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.

Evidence presented by Casaforra[edit]

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.

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)[reply]

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!

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.

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.

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:

"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:

"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].
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:

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]!

In reply to Physchim62

"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).

In reply to Maurice27

"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)"[reply]

So, who's been working as a team?

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?

Assertions

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.

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.

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 | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Valencian Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) separately.

Acting as a group

In Catalonia
In Valencian Community

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".

In Catalonia: use of the word "nationality"
In Catalonia: the language proper to Catalonia
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.

Not remaining civil

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

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).

The real set of "culprits"

Physchim62 inapproriate actions in Valencian Community

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

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:

Assertions

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.

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

Reply to Physchim62

Aribtators please follow the links provided by Physchim62

About being "selective" in our interpretation and prolonging disputes

This is accusation is ludicrous.

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"?

Second reply to Physchim62

Regarding selective reversions

Thank you, all the cited reversions prove that:

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

What have the other users claimed -namely Maurice27 and Boynamedsue, with whom Physchim62 agrees and therefore did not include in the set of "culprits"?

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)[reply]

Evidence presented by Boynamedsue[edit]

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.

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.

{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.

Evidence presented by GillesV[edit]

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.

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:

More things

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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:

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].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reply to Maurice27

Assertions (only for Catalonia where I'm contributing)

Evidence presented by Physchim62[edit]

Valencian flag

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

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)[reply]

Selected reverts

by Benimerin/Joanot/84.120.254.73

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

by Casaforra

[172], [173]

by Dúnadan

[174], [175]

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).

(lengthy but inconclusive talkpage debate follows)

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)[reply]

Selected reverts

by Benimerin/Joanot/84.120.254.73

[186]

by Dúnadan

[187]

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)[reply]

Selected reverts by Dúnadan

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

Assertions

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ...".

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.

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)[reply]

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.

Insults in the edit summary

Insults in talk pages

Penis section

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

Trolling

Contradictions

Lack of respect in general/disruptive behaviour

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)[reply]

Answer to Maurice27

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!

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:


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.


- 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?



-"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.

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!

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.

Evidence presented by Owdki[edit]

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)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

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

{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.

{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.


More