by the politicians with the objective of reach a consensual name. This entity is not recognized by any University since its members are elected by their POVs and not academical merits. But even despite this, the AVL agreed not to state the name of the language as "Valencian" but "Catalan/Valencian". And the very same day, on December 22nd 2004, when the AVL was going to make its resolution public the "Conseller" Font de Mora entered into the AVL meeting to force them to throw that paper to the waste The origins and evolution of language secessionism in Valencia, p.43.

This way, when the new Valencian Statute was approved, the Title 1, Article 6, section 2 said:

(into Spanish) 2. El idioma valenciano es el oficial en la Comunitat Valenciana, al igual que lo es el castellano, que es el idioma oficial del Estado. (...)
(own translation) 2. The Valencian language is official in the Comunitat Valenciana, so is Castilian, which is the official language of the [Spanish] State. (...)

This, the political source, and the popular name being Valencian, were the main reasons one side argued when the debate about Valencian/Catalan.

The polemical sentence was this:

"The official languages are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known)".

Some registered and two anons wanted the mention to Catalan to disappear, while others (me among them) thought it was needed so that nobody got misleaded. Finally, this was the consensued version, despite strong opposition of Maurice27, who wanted local dialect names to prevail [13] instead of the name of the whole language, Catalan. With that sentence we got to explain linguistical truths, the popular and the political name (Valencian) regarding ONE OF THE TWO official languages, Catalan.

Now, months later and when nobody else has begun again a war-edit against the polemical "(as Catalan is known)", I'm trying to explain THE OTHER official language, Spanish:

  • 1st proposal:
"The official languages are Castilian (see Names given to the Spanish language) and Valencian (as Catalan is known by its speakers)."

As everybody can realize I don't touch nothing from the previous agreement regarding Catalan/Valencian, I only add info about Spanish: That it's known as Castilian popularly and by the Valencian Statute. Also the use of the term "Castilian" was backed by the Encyclopedia Brittanica: "Castilian, which contains many words of Arabic origin, began as a dialect spoken in northern Spain. It became the language of the court of the kingdoms of Castile and León in the 12th century, and the dominance of Castile within Spain allowed it to become the official language of the state.".

Unfortunately this raised another angry debate (not as hot as the previous ones) where some people refuse to discuss (User:Mountolive [14]) others (User:Boynamedsue) care nothing about laws [15], and User:Maurice27 brings back the old Valencian/Catalan debate [16] after denying the usage of the local name for Spanish (Castilian) [17], just the opposite of what he was claiming for Catalan!

I only wanted both languages to be treated with the same reasonings: As for linguistics they are Catalan and Spanish. As for politics they are Valencian and Castilian. So a new try to reach a consensus:

  • 2nd proposal:
"The official languages are Catalan and Spanish (known popularly and by the Valencian Statute as Valencian and Castilian, respectively)"

Is it a SOAPBOX, as Physchim62 accuses, or is it a try to agree different POVs?

Why the political arguments used to mention "Valencian" are not used with "Castilian"?

Regarding Valencian Mountolive said "It can't get more neutral than this, because that is how the Estatut puts it." [18], and Maurice27 "The valencian statute says "valencian" --> no more arguments" [19]. Ok, The very same Valencian statute in the very same article says "Castilian". No more arguments.

Please, note also, that none of my proposals intend to erase any mention to Spanish (the whole language) as they previously attempted to Catalan (the whole language).

Finally, I'd like to point a suggestion by Mountolive very similar to my actual one:

"The languages spoken are Castilian (as the Statute and Valencian speakers call Spanish) and Valencian (as Catalan is historically known by its speakers in this territory, also institutionalized by the Statute)" [20].

[edit] Physchim62 change of opinions

Physchim62 evolved to warn uncivil users to protect them (as will be explained in the next section), the same way he evolved from the Catalan/Valencian unity to their secessionist POVs:

  • 5 March: "Catalan is also an official language in the autonomous community of Catalonia and (under the name of Valencian) in the Communidad Valenciana." [21]
  • 5 April: "we "must" explain to people that Valencian is actually Catalan" [22]
  • 9 April: Physchim62 changed the lead of the Catalonia article about the Catalan language stating that "Catalan" is the name given to "Valencian" in Catalonia [23]! This way he mirrored the explanation to the nature of the language that was being discussed in the "Valencian Community" article: " Valencian (as Catalan is known...)". It was a private joke for the "other side" that User:Mountolive for the sake of linguistical truth reverted [24] saying "hehehe, that was a good try, but it only goes the other way ;)". Physchim62 kept with this disrupting sentence [25] and was reverted again by User:GillesV [26] saying "(be serious , would you write in Spain: The official language is Spanish (as Argentinian is known in Spain) ?????)". Obviously, Physchim didn't do so. But the sadly point here is that 2 users from the 2 suposedly opposing sides were reverting the Admin who should be putting peace and being neutral.
  • 9 May: Physchim62 proposes a new and unsourced linguistical theory regarding Catalan and Valencian being two different languages [27]. He fails to give the name of any linguist or University supporting his original research, but was backed by Maurice27 [28].

[edit] Maurice27's uncivility and Physchim62's lenience, a history

Actually, it was me who brought Physchim62's attention to the usual behaviour of Maurice27 when I asked for help to an Admin I haven't met before [29]. I didn't know him but I read that he warned another user for uncivility, so I thought he might be able to force Maurice27 to act properly.

At first, Physchim 62 warned him for 3RR [30] [31]. Or, when Maurice27 and Mountolive trolled with their favourite joke (penis [32], [33], [34] and [35]), Physchim62 warned them [36]. And warned once more [37]... and one more [38]... and only one block by him [39]...

Just compare this attitude with the hurry Physchim62 had when blocking two anons and one registered user of a different POV who happened to be innocent of sock-puppetry he qualified as "obvious" and "absolutely blatant" even if "his edits on their own would not justify such a harsh measure" [40]. That is, Physchim62 has acted partially.

In my opinion, the worse fact is that Physchim62 has got personally involved sympathizing or antagonizing depending of the POV of the user. Right now he and Dúnadan have argued too many times to be able to reach any consensus (read carefully the discussion about the blockage of Benimerin, please). Or, regarding to me, he said he would be willing to block me [41] for reversing two anon Blaverist users who were editing the Valencian Community article lead sentence about Valencian/Catalan when this was being discussed on the talk page here my response. Obviously, those two anons weren't blocked by him. Even one of them was blocked User talk:86.129.90.106 for insulting [42] and, after that, he got a friendly civility warning from Psychim62 [43]!

[edit] In reply to Physchim62

  • Physchim62 accuses me of reverting twice regarding the Valencian flag. None of them is right.
  • Physchim62 says I removed the the information that Valencian and Catalan are mutually comprehensible. Yes, I did, but because they are the very same language! Does the American English article states that it's mutually compehensible with the British English?.
  • Physchim62 mentions that I accused him of inventing a cite regarding the Catalan linguist Pompeu Fabra. That's not true at all. I didn't said so, re-read his diff, please: I explained that Fabra belonged to the origins of the Catalan linguistical studies, and at that time (late 19th century and first 20th century) the common opinion was that Catalan (and Valencian) were dialects of Lemousin (an Occitan language dialect). I only added a Post Data pointing at ca:Bernard Weiss, a fictional character used by the Blaverists in the first 1980s to give an authority voice for their ascientifical claims, eventually Dr. Weiss was abandoned when a journalist published that the supposed German linguist didn't exist at all.
  • Physchim62 states that I'm trying to change "Spanish" for "Castilian". That's false again. My actual proposal is this:
"The official languages are Catalan and Spanish (known popularly and by the Valencian Statute as Valencian and Castilian, respectively)"

Where Catalan links to Catalan language, Spanish links to Spanish language, Valencian links to Valencian and Castilian links to Names given to the Spanish language. This way English grammar (Spanish language), linguistic truths (Catalan language) and Spanish laws agree (Valencian and Castilian are the official names in the Spanish constitution and the Valencian Statute).

[edit] In reply to Maurice27

  • Maurice gives a link to my Catalan Userpage claiming that this proves Dúnadan and me were working as a team:
"és normal que Physchim62 no s'hi vulga ficar en tot aixo perquè ja ha mantingut a ratlla Maurice27 durant un temps, l'ha bloquejat, i ha debatut amb ell públicament a les pagines de discussió. Així que qualsevol acció que hi prenga en contra pot ser malentesa com a animadversió personal"

I'll translate it:

"It's not strange that Physchim62 is not in the mood to get involved because he's been standing in front of Maurice27 for some time, has blocked him, and has argued with him publicly at the talk pages. So any action Physchim62 takes against Maurice27 may be misunderstood as a personal attack" (09 April 2007) [44]

Maybe it's time for me to show how Maurice27 accuses of what he actually did in Mountolive's talk page [45]:

"I have finally been uncensored by the "Mighty Force". Fortunetly, I had another trip this week, so it didn't bother much. After reading your present position in the Valencia (autonomous community) talk page, I would like you to send me your e-mail (if willing) to maurice27_wiki (at) hotmail (dot) com. I feel that sometimes it is hard to communicate ideas in the talk pages without disturbing other users and without filling with text these talk pages. I hope this will give us some privacy to use longer paragraphs in our future colaborations improving articles. I would also ask you to erase the mail as soon as possible from first sight to prevent "unwelcome visits" (even if it is obviously not my formal e-mail). Adeu Maurice27 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)"

So, who's been working as a team?

  • Maurice states that I want the "fascists" french and spanish "oppresors" to blame... Well, I haven't used those words, but that's not the first time he lies... Anyway, maybe he is referring to my reply [46] to Maurice27's welcome [47] to the WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_Countries. A unrespectful, disruptive and insulting comment that according to Physchim62 [48] "would certainly have got you a block from many admins."... but not from him...

So, yes, I used once gross words. But that's because I was very angry after his unjustified attack to the brand new wiki-project. What about him? How many times he has insulted? Just check the posts Xtv selected and you'll realize the ratio. Ironically, his was the very first comment on the portal talk page, and I'd bet he is the main collaborator of the articles to Catalonia, its language and cultural area. Don't I have right to be fed-up with his attitude and impunity?

  • I don't believe Maurice27 and Owkdi are the very same user. But I'd like to know if posts like "I agree" or "I disagree" [49] help anyway to improve the content of an article: If they notice any mistake they may provide sources, not personal opinions. Saying that the whole Catalonia article is false because of his own POV [50] and Maurice27 backing him [51] is lacking the respect to the hundreds of users who have been working on the Catalonia article for years. This is not a constructive behaviour at all.

[edit] Assertions

  • That Maurice27 is editing at wp:en because of his Anti-Catalanist political agenda. In my opinion, everybody has its own POV, and Anti-Catalanism (or Blaverism or whatever) is not better or worse than any other. Wikipedia is the proper place for all POVs to be explained, but Maurice27's main worry looks to be to erase any fact related to Catalan culture [52] or language [53], being unable to debate civilly (i.e., User:Xtv's proposal about Antoni Gaudí's nationality [54] and Maurice27's response [55]). Whoever disagrees him is a "xenophobe" [56] or is a threat [57] (which he replies [58])
  • That Maurice27 has the gift of poisoning any talk page he edits:
Casaforra to Maurice27: We all have proved that we can debate with different sources, arguments and reasonings, you haven't. You only disrupt by lying (I never [59] edited in the Catalonia article as you claim [60]), crying aloud [61], laughing at others [62] , trolling [63] or insulting [64]. It's you who, in last term, is causing all this. [65]. If this list is not enough I could easily find many more examples of his usual behaviour.
  • That Maurice27, despite having been blocked several times (two of them indefinitely) hasn't learnt to behave properly and keeps lacking of respect or agreeing to debate and reach a consensus. I'd ask Admins to read how Maurice27 acted in [discussions about the infobox] of Antoni Gaudí: He began "soft" (because he just was forbidden of an indefinite block) but, after being unable to accept several suggestions or giving a himself a new proposal for us to agree, he acted "roughly" again and thus had to be sent to an ANI [66], where he was warned. And so the wheel rolls...
  • That Maurice27 is aware of being pushing to the limits, but counts of impunity from sympathizing admins: Maurice assume he namecalled but he couldn't resist to do so because "it was just too funny" [67]. Wikipedia is not a place to namecall or laugh at, it's an encyclopedia aimed to explain things. And sarcasm contributions as this one by Boynamedsue don't help at all: [68] even if they receive the best qualifications by Maurice27 [69]
  • That Physchim62 has acted partially. The fact that he ONLY listed as involved users in this ArbCom the ones he claims to be the "Catalanist side" [70] doesn't seem to be impartial. Why didn't he list also "the other side"?

When, in the Valencian Community article, I asked the two official languages to be treated fairly [71], Physchim replied disappointingly [72]. That is, when defining a language some reasonings are used, but when defining the other one different reasonings shall be used.

  • That if Physchim62 would have blocked Maurice27 as promptly as he did with others, the debates would have been calmer and we all wouldn't have wasted our time with sterile arguments.
  • That all POVs have to be explained, but respecting laws and scientifical truths (linguistical, in this case).
  • Although not related, I'd like to point, regarding a very different issue (the Template:PD-Australia): That the admin User:Gnangarra said Physchim62 acted with "lack of faith good" and "total disrespect" [73], and the former Arbitrator User:Rebecca said his actions were "incompetent" and "a blatant abuse of admin powers" [74].

[edit] Evidence presented by Dúnadan

[edit] Defense of accusations

Administrator Physchim62 (talk · contribs) opened this RforA making four specific accusations against myself, Casaforra and Toniher. In this first section I will respond to them. I will refer to the articles Catalonia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Valencian Community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) separately.

[edit] Acting as a group

[edit] In Catalonia
  • Casaforra (talk · contribs) hasn't edited at all at Catalonia. He hasn't even commented at its Talk Page
  • Toniher (talk · contribs) has only comented three times at its Talk Page: twice in 2005, one in 2006. None in 2007.
  • From the three "culprits" who purportedly act as a group, only I have edited the article.
  • A consensus regarding the introductory paragraph was agreed upon by GillesV, Joan sense nick, Xtv, Pmmollet and myself. Different users, who disagreed a lot before reaching that particular compromised consensus. This consensus was violently contested by Maurice27 (talk · contribs).

[edit] In Valencian Community
  • Casaforra did participate in the debate at Talk:Valencian Community. Casaforra and me agreed on the nomenclature of Catalan language. Linguistically it is known -especially in English- simply as Catalan, whereas colloquially and politically local dialects are identified, most notably Valencian. Emulating Britannica, and considering that Catalan and Valencian have a single ISO 639-1 code, one ISO 639-2 code and even one ISO 639-3 code (unlike the Abstandsprachen of Norwegian which has two ISO 639-3 codes) and trying to avoid a political useless debate, Casaforra and I, and others, agreed to use the phrase: "The official languages... are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory)". This phrase not only complied with WP:NPOV and was also giving due weight to both names, but also complied with the Valencian Academy of the Language dictamen (translated for you in the Discussion Page of this Project), in that the "cohesive unity" of the language was maintained while the dual nomenclature (i.e. two names) was being reported.
  • The aformenetioned proposal was violently contested by Maurice27 (please refer to Talk:Valencian Community/Archive 5 to read Maurice27 abusive language, use of sarcasm ad hominem attacks and insults). He contested the proposal with two arguments: (1) that it came from a "Catalanistic" (and imperialistic) view or group of users (i.e. ad hominem argument); and (2) he then ludicrously claimed that Valencian and Catalans (and "bullocks" [sic]) were all dialects of Occitan, thus disregarding all linguistic authorities and valid reputable sources by making preposterous claims.
  • In spite of Maurice27 evident disruptive behavior, administrator Physchim62 did not take any serious actions against him, arguably, because he agreed with his POV. Physchim62 resorted to WP:OR by claiming that Valencian and Catalan were two Abstandsprachen,[75] a personal theory without any reputable source to back it up, and contradicting all linguistic authorities.
  • Later on, Casaforra proposed to also use the local name for Spanish, Castilian, in the same phrase. This time I disagreed with his proposal .[76]. As in any debate, sometimes we agree sometimes we disagree. That cannot be classified as "acting as a group".
  • Toniher hasn't commented in the Valencian Community's Talk Page since April 2007. His last comment was (bold mine): "Hi Dúnadan, I've not been contributing in the flag proportions topic, merely because I do not have an opinion by now. There seems to be an anonymous user who is actually disputing it with Maurice27 [77]. As it can be seen the main content dispute was between Maurice27, and an anon (after Joanot had left the debate).
  • The final outcome of this debate was a rough consensus on 11 May 2007[78]. in which edit wars stopped and the phrase was kept, even though no explicit consensus was reached.
  • Assertion: Physhim62 seems to disagree with the implicit consensus (nobody engaged in an edit war since then, even if we didn't like it. This Request for Arbitration was aimed as a venue to reopen a closed debate for which there have been no edit wars in 2 months, since he disagreed with the outcome.

[edit] Rejecting reliable sources

Physchim62 second claim is that our (quoting) "modus operandi is fairly classic in such cases... [We] attempt to revert certain edits which cite reliable sources but which do not conform to [our] point of view. [We] re less than able to provide reliable sources for their assertions".

[edit] In Catalonia: use of the word "nationality"
  • Background: In the 1970s when democracy was restored (and to a certain extend today) there were two extremes in the political spectrum in Spain: those who claimed and advocated for a centralized unitary state divided into homogenous regions and those who advocated for the recognition of the diverse ethno-linguistic composition of the Spanish State conformed by "nations" à la United Kingdom. In 1979 the Spanish Parliament reached a compromise whereby the constitution recognizes the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation... [and] 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.[79].
  • Me, and four other users (none of them were the "culprits") agreed to stick to the constitutional definition of "nationality". It was WP:Verifiable by two primary sources (constitutional laws), and a tertiary source also used it: Britannica. A consensus was reached, and even after Maurice27 vehement opposition to it and lack of Etiquette, some of his concerns were addressed.[80] [81]
  • The opposing party (mainly Maurice27 and Boynamedsue (talk · contribs) at first opposed this consensus, and reverted our edits. They did not provide a single source, but resorted to the use of demagogy (i.e. nationality is a "dubious" word, the constitution is biased, etc.)
  • Assertion: It is not us (the three culprits) but Physchim62 friends who are disregarding reputable sources: a constitution, a Statute of Autonomy and Britannica.

[edit] In Catalonia: the language proper to Catalonia
  • Background: The Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia and the Law of Linguistic Rights both claim (quite logically and very obviously) that Catalan is the native language of Catalonia, or the "language proper to Catalonia" [82], [note: in Spanish the phrase reads as: lengua propia, oftentimes mistranslated as "own language" even though the same meaning is arguably conveyed].
  • Several users and myself (none of the "culprits") included that phrase in the Language section of Catalonia. Even though it is a quite obvious and logical phrase, it is also fully verifiable, and a reference was provided.
  • Maurice27 and Boynamedsue opposed the inclusion of the above phrase claiming that Catalan could not possibly be Catalonia's own/native/proper language [sic] and that whatever the Government of Catalonia approves (i.e. the Statute and the Law of Linguistic Rights) is comparable to the opinion of a "man in a pub",[83] that only linguistics should prove whether Catalan is actually Catalonia's native language or not [mega sic].
  • Assertion: Again, it is not us, but the opposing party (with whom Physchim62 largely agrees) who is rejecting reliable sources. They are less than able to provide reliable sources for their assertions and preposterous claims! It is unacceptable that an administrator makes ludicrous claims against us just to protect his own POV while ignoring the obvious disruptive behavior and disregard of reputable sources of those users he agrees with.

[edit] In Valencian Community

Three issues were discussed here: (1) the Catalan-Valencian issue which I already discussed, (2) the Castilian-Spanish issue which I already discussed and (3) the proportions of the Valencian Community's flag. I will focus on the latter.

  • Until Maurice27 came, the image of the flag was of 1:2 proportions.
  • Maurice27 vehemently -if not violently- presented the 2:3 version as the only valid version backing it up with a "Vexillological website" (à la "Flags of the World").
  • Other users (Joanot and an anon) contested his imposition by providing pictures of 1:2 flags hoisted in several government and historical buildings in Valencia.
  • Maurice27 brought up a legal text that established that municipal flags within the Valencian autonomous community were to have 2:3 proportions (i.e. flags of the third-level administrative divisions of Spain). Note that this document is ambigious -actually silent- when it comes to the flag of the autonomous community itself (i.e. a first-level administrative division, in fact, the flags of autonomous communities could have different proportions).
  • In lack of any other source, and even though I expressed my concerns regarding his interpretation, I accepted the source as valid, and did not continue to debate. That was on 2 May 2007. [84].
  • The debate between the anon (later registered as Benimerin (talk · contribs)) heated up (as well as edit wars). The anon brought more evidence and more pictures to substantiate his claim that the source Maurice27 provided did not apply to the autonomous community but to the municipalities within it. I asked administrator Physchim62 to intervene, by blocking the page to stop edit wars and "force" users to debate. He did not, but several days afterwards, he permanently blocked Benimerin accusing him of being a sock puppet wihout opening a case for him (not even an IP check) nor giving him the chance to defend himself. After being questioned for his actions, he finally requested a check of his IP and he was proven wrong: Benimerin was not a sock puppet, but the damage had been made (more on this below).
  • Given the pics provided, and Maurice's vehement opposition to them, I simply asked Maurice to provide pictures of 2:3 flags to confirm that his source indeed pertained to the Flag of Valencia and not merely to municipalities within Valencia. He provided one, which was somewhat blurry, and I pointed that out to him. After that I haven't debated at all.
  • Assertion: Physchim62 showed extreme leniency in face of Maurice27 disruptive behavior and insults (and enough evidence has been provided below by other users regarding this fact). In spite of being an ambigious source I accepted Mauriice27's source. I still disagree with his interpretation, but to me it was a compromised solution until new evidence could be provided. Physhcim62 accusation of us not accepting other users' sources (ambigious and unrelated as they seem) is simply not true. We did.

[edit] Not remaining civil

Physchim62 then claims that we are less than able (quoting) "sometimes even to remain civil".

  • Neither Casaforra, Toniher nor myself have ever been issued any warning nor have we been blocked for being uncivil. Neither of us have ever violated WP: 3RR. Needless to say, we haven't been blocked.
  • Ironically, Physchim62's friend: Maurice27 (or "buddy" using Maurice27's own words), has been blocked seven times for violating either WP:3RR, for insulting other users and for his reiterated lack of civility[85]. In fact, after directly insulting another user in an edit summary,[86] he was permanently blocked, even though he was later forgiven and unblocked.[87].
  • One one particular occasion, Maurice27 repeately insulted me and other users by calling us "xenophobic" several times, even after we asked him to stop.[88]. I asked Physchim62, as an administrator to take note of it and to act accordingly. He replied that he had been lenient with all of us (even though no other user have resorted to inults) and did not do anything. Finally, another administrator had to intervene and blocked Maurice27 for one week for violating WP:OWN and for insulting other users. Even when Maurice27 appealed that decision and the situation was reassessed, administrators agreed that the blockage was a fair action.
  • Assertion: Again, Physchim62 assessement of the facts as an administrator are in question: he blatantly ignores the language, behavior, sarcasm and direct insults of the user he agrees with (and they cannot be more evident), yet accusses users who have never engaged in such a behavior of not remaining civil. Again, he is being evidently -even overtly-partial in his assessment by bringing a ridiculous claim against the wrong users!

[edit] Having strong evidence of someone being a sockpuppet

Finally, Physchim62 said that "there are strong suspicions of sock puppetry concerning at least some of them." (i.e. me). This seemed to be the last resort to discredit myself or any other user who disagreed with his opinions: If I was wrong, it had to be not because of what I said or did, but because of who I purportedly was: a sock puppet of Onofre Bouvila. He requested an IP verification after he made this RforA[89] and of course was proven wrong (same link).

[edit] The real set of "culprits"

[edit] Physchim62 inapproriate actions in Valencian Community

This evidence is a chronological account that led to the failed Request for Mediation.

  • As stated above, a rough consensus was reached regarding the phrase: "The official languages of Valencia are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory)" in Valencian Community. Maurice27, Mountolive and Physchim62 opposed the sectionin parenthesis. By early April, discussion ended (without full consensus) but the phrase remained (even if the three users were not fully convinved). The debate then moved to that of the Name of the Community.
  • Two weeks later an anon editor 86.129.90.106 showed up and started deleting the phrase. Being a contentious phrase and since he was reverting a somewhat rough consensus, I reverted it[90], but asked him to discuss it and participate in the debate[91].
  • Anon replied: "I'm not discussing anything"... "this whole wikishit is so stupidly biased.". Three minutes later he deleted all the content of his Talk page and replaced it with a text in Spanish that started with: (I am translating and censoring): "It f*cks you, you f*cking shitty "Catalufo"... .
  • The anon seemd to have a personal vendetta aginast all Catalans, as it can be attested in his history of edits: [92].
  • Administrator Husond (talk · contribs) reverted the insults.[93] and blocked him temporarily for vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy.[94], on 18 April.
  • The anon came back and continued to revert the same phrase.[95], and was reverted by another user[96], and again on 21 April [97], and again on 22 April [98].
  • Administrator Physchim62 did not do anything. It was administrator dgies (talk · contribs) who warned the anon to stop making controversial changes until a new consensus was reached [99] on 22 April.
  • On 23 April, Physchim62 was asked by us to block the anon whose actions and behavior were disruptive.[100]. He refused to do so, claiming that the anon user was a truly independent editor (i.e. not a sock puppet) and that not even a semi-protection of the page was necessary.[101].
  • He also claimed that the anon's edits (in spite of the evident vandalism) were a "valid content dispute"[102], arguably because he agreed with the anon's vandalic editions, but would not dare to engage in an edit war himself, being an administrator.
  • I tried to explain to him that I agreed with Casaforra, the anon's attitude was detrimental to the project, and his editions bordered on vandalism, and that at least the article need to be semi-protected. I also tried to explain to him that there was no "content" dispute when a user contradicts reliable Academic sources by simply reverting. [103]. This was on 23 April.
  • On 25 April a new anon user showed up and started deleting the phrase too. [104].
  • Since this was a new IP address (or a sock puppet) I thought that semi-protection of the article was necessary in order to avoid an edit war and force the anon user[s] to discuss, and I requested that when I reverted his edits.
  • Physchim62, however, reverted back to the anon version! [105]. He was explicitly supporting the anon's vandalism and POV! This was extremely innappropriate for an administrator: as an impartial administrator he should have fully protected the page from further editing and then state that he did not endorse the current version... if that was the case.
  • His action was not only inappropriate but contradictory. He was supporting the deletion of a conensual phrase; yet a few weeks back he himself had added a mirror phrase in Catalonia saying that "The official languages in Catalonia are Spanish and Catalan (as Valencian is known in this territory)"[106]. After being reverted by Mountolive, he added it again[107], either implying (as an admin or as a user) that the phrase was appropriate, or perhaps just playing a very bad joke by endorsing its deletion at Valencian Community but forcing its inclusion in Catalonia.
  • When I reverted his actions in Valencian Community I pointed out to him that his behavior was inappropriate and asked him to be clear about what he was arguing (given the ambiguity of his own actions as explained in the previous bullet). [108].
  • Two weeks later (after the aggravation of the discussion and edit wars) he finally acceded to semi-protect the article, but refused to block the anon.
  • He then requested for Mediation, but without specifying what was to be mediated. Therefore, I opened a discussion space for what I considered were the three possible contentious issues [109], trying to emulate a successful poll I had opened in Talk:Mexico whereby, in a similar situation, we reached a compromised solution that hasn't been contested since.
  • Since Physchim62 had requested for mediation hismelf, I asked him to clearly state what his position was, given the ambiguity of his actions.[110] To me, it made no sense to Request for Mediation when a user was being contradictory in his position, first arguing that Catalan and Valencian were the same language and then denying it. I contidionted my signature to him explaining his agruments.
  • He then proposed his WP:OR theory of Ausbausprache, based on his own appreciation/optinion.[111].
  • Nobody, not only the set of "culprits", but not even his friends signed for Mediation. That was a failure that cannot be attributed neither to me, nor to Casaforra or Toniher, when not even the users he agrees with signed.
  • Wanting to reach a solution, I told him that if us two, being administrators of opposing POVs (I am an admin at the Catalan Wikipedia), managed to reach a peaceful compromise, we would set an example, and maybe other users would also contribute to the compromised version.[112]. At first he seemed to agree that we could work togeteher on "these and other amelioraitons". Later on, however, he backed off and commented that I had "weird ideas about adminship", but that we were getting somewhere "in spite of that".[113].

[edit] The blockage of Benimerin

Later on, the discussion of the proportions of the Flag was reopened by an anon user arguing against Maurice27's interpretation of the ambiguous Law he provided (as explained above). Since I had also expressed my concerns weeks before when I accepted the source, I simply asked Maurice27 to provide a clear picture, not a blurred one (like he had done before) to confirm that his interpretation that the Law of Municipal Flags also applied to the Flag of the Community itself, since the anon was providing evidence and pics that showed the contrary. After that, I didn't comment at all in the Discussion Page. This is a list of the chronological events that ensued:

  • An edit war started between the anon user and Maurice27.
  • Maurice27 asked administrator Physchim62 to intervene (or to defend his version).
  • Anon user registered as user Benimerin (talk · contribs).
  • Instead of blocking the page to prevent further edit wars and so that Benimerin's concerns could be discussed and a consensual version be achieved, Physchim62 permanently blocked Benimerin from Wikipedia.
  • When asked to explain his actions Phychim62 claimed that Benimerin was a sock puppet of Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs).
  • I question his decision of a permanent blockage, because no case was opened at WP:SOCK so that Benimerin could defend hismelf, nor was there an IP check, since Benimerin had not done anything at all that would merit a blockage.
  • Physchim62 admitted himself that Benimerin's actions did not merit blockage, but that he was blocked because he was Onofre (thus Onofre's actions caused Benimerin's blockage). [114]. Then he said, "maybe you are afraid of what a checkuser may prove" (i.e. implying that maybe I was the sock puppeteer).
  • I told him I was not afraid; in fact I had asked him several times to actually check the IP addresses, and to open a fair trail to prove indeed that Benimerin was actually Onofre. Benimerin's precipitated blockage made no sense when he had not violated any WP rules, yet Maurice27s violations had been blatantly ingored. Arguably, Benimerin was being blocked not for his actions but because of his POV and his disagreement with Physchim62 friend: Maurice27.
  • He replied that this case of sockpuppetry was obvious to him, and that I was not an administrator of this Wikipedia, and therefore this was none of my business.[115].
  • Eventually, he did request an IP check. He was proven wrong on both accounts: I lived in a different hemisphere, and therefore I could not possibly be neither Benimerin nor Onofre. Onofre and Benimerin did live in the same hemisphere, but the possibility of being the same user was unlikely. He never apologized to me nor to Benimerin for having made that ludicrous accusation. He claims that he acted precipituosly because we had accused him of not doing so before. But the actions of Benimerin cannot possibly be compared to those of Maurice27! (Please review the evidence provided by other users regarding Maurice27 extremely disruptive behavior). And the actions of Onofre cannot possibly be compared to mine!

[edit] Assertions

  • Physchim62 accusations are ridiculous: he seems to have named the wrong users:
    • We have always provided reliable sources, while he and other users who he didn't name as "culprits" relied on demagogy and OR.
    • We have never insulted anyone, we have never resorted to sarcasm or disruptive behavior.. Maurice27, on the other hand (and as other users have shown) has a history blatant disruptive behavior, insults, edit wars, and violations of WP:3RR, WP:OWN. By condoning or even endorsing his behavior, and making up spurious accusations, he is working with Maurice27 to push his POV.
  • Maurice27 has been blocked several times (even permanently, and later forgiven), yet everytime he comes back he displays the same behavior and detrimental attitude. Lack of affirmative action from administrators against him is actually driving good-intentioned editors (like Joanot) to leave Wikipedia, frustrated at the status quo, tired of not being helped by truly impartial administrators or lenient administrators who continously forgive his extremely rude behavior.
  • Physchim62 has abused his privileges as an adminsitrator, and ArCom should take note of that. Two different administrators had to intervene to block the disrputive users since Physchim62 refused to do so, claiming that the vandalic actions were "valid content disputes".

[edit] Reply to Boynamedsue

I agree with you: things were calming down and a somewhat rough consensus was been reached; but since I am wrongfully accused of something I did not do, I had to bring those issues up.

  • In your comment below, you claim that "The sources used by Catalanist users on Catalonia are selective, and often invalid...". Let me remind you that we are using the constitution of Spain and the Statute of Autonomy, as well as Britannica. You have provided none, except your dislike for the word "nationality" and to the claim that "Catalan is the language proper to Catalonia".
  • "Why is it so important to use the word "nationality"? Well, because that is how two constitutional laws describe Catalonia, not to mention Britannica. "Is Catalonia different form the rest of Spain"? I guess every autonomous community is unique and is somewhat different from the rest, but they are all part of Spain, just as Texas is very different from New York but they both are part of the same country.

--the Dúnadan 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Physchim62

[edit] Aribtators please follow the links provided by Physchim62

  • I ask arbitrators to follow the links that Physchim62 is providing. You will see what I actually said.
  • I am not going back purposely (or deviously?) on my assertions. Since the beginning I accepted Maurice27's interpretation of the Law he provided with conerns. When new evidence was brought up, I simply asked him to confirm his interpretation by providing either more sources or pictures. [116]

[edit] About being "selective" in our interpretation and prolonging disputes

This is accusation is ludicrous.

  • I have proven that our sources are constitutional laws, wheareas other users are not even providing sources! How can we be selective with primary sources when no other equally valid sources have been provided by him?
  • He is misinterpreting the dictamen by the Valencian Academy of Language. While the onomastic duality (i.e. two names) of the language is promoted, the dictamen urges the government to promote a cohesive unity of the language (i.e. that both are the same language, even if the two names are used), and even states that Valencian is an "idiomatic modaility" (i.e. dialect) of the language. [117].
  • Ethnologue, Britannica (not to mention the fact that Valencian and Catalan share all three ISO codes!) are non-selective valid sources. He, on the other hand, proposes a theory of Ausbemsprache. I even provided a link by a linguist that proved that this theory is wrong! He did not provide a source at all!
  • On the other hand Physchim62 is upholding Maurice27's ambigious interpration of the Law of Municipal Flags and rejecting Benimerin's and blocking him (being selective with sources?)
  • He ignores the fact that the set of constitutional laws called Statutes of Autonomy (primary sources) unequivocally use the word "nationality" to refer to themselves. Yet, he demands a verbatim citation from the constitution that would say "Catalonia is a nationality". Just as the constitution of the US says that the country is composed of states and the constitution of the Republic of California then says that California is one of those states, the constitution of Spain says that the nation is composed of "nationalities" and "regions", and then the Statutes of Autonomy pick either term.

[edit] Changes in his accusations

Finally, may I note that he is gathering evidence to back up new claims. If I recall correctly he opened this debate by declaring that Toniher, Casaforra and I were acting as a group in Catalonia and Valencian Community. Now, he claims it is Benimerin, Casaffora and I who are acting as a group and only in one article, since we have proven that Toniher hasn't even edited, and that Casaforra and myself have disagreed on some occasions.

He also now claims that our edits are tendentious and disruptive. Let me note that I have not edited Valencian Community since 3 May [118], that is almost three months of no edits (disruptive or otherwise). Also please compare my so-called "disruptive edits" (e.g. [119], which comlies WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, in which I incorporated everybody's POV), with Maurices27 edits and insults.[120] Which one is disruptive? Why didn't he intervened by reprimanding Maurices27 evident disruptive behavior when asked to, but instead qualifies the sourced arguments and debates of users he disagrees with as "disruptive"?

[edit] Second reply to Physchim62

[edit] Regarding selective reversions

Thank you, all the cited reversions prove that:

  • there was a consensual version approved by 5 users
  • a single user made reiterated reversions to a consensual version without discussing the issue, even after asked to do so, and when he finally did, he refused to accept whatever consensus from "us Catalanists", in fact making that an ad hominem argument [121]

The last edit Physchim62 cites[122], is proving a genuine concern for WP:CITE. The phrase originally cited the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. Maurice27 rephrased the sentence and inserted the "opinion of the Spanish government" regarding the Statue[123], but retained the original reference note. Since the source being cited did not match the new claim, I simply inserted a {{cn}} template. After that, I explained why I had done so at Talk:Catalonia[124]. Needless to say, more users agreed with me (like, GillesV) users who, by the way, are not part of the original "culprits" neither part of the new set of "culprits" who act as a group.

[edit] Sockpuppetry again

Physchim62 is now claiming that he had "strong" reasons to believe that I was a sock puppet of Onofre. As an administrator he should have undergone the task of at least reviewing our history of contributions. While I am part of the Catalan-speaking countries project, I have never edited a single article that Onofre edited[125]. (with the possible exception of Catalonia). My areas of expertise (or simply preferred topics) are related to Latin America, mostly but not limited to Mexico, authoring or revamping articles such as Economy of Mexico, Etymology of Mexico, Demography of Mexico, Municipalities of Mexico, Boroughs of Mexico, Politics of Mexico, Languages of Mexico. In order to stop an edit war in Mexico, I successfully organized a poll whereby all parties agreed to a consensual version that to this date has not been contested.[126] As such I was awarded the "Banner of Diligence".[127] I was also awarded a Banner by the same user I debated against in that (and other) Discussion pages,[128] and I recieved a similar recognition by another user with whom I also disagreed on many (if not most) occasions, and yet we were able to amicably co-author Etymology of Mexico.

There are absolutely no similarities in our history of contributions. As an administrator, before bringing up such a spurious accusation, Physchim62 should have taken the time to review them! The only similarities between Onofre and myself is that we both seem to disagree (though we express it in different ways) with his particular POV, a POV he is pushing by abusing his administrative privileges either by blocking users, claiming they are sock puppets wihout fair evidence, or requesting this RforA by accusing the wrong set of users while protecting those he agrees with and who do and unquestionably exhibit very disruptive behavior.

[edit] In addition to Casaforra regarding the name of the language

Casaforra has made an excellent explanation of the linguistic issues of Catalan vis-à-vis Valencian. While I know arbitrators won't rule on content I wanted to point out that by vehemently arguing against reputable sources, linguistic authorities and the Academic (external) consensus, based on their political views or opinions, or by making their own linguistic theories, and making up spurious accusations in this page against users who disagree with their POV, the actions of Physchim62, Maurice27 and some other users, can best be described as WP:SOAP. Since we have never denied the political conflict regarding the name of the language (see: Catalan_language#The_status_of_Valencian), neither the complexity of Spanish "national" identity (see: Autonomous_communities_of_Spain#Formation_and_powers), our edits have fully complied with WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE, and have given due weight to these political POVs.

[edit] Second Evidence by Dúnadan: Proof of disruptive content and blatant rejection of reputable primary sources

Maurice27 has shown no intention to change his behavior, and the repetitive reversions at Valencian Community show: he rejects a source that Benimerin is providing simply because he dislikes it, but he has failed to provide another equally valid source to back up his opinion.[129]. Not only that, it seems, after reading his last comments here he doesn't read the comments or the sources of other users, which makes every discussion circular ad infinitum. Moreover, he claims we are saying things we are not,[130] and then he changes his opinions when convenient.[131].

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 ([132], 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 [133].

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:

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:
  • GillesV has claimed:
  • Joan sense nick claimed:

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:
  • Boynamedsue has claimed:

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?

Finally, I must add that Owdki (talk · contribs) 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 Dúnadan 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Boynamedsue

I have a profound mistrust of wikilawyering in all its forms, particularly given the fact this whole situation has been calming down.

I would also like to state that I consider Dunadan and Cas as good wikipedians, who, on non-political topics, contribute well.

[edit] Regarding sources

My only issue is with use of sources on Catalan related pages.

The sources used by Catalanist users on Catalonia are selective, and often invalid, and they are always used in a way that is intended to highlight Catalonia's differences from the rest of Spain.

Why was it so essential for Dunadan to put the word "nationality" in the first paragraph?

"Catalonia is a nationality of Spain." looks very bad in the first paragraph of an article, and will be continually edited by passers-by who think that it is an error, given the fact a territory can't be a "nationality" in English. The Spanish government has legislated this, and it is important it be reported, but is it one of the central characteristics of Catalonia? Is it of any value without context?

Basically, should we report what happened ("The government said it was a nationality") OR what the government said had happened ("Catalonia is suddenly a nationality"). This is an argument that doesn't need me to provide sources, its a question of WHAT the source proves. I wouldn't say it was demagogy, but essential debate (whether I'm right or wrong).

His sources simply do not "prove" what he claims they do.

Of course a properly referenced and contextual legal status section (as is beginning to take shape) is useful, but why was it so important that this dubious little word, which can be applied to any number of Spanish regions appear in the first paragraph?

I also feel that the essential points of opponents arguments are deliberately ignored, and attempts made to steer debate into other areas.

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

[edit] Evidence presented by GillesV

Sorry for my english because sure that it is not the best one here. I'm a bit tired of the ad hominem arguments used by some users (see talk page of Catalonia for example) accusing some of us to be acting as a group and labeling us as catalanist users to disauthorize our approach. Unlike Dúnadan I would declare myself as a catalanist but when I'm approaching the article I try to be neutral and use verifiable sources jut not to bias it.

[edit] In Catalonia

As I said I don't know about the situation on the Valencian community where the situation seems worst but I want to make clear that in Catalonia:

  • There was no mediation before the arbitration at least since I am contributing there (half a year more or less).
  • Casaforra did not contribute in Catalonia so how can be him disruptive there?
  • During the last 250 edits there has not been an edit war in Catalonia, just users debating peacefully from opposed POV.
    • Seems logical that Phsy62 is not considering the new situation there because he has not edited the article since 28 of may [136] and has not contributed in the discussion page since 1 of june [137].
    • Looking at the talk page of Catalonia we can see that a group of users accepted a consensual version proposed by the same Phsy62: [138] including Dúnadan, Xtv and me [139]. After Phsy62 introduced that rough consensus in the article user:Maurice27 reverted it [140] saying that (Reverted biased editing. Catalonia is not a region in north eastern of the iberian peninsula half in Spain half in France. its an AC. to explain the principality of Catalonia, refer to history section).
    • After some time Maurice27 continued the dispute accusing my side [141] of changing the lead. The problem on this accusation is that we were introducing the new rough consensus proposed by Phsy62. After that you can see me reverting the lead to that definition [142].
    • Maurice27 insisted on his version [143] and after that he renamed the article to Catalonia (Autonomous Community) without any consensus.
    • Users accepted this version (probably tired of discussing, at least that was what happened to me)
    • After a long discussion Pschy62 correctly restored the name to Catalonia [144]]
    • The next important step was the proposal of a new lead by Joan Sense Nick [145] in order to find a new consensus.
    • Dúnadan Xtv and me agreed with him as compromise despite all said in the talk page that it was not a good lead. [146]
    • BNS disagreed with us [147]
    • I noticed to the editors that we were trying to look for a compromise supported by more users. [148]
    • Montoulive suggested some changes and neither Dúnadan or me opposed to that changes.[149]
    • In 22 of June Maurice27 said that Legal Status [150] and language section [151] are disputed again.
    • The sections were rewritten and now seem stable but...who is opening the dispute again and again? I feel it is Maurice27 who reopened the dispute at least 3 times and that with his attitude is blocking the improve of the other sections. This is not Dúnadan's attitude who accepted 3 different consensus, nor Joanot who did not contribute in many ocassions in Catalonia and less Casaforra who never contributed there. So accusing them of using wikipedia as a SOAPBOX seems false to me, at least in Catalonia.

[edit] More things

[edit] The passivity of Physchim62 with Maurice27

It was on 28 of may. Physchim62 only gave a friend civility warning [152] to Maurice27. During the same day and only 30 minutes later another admin (user:^demon) accused Maurice of edit warring, article ownership and personal attacks [153] and for the same reasons ^Demon blocked Maurice for 1 week. Maurice asked for a review of his block and user:SwatJester after reviewing the block [154] said that the attitude of Maurice was trolling.

[edit] user:GillesV never contributed on Valencian Community and its talk page

Hope anyone of you can check that for me, I don't know how to present it here. The controversy on the two articles affects different users it is for that reason that I don't understand why we're using the same arbitration for two different articles.

[edit] In Catalonia there was no mediation before

May be Valencian Community needs an arbitration but in Catalonia the situation was not the same. No one tried for a mediation for example and it seems that we're not following the WP:DR just because this appears to be the last step.

[edit] Reply to Boynamedsue

I don't agree with the lead of the article now because it ignores the term nationality and this is not a minor issue.

Why? Well , we can find lots of sources saying that Catalonia has national identity and sure others that say that Catalonia is just a region so let's see some facts:

  • In 2005 the Parlamient of Catalonia has defined Catalonia as a nation in the draft of the new Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia (the maximum law in Catalonia after the Constitution of Spain) by an ample majority. You can see that draft here.
  • After the Statute had to be approved by the Spanish Parlamient. There the major political forces of Spain opposed to the term nation in the articulado (the part with legal value) so the political forces had to arrive to a compromise. The compromise is this one.
  • 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.
  • Who are we to ignore that compromise? May be defining Catalonia as a nation is biased but to me it is also not neutral to ignore the term nationality just because it is the compromise term.

--GillesV 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Physchim62

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. Please notice that the Statute is Catalonia's basic institutional law.

[edit] Reply to Joan sense nick

As you know, and as I accepted before, as a compromise I accept that lead and I think it is better than the one we have now.

But from my point of view that lead improves:

  • Introduce the content of the section Legal Status within Spain to the lead and remove a section named like that. I think that it is not usual to see Legal Status sections on other similar articles. For example, in Scotland and Northern Ireland we don't see a "legal status within United Kingdom" section. But the content of the section is totally necessary because it contains a description of the situation of Catalonia today citing verifiable sources.
  • Not removing the phrase Its territory corresponds to most of the historic territory of the former Principality of Catalonia to mantain "a reference" to the history of Catalonia in the lead.

So the result would be more or less:

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Catalonha), is an Autonomous Community in the Kingdom of Spain.

Its territory corresponds to most of the historic territory of the former Principality of Catalonia and the capital city is Barcelona. The Autonomous Community of Catalonia covers an area of 32,114 km² with an official population of 7,134,697 (2006). It borders France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, and Valencia to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the east. Official languages are Catalan, Spanish, and Aranese.

"The Parliament of Catalonia has defined Catalonia as a nation by an ample majority. The Spanish Constitution, in its second Article, recognises the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality".[1]

"Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, which is its basic institutional law". [2].

  • And if we want to improve it more I think that the lead can reflect more issues like the population that is living in the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona, the administrative divisions of Catalonia,..

[edit] Use of proxies

Seems that some users used proxies to contribute in the article. User:Prodego had no doubt and banned 81.36.173.154 for 5 years. To use open proxies is not the proper way to edit in wikipedia and it is a clear sign of possible cases of sockpuppetry. Seems that phsychim62 had a point when he speaked about puppets. I think that it is necessary to make checkusers in order to know who is behind that proxy and now more than before I believe it would be good to proceed with that check.--GillesV 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong reasons to think that Owdki is behind an open proxy

It seems evident 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: Wikipedia:No_open_proxies and that like Dúnadan suspects he is not a newbie. I added that information to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Owdki. --GillesV 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State on 1 of september 2007

User:Owdki had security problems and seems that he solved them. Sorry for the false suspect but as we can see in its article sometimes one can think that as a result of misconfiguration of proxy software running on the computer, or of infection with malware (viruses, trojans or worms) designed for this purpose. In this case me and probably user:Prodego after proceeding with the proxy check thought like this because there was a direct connection on port 80 witch gave HTTP access. Owkdi admits he improved his security parameters 04:29, 1 set 2007 and now he seems to be behind a secure connection. Considering that user:Owkdi now is using a dynamic IP probably to proceed with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Owdki may be useless (in case of being a puppet the supposed pupeteer can restart the router and get a new IP each time he wants) but I want to remark that if we analyse a bit his contributions (only on talk pages and matters related with the arbitration) and see his fantastic learning curve from my point of view it is easy to think (and I continue believing) that he is not new in wikipedia. --GillesV 19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Maurice27

  • You continue with your uncivil attitude: today I select 22:09, 20 ag 2007 and please remember about WP:Etiquette and WP:NPA. In the past you collided my nerves but hopefully now I have no problem to reply you in a civil way because I'm used to that type of replies.
  • I don't use the page you created because we're in an arbitration, then I see that the proper is to use Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Workshop, I did it there but no one is contributing, seems we're discussing all in evidence.
  • I think that comments like "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" are trying to reconduct your attitude to a positive one and as we can see in your recent contributions in the discussion and talk pages it had no result.
  • I think that it is tendentious editing to translate only a part of a text of the Dúnadan/Casaforra affair. If we translate in english all of it (sure someone will do) and despite I see it as an absolutely wrong solution I see two users that are desperate and tired of your behaviour and of the administrative inaction that some contributors described in this evidence page.
  • About the sockpuppet affair, well user:Owdki at least seems not new in wikipedia. I don't know what exactly say the policies but from my point of view to request a checkuser is not an accusation or a personal attack it is just a verification and I think that with an arbitration opened it may be an important point to check that.
  • And despite it is not a policy I think you can read the following essay:Don't be a dick, specially that part: If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true.--GillesV 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assertions (only for Catalonia where I'm contributing)

  • That it makes no sense to have an arbitration for two different articles in different situation and with different editors.
  • I don't know how the arbitration works but considering we have an arbitration opened.. can we use this to create a new consensus for the controversial issues on Catalonia? Then we can protect it to vandals and disruptive editors. I feel that the three controversial matters are: The lead, the Legal Status within Spain (from my POV that section should be shorter and part of the lead) and the language section.
  • I'm sure that usually Phsychim62 is not mis-using his administrative powers but in this case I feel that his POV is affecting too much his decisions and statements.
  • Physhim62 is not being neutral just because he is ignoring the paper of Maurice27 in all this affair. Let's remember that another two admins accused Maurice27 of owning the article, trolling and making personal attacks to other users.
  • That Maurice insists opening disputes. To open disputes is not a bad thing, in fact I think that discussing is the soul of wikipedia but probably he is insisting too often on the same issues. I don't like to remember his attitude before the block but we cannot forget what happened when Phys62 opened an arbitration without citing him as a part of the controversy.
  • That Maurice27 returned to his old methods just ignoring WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette again after the blocks. (see 29 jul 2007,31 jul 2007 and 19 ag 2007 for example ). In my opinion he makes disruptive editing when contributing on catalan-related topics and what is clear is that he cannot avoid to make personal attacks to the the editors who don't agree with him.

[edit] Evidence presented by Physchim62

[edit] Valencian flag

Dispute concerns the proportions of the flag of the Valencian Community.

  • Maurice27 cites the Spanish Vexicological Society [155]
  • Maurice27 cites the government decree regarding symbols of local councils in the Valencian Community [157]
  • Dúnadan accepts the information from the Valencian government [158]
  • 81.45.243.248 (talk · contribs) rejects government source [159]
  • 84.120.254.73 (talk · contribs) (an admitted alias of Benimerin/Joannot) rejects government source [160] (all twelve intevening edits are by the same user, who edits the page 27 times on that day)
  • Maurice27 cites usage at the seat of the Valencian government [161]
  • Dúnadan appears to go back on previous acceptance of government source [162]
  • Maurice27 cites usage at the Spanish Senate [163]
  • Dúnadan suggests that Maurice27's images of 2:3 flags are actually "folded 1:2 flags" [164]

The only sources which have been produced to counter Maurice27's arguments are photographs of historical monuments (not official uses). Physchim62 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selected reverts

by Benimerin/Joanot/84.120.254.73

[165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171]

by Casaforra

[172], [173]

by Dúnadan

[174], [175]

[edit] Nature of the Valencian language

Dispute concerns the presence of a one-sentence paragraph in the lead, stating that "The official languages are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory)" (my emphasis).

  • Physchim62 replaces one-sentence paragraph with "Languages" section in which the issues are explained at greater length [176]
  • Casaforra reinserts one-sentence paragraph in lead section, and removes the information that Valencian and Catalan are mutually comprehensible [177]
  • Casaforra challenges an anonymous editor to name a linguist who claims that Valencian and Catalan are different languages [178]
  • Physchim62 cites Pompeu Fabra [179] (translations on talk page)
  • Casaforra accuses Physchim62 of inventing the citation [180]
  • Dúnadan accuses anonymous editor of vandalism for reverting edits [181]
  • Dúnadan qualifies dispute about wording as "invalid" [182]
  • Physchim62 claims that
    • in similar articles (e.g. Croatia, Macedonia) there is no equivalent sentence in the lead
    • the statement in the lead is contrary to official usage in the Valencian Community [183] (translations on talk page)
  • Dúnadan's reply [184] (all 14 intervening revisions are by Dúnadan)

(lengthy but inconclusive talkpage debate follows)

  • Casaforra qualifies status quo as "consensus", and proposes to change "Spanish" for "Castilian" [185]

The only source which has been produced to support the contentious sentence is a very selective reading of the Dictamen of the AVL (Valencian government body in charge of language matters). Physchim62 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selected reverts

by Benimerin/Joanot/84.120.254.73

[186]

by Dúnadan

[187]

[edit] Legal status of Catalonia

It is difficult to find truely representative diffs amongst the mass of sheer procrastination on Talk:Catalonia. Do the editors involved really think that the exact description of Catalonia's legal status really deserves the prominence that it is being given? Are they actually thinking about their readers? I believe not.

As Dúnadan has mentioned it above, I would like him to produce the source from the Spanish Constitution which states that Catalonia is a "nationality": he has long asserted that such a source existed, but has never been able to produce it. Physchim62 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selected reverts by Dúnadan

[188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193]

[edit] Assertions

  • That users Benimerin/Joannot, Casaforra and Dúnadan are using Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX.
  • That they have deliberately prolonged certain disputes, presumably to deter editing on other parts of the article (e.g. history and culture sections).
  • That their editing of these and related articles is tendentious and disruptive.

Physchim62 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of partiality in admin actions

All times are UTC (unless I've screwed up somewhere, which is always possible, in which case some of them may be UTC+1).

A number of questions remain from all this:

  1. Why did Benimerin not identify himself earlier as Joanot? (which would have saved a lot of hassle for all concerned)
  2. Why were the autoblocks on Onofre Bouvila and Benimerin lifted? (both appear to edit from fixed IPs)
  3. Why was Dúnadan so concerned about the blocking of Benimerin?

Looking a little more closely at the last of these questions, I noticed a number of coincidences in the contributions histories of Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs) and Dúnadan (talk · contribs): nothing conclusive, but enough to merit a request for CheckUser (with a suitably cautious request motive). The CheckUser came back negative, but my mere request is seen by some as evidence that I am part of an evil plot. This after having been criticised for not requesting a CheckUser earlier for Benimerin (impossible at the time under CheckUser policy).

I conclude that Benimerin/Joanot, Casaforra and Dúnadan (as well as some "uninvolved" commentators to this case) can only be satisfied with my admin actions if these are used to further their point of view. Not only are they uninterested in disinterested administration, but they will actively try to hinder it. I consider this to be a case of extremely bad faith on their part. Physchim62 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry

As is to be expected by their nature, Valencian Community and Catalonia attract a relatively large number of anonymous editors. Some of these editors appear to be particularly well aquainted with the various disputes and with Wikipedia editing in general. Of course, it is only human to forget to log in in the rush to get to one's favorite article... but when such users also contribute to edit-warring or appear to add "independent" support in a dispute, the situation becomes less glorious. Some IPs on which I keep an eye are:

Physchim62 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Joan sense nick

[edit] Catalonia lead

The long discussion concerning the lead paragraph will go on for ever since there are people defending Catalonia to be a nation (or nationality) itself, while others say it to be a part of the Spanish nation. These two opinions are unable to find a consensus. The result is that strange, ugly, always-reverted section "legal status ...".

[edit] WP is not a forum

An encyclopedia should not use opinions as definitions, in a lead paragraph. Relevant opinions can be included in the article, referred as opinions, but not in the first leading lines.

If a consensus is not posible using opinions, the only way is to use the current legal text competent on the issue. The definition of Catalonia included in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia 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. In my opinion this is a consensus stronger than the dozen of opinions that insist in keep prolonging this futile debate.

In order to find a consensus and have a best lead lines in the article, I proposed this lead, and it was accepted by some users as a compromise. I think it have nothing that facts.

[edit] Proposed lead paragraph

This article is about the autonomous community. See also Principality of Catalonia (for the historic territory) and Northern Catalonia.


Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Catalonha), is an Autonomous Community in the Kingdom of Spain.

The Autonomous Community of Catalonia covers an area of 32,114 km² with an official population of 7,134,697 (2006). It borders France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, and Valencia to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the east. Official languages are Catalan, Spanish, and Aranese. The capital city is Barcelona.

==Legal status within Spain==

"The Parliament of Catalonia has defined Catalonia as a nation by an ample majority. The Spanish Constitution, in its second Article, recognises the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality".[3]

"Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, which is its basic institutional law". [4].

(Text proposed by the Parliament of Catalonia, passed by the Parliament and the Senate of Spain, and approved by the citizens of Catalonia in referendum with 1.899.897 votes in favour (73%)).

  1. ^ Preamble of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia
  2. ^ First article of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalunya
  3. ^ Preamble of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia
  4. ^ First article of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalunya

--Joan sense nick 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Xtv

[edit] Some selected contributions from Maurice27

I will just show some selected contributions (I think there is a limit of links we can show) from Maurice27. I think in almost all other aspects it has already been said almost everything. However, I think it hasn't been clearly showed how much can Maurice27 make lose everybody's time insulting, trolling and having no respect at all for the other users.

Before start, I post one of his first contributions in Wikipedia which will become later quite ironical: I kindly ask for moderators/administrators to advise him against personal attacks.

All posts except the conclusion ones, which are adapted, are sic.

[edit] Insults in the edit summary

[edit] Insults in talk pages

[edit] Penis section

Discussing/insulting with penises (and not in Talk:Penis):

  • If it was not clear enough, he talks about the well-known "Catalan Small Penis Syndrome" (sic) some more times: [199] [200] [201] [202] [203]

[edit] Trolling

[edit] Contradictions

[edit] Lack of respect in general/disruptive behaviour

[edit] Conclusion

He admits it, he is not always civil, but he can't resist... Well, I think his rich block log doesen't show all what he deserves. And, since some of the sentences showed above are from after his last block, and he still has disrespectful content in his User Page, I see on him no aim to change.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 04:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to Maurice27

  • Focusing on Maurice27: I think all other problems that came in the discussion are the normal problems when there are basicly two big different points of view, and with a normal discussion, they can all be solved. With all other users this has been possible. However with Maurice27 this normal discussion it's proven to be not possible. For example, what he defines as "lies", are just different points of view from him and he can not accept that another POV is possible. As an example, he deffends nation=state, and in many sources (Britannica, for example) can be seen that this is not always true. Then, nationality doesn't always mean "citizenship" (even if sometimes does).
  • About Owkdi: I didn't take part of the discussion but I think that Owkdi is not a Maurice27 sockpuppet but I think also he doesn't act as a newbie, but he tries to.
  • About acting as a team: Maurice27 forgot to translate one thing: "if he doesn't start to act in a civil way, he can be blocked because of 3RR". So, this means: if Maurice27 continues insulting (just two days before that senence he was accusing of xenofobia) or trolling, it has to be stoped. Look that they didn't say: If Montoulive/BNS/Physchim62... makes an edit we revert it. No, it's just "disruptive behaviour must be reverted".
  • The reason because I personally didn't want to contribute in User:Maurice27/Request for arbitration it's just because, as I told him twice, I was not going to discuss with him until he stopped his disruptive behaviour, and this included taking out the attacks in his User Page. Since he didn't, I had nothing to discuss with him.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Maurice27

[edit] Accusations against my person

Following an edit in my talk-page from the newby user Owkdi, I am discovering that these arbitration is becoming more and more an "ad hominem" accusation against my person. I wasn't really following this arbitration, but I am now 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". (See here). Of course the "other side" is taking good care of not showing this.

I want the admins to think about why were these users brought to arbitration and why am I the main accused user now. It wasn't me who was brought to arbitration!

[edit] How these user contribute in wikipedia

I've been accused of almost anything in this arbitration. Now, this said, I would like to point how these users are acting:


  • User Owkdi: Some days ago, a complete newby user, decided to make an opinion in these articles' talk-pages. His only fault was to critize the way these users were editing the article (here and here). My fault was to encourage him and cheer him up. Now, user Dunadan has brought him to a Request for Checkuser to check if he is not my sockpuppet. Dunadan has any single proof, he hasn't s wait how this new user reacts, or explain himself. User Owkdi has written in my talk-page asking, if not begging, for help!!! His first words? "I'm scared"... I leave to admins the decision about this being a good welcome to new users here in wikipedia... User Owkdi doesn't even understand why or what he is accused of. His reaction may be read here. Way to go Dunadan!!!!

Thank God, admins can trace our IPs to localize us on the world map. As far as this users doesn't live in Madrid, Spain, he is safe. I can't travel to other cities in less than an hour. So the accusation made by the User Dunadan, will be proven wrong quite fast, so he will be safe of all accusations. As for me, I'm pretty much used to this kind of "treatment" on their part.

I have never been accused of being a sockpuppeteer, never, but I guess these users are so scared of losing the arbitration they are suffering that they will use any means in their hands to divert the attention of the admins.


  • Lies: May I announce you, that these people will express in wikipedia, without remorses, some indecent comments like:

- That someone was of catalan nationality (see here) (there is not even a catalan passport!!!)

- That Catalonia is a region in the "north east of the iberian peninsula" (see here) (any mean instead that mentioning the word "spain")

- That the southern french territory of Rousillon should be called in english "Northern Catalonia" (a term which is not even legal in the very same Catalonia). It is very instructive to see how was the version by user Toniher of this article (see here (completely biased) and the one made by user Physchim62 (see [205] (a neutral, more encyclopedic version). Anyhow, user Toniher kept trying to bias and revert this version (see here)

- That Catalonia is a "divided country" as "an historic territory in the northeast corner of the Iberian Peninsula, mostly situated in the north-east of Spain and with an adjoining portion in southern France" (See here).

- Guess the "fascists" french and spanish "oppresors" are the ones to blame... (Casaforra clearly called my people "frenchies" and called France and Spain "two of the States who have committed more genocides in the history" (see here). Again, I'm treated as disrespectful but users like Casaforra have been making personal attacks and xenophobe comments publicly. Who is the one to blame?


  • User Joanot AKA Benimerin: I will only paste here one thing about this user, a confessed sockpuppeteer. I would like to point out to admins that Joanot/Benimerin has been capable to edit my very own report at WP:3RR in order to erase proves against him. he has erased reverts and modified dates & hours from my report to admins, as explained me here and here (continuation)


  • Working as a team: I was reading all the requests and explanations from "the other side" in the Request for arbitration and I found these so cynical and hypocrite statements, apart all the accusations they are throwing to both Physchim62 and myself, from Dunadan here: ([206]), where he says:

-"that the administrator Physchim62 names as "culprits" three users who have never engaged in edit wars and who have never resorted to insults (unlike Maurice27); in fact, none of us have been blocked for disruptive behavior or for violating WP:3RR."

-"Physchim62 claims that we act as a group"

On catalan wikipedia, where most of these users are admins, I found out that users Dunadan and Casaforra were trying to get me blocked for WP:3RR by reverting me between both of them. May the admins take a look at these section of user Casaforra ([:(here)

"El problema és que amb usuaris tan tossuts com ell, no assolirem res de productiu si no ens unim. A la viqui en anglès existeix una política que prohibeix que cap usuari reverteixi un article més de tres vegades (en:WP:3RR) o serà bloquejat. (De fet, Physchim62 ja m'ha amenaçat, però no va amenaçar Maurice27... que sí que ha violat la regla). Però, si dos o més usuaris reverteixen les edicions d'un sol usuari(1) tossut que no justifica les seves edicions, llavors només aquest usuari seria bloquejat (2). Si estàs d'acord amb la meva proposta, et demano que escriguis la teva opinió a la pàgina de discussió i que també reverteixis els canvis que faci Maurice27. Així, si ell no comença a debatre d'una manera civilitzada, com nosaltres, ell podria ser bloquejat per violar la regla de 3RR(3). --Dúnadan 00:59, 9 abr 2007 (CEST)"

Translation: (1) If two or more users revert the edits of a single user, (2) this user would be blocked (3) for 3RR violation.

So, this users, who deny to act as a team, have been, as proven, conspiring against me. May the admins remember this was one of the main reasons to bring them to arbitration. Curiously, this point hasn't been touched since.

[edit] In reply to Casaforra

3 times, 3, have you used the same example... You are only proving I asked Mountolive for his email. Then what? Any other proof? Is that even a proof? If only you knew the reality... Anyway, Can you paste here any quotation where I ask anybody to join me as a team to revert any of you? Impossible, none of us work that way. Not like you BTW... You tried on purpose to get me blocked! Dunadan clearly stated "We didn't work as a team". I proved he is lying to the admins in order to save his head!

[edit] To end up

If the admins take a look at the first points by user Physchim62 when this arbitration was started, they will see that all this group of users are not interested in improving the articles, but mostly to get me blocked or banned. Why? Because I oppose them in how they are poisoning wikipedia.

They have been acting as a team (they are all members of the same wikiproject), to prevent other users to edit "their" articles. Those articles are full of badly written, dubious or even plain false sections (as shown above by me). Thousands of Kb have been wasted trying to make them understand their faults. Lots of users have abandonned the articles because of them.

All these users were asked, when this arbitration began to fill a table with their controversial matters in User:Maurice27/Request for arbitration in order to reach a consensus (Casaforra, GillesV, Benimerin, Toniher and Dunadan). NONE, I repeat NONE of them as even contributed in it.

This makes me wonder... Do they really want to reach a consensus in order to contribute with veridical facts in wikipedia? Or are they only making of this wonderful project a political pamphlet for pro-catalanist meanings?

It is up to you, admins, to decide.

[edit] Evidence presented by Owdki

I do not know how to face this: seems that the Arbcom doesn't handle contentses, and I'm afraid to be disruptive. On the other hand I'm here as a Wikipedia's reader. I got involved in that Request for Arbitration due to several accusations (and I hope to clarify this, that's why I sent my personal info to the Arbcom). Knowing the context, I think I'm being used as argumentation for discrediting another editor, while I'm being discredited.

About the article (Catalonia), I find a very illustrative explanation in the Englishman contributions: [207], [208], [209], [210], [211]

The unconstitutionality recourses (not only one as the article says) presented and still in process in the Constitutional Court against the new Catalan Statute, make appear some editors as expert jurymen of the Constitutional Court.

And as I pointed [212], the Generalitat de Catalunya doesn't seem to have this problem.

Finally and from my short experience, something strange is happening here, and I would like the Arbcom would make a tracking about neutral contentses, recursive claims and editors attitudes. I agree with Boynamedsue, Maurice27 and Physchim62.

--Owdki talk 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.