Case Opened on 23:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

• Physchim62 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Casaforra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mountolive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dúnadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Boynamedsue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Benimerin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toniher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since at least February 2007, Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Valencian Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and various related articles have been the scene of serious edit-warring. I feel that the users above are the "main culprits": they act as a group, and there are strong suspicions of sock puppetry concerning at least some of them.

The modus operandi is fairly classic in such cases. The said users attempt to revert certain edits which cite reliable sources but which do not conform to their point of view. They themselves are less than able to provide reliable sources for their assertions, or sometimes even to remain civil. The result is edit warring, talk-page diarrhea and a paralysis of constructive editing.

A Request for Mediation relating to Valencian Community failed because of the refusal of the concerned parties to participate. I am bringing the case to Arbitration because of the shear length of disruption, and because of new indications of disruptive sock puppetry which, if confirmed (as far as these things can be), would cover the much of this six-month period. As such, I feel that a case can be made on the basis of user conduct rather than on that of article content.

• In partial reply to Casaforra below, User:Benimerin has now been unblocked and informed of the request for arbitration here. Physchim62 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All involved might wish to bear in mind that Benimerin (talk · contribs) was previously known as Joanot (talk · contribs): [1]. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To complete the reply to Casaforra, as far as I'm able at this point, it is usual that the Arbitration Committee looks at all aspects of a case: the editors whom Casaforra names were all notified of the request for arbitration at the same time as those listed above, and have now all added a statement here. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to various users below: I am not going to discuss individual administrative actions here; there will be time and space to do that later, if the Arbitration Committee accepts this request. Frankly, I find that the statements only confirm my reasons for bringing this request. Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask undecided arbitrators to look at this section of WP:AN/3RR and to ask themselves whether this is the sort of situation which a single admin should be resolving on their own? Admins have a duty to try to prevent disruption, by using their judgement in particular cases, but they also need support from time to time. Physchim62 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this request. Each change or edit even if proven with legal and/or graphic sources has to be discussed, sometimes even for weeks, on talk-pages. --Maurice27 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In partial reply to Casaforra and Dunadan below: May you be reminded that this is a request for arbitration on 2 articles and not a judgement against my person? Neither Physchim's, Mountolive's or myself's statements have reduced explanations to a single user level like you both are doing. You are asked to take that matter to WP:AN if you wish.

• Continuous addition of discussion by the involved users in a page where it says "This is not a page for discussion", clearly shows how this users are only working together to make their point stand over the others, no matter what it takes. Neither Physchim, Mountolive, Boynamadsue or myself are doing so. --Maurice27 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a Request for Arbitration happens, then please include all the users involved in the edition of those articles. That is (in alphabetical order): Boynamedsue, Maurice27, Mountolive, and the proposer Physchim62. I don't know if a blocked user could also take part, Benimerin.

As for me, I should say I'm only editing on the Talk page of the Valencian Community, I haven't ever edited in the article or the talk page of Catalonia.

But, please, go on, and read the archived talk pages as well. Psychim62 was very prompt to block indefinitely two anon IPS and one new user (Benimerin), but has done nothing regarding a very disruptive and incivil user, Maurice27.

I don't know where to sign but I fully agree that, once for all, somebody setles peace and gets some heavy consensus. I'll stand for whatever arbiters say. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Maurice27: The main problem on both pages Physchim62 noted is you, Maurice27. Just take a look at these articles:

* Andorra, Antoni Gaudí or Northern Catalonia: Diarrhea talk pages plenty of trollings (by you) and insults (by you) with your lack of sense to reach any consensus that doesn't fit your POV.

* And compare them with the way two different POVed users (Mountolive and me) resolve differences: Valencian Nationalist Bloc or Valencian pilota.

I could name many more examples where your posts begin a war-edit because of your bad behaviour.

We all have proved that we can debate with different sources, arguments and reasonings, you haven't. You only disrupt by lying (I never [2] edited in the Catalonia article as you claim [3]), crying aloud [4], laughing at others [5] , trolling [6] or insulting [7]. It's you who, in last term, is causing all this.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree to this. The medical symptoms couldn't be explained better by Physchim62: talk page diarrhea. Talk pages haven't proved effective at all in those articles.

Me personally I have been mostly out of these articles for a few months now. Actually, these very articles are responsible for having quite disengaged me from wikipedia. It would feel nice if we got a solution good for everybody who is there in good faith and this is, I guess, one more last opportunity, for I think that Casaforra is mainly in good faith (even though the fact that he is calling now that major vandal called Benimerin to be revived is really puzzling). I don't know how he's been acting recently, but Toniher has proved to me once or twice in the past that he can also be agreeable and in good faith. Thus, I guess there is a chance.

So, yes, you can count on me for this...if it is going to be different than those talk pages mentioned, of course.

Mountolive

The situation at the aforementioned talk pages wouldn't have been as drastic as to request for arbitration if the administrator involved (User:Physchim62) had not only acted promptly, but fairly. I agree with Casaforra, Physchim62 has blatantly ignored the repeated insults, swearing, ad hominem attacks and disruptive behavior of other users. In fact User:Maurice27 had to be blocked, first temporarily, and then permanently, by another administrator, because of his disruptive behavior, and yet he was unblocked again.

Phychim62 permanently blocked a new user (eventually shown to be innocent) whose POV he personally opposes, by assigning him a purported puppeteer without solid evidence, and without a fair "trial" (no case was opened at WP:SSP). When confronted and asked to open a fair investigation to confirm the identity of the purported sock puppet, or to prove his innocence, Physchim62 said that this sock-puppetry case was "evident" and ultimately responded that "it is none of your business".

His sympathy for the POV of the disruptive editors involved has been evident, not only by condoning their lack of etiquette and disruptive behavior, but also by naming in this request for arbitration only those users who disagree with his POV (Toniher, Casaforra and myself), but not those who happen to agree with his particular POV (Mountolive, Boynamedsue and Maurice27), some of which have resorted to direct insults, article ownership, sarcasm and extremely disruptive behavior. I find it astonishing, and hypocritical, as the Arbitration Committee probably will, that the administrator Physchim62 names as "culprits" three users who have never engaged in 3RR violations 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. It is even interesting (and eye-opening) to note that even User:Boynamedsue's first impression was to say that this request of arbitration was most probably caused by Maurice27's disruptive behavior, not by us.

Physchim62 claims that we act as a group, yet six users (the three users he "groups", plus User:Xtv, User:Joan sense nick and User:GillesV), after debating peacefully, and disagreeing on many issues, agreed on a consensual version for Catalonia. After User:Maurice27 was unblocked (or forgiven from his permanent blockage), he contended, yet again, the consensual version, and starting a new edit war. Yet, Physchim62, sympathetic with Maurice27's POV claims that it is us who act disruptively.

Arbitration is needed for the following reasons:

• Users diregard WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, even claiming that the constitution of Spain and the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia are not unbiased sources (and therefore, should not be used). The first user repeatedly engaged in WP:3RR. He constantly challenges the consensus of other users (in Catalonia) who provide sources, and resorts to demagogy to disqualify reputable sources such as the aforementioned legal documents and Britannica.
• A review of the [mis]use of the administrative privileges of User:Physchim62 who, being sympathetic with a POV has opened this ludicrous accusation, castigated and permanently blocked an innocent user while blatantly ignored, even when asked to do something, the disruptive behavior of those users with whom he agrees.
• All users, therefore, should be added to this request for arbitration, not only one party. Please add User:Maurice27, User:Mountolive, User:Boynamedsue (those with whom Physchim62 is sympathetic) as well as other users who, like Toniher, Casaforra and myself, have helped build a consensus and participated peacefully: User:GillesV, User:Xtv, and User:Joan sense nick.

--the Dúnadan 01:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)--the Dúnadan 01:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I read your statement, I notice you are also saying that I disregard WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV and, also, seems that I even claimed that the constitution of Spain and the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia are not unbiased sources.

This is not probably the right place to make it, but I would appreciate it if you could prove to me in my talk page that I did that and said so. If I did, please accept my apologies beforehand for asking you to prove it. Otherwise, I will be willing to accept your excuses.

Mountolive

I do apologize, I had edited this section over a dozen times see history), until I realized that this is not the place to provide evidence, but to support the request for arbitration, so I restructured and summarized the above points. From the edits, your name was left in there by mistake. From Talk:Catalonia, there is no evidence to suggest that you said so. Again, I apologize. --the Dúnadan 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Dunadan, the link you have posted does not support the conclusions you have drawn from it. I was unsure as to why the mediation had been requested, but had not assumed Maurice27 was the person being investigated.

I don't want to get into a bitch fight here, and I am still unsure what the specific charges against Toniher, Dunadan and Casaforra are. I am aware that Cas and Dun are excellent contributors on a range of non-Catalan and/or less political topics. I would suggest that they aren't deliberately breaking any Wiki policies, but that they are people with very strong political convictions who often unconsciously fall into double-think. I think that their narrow focus on stressing the exceptionality of Catalonia and cultural unity of Catalan-speaking territories has acted to the detriment of these articles, which after their edits can often read as missionary tracts.

I feel that they sometimes also selectively misunderstand arguments in discussions, and use sources that have no validity.That a government legislates that something is true, citing the example Dunadan quoted, does not make it in any objective sense, true. At one point I was arguing that the fact that Catalonia is defined as a "nationality" (not a "nation", a nationality) in its statute does not make that either true or encyclopedic, and should therefore be reported as opinion not fact. One can't simply keep posting "Catalonia is a nationality" citing the statute, without answering the core of my argument, as was done at the time.

However, I don't see that any action can or should be taken on these pages, it is a free web, and anyone has the right to write what they please. The users are biased but in the main well-meaning

I feel that these articles are damaged by the narrow focus of the contributors (myself included) on minutae, but I strongly believe that wikipedia must not become a trojan horse for a political viewpoint to insinuate itself into English language discourse, particularly when it is one that has such disregard for objective reality.

Boynamedsue 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. Mountolive.-

The problem is that you are defining objective reality and ascribing it to a particular point of view. You say that the Spanish constitution cannot be the objective reality (i.e. "truth"). And, like I said in Talk:Catalonia, maybe [perhaps remotely] you are right, maybe, just maybe there are no "nationalities" within Spain. But, like I said in Talk:Catatonia, by WP:Verifiability (please read it), the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth (or, as you aptly put it: objective reality, or our perception of what "truth" is) but verifiability. By demagogy you might argue that that neither the constitution nor the Statute of Autonomy (being primary sources) are not encyclopedic. But, it really doesn't matter what we think truth is, but what can be verified. And Catalonia is defined as a nationality by two verifiable primary sources. That is why I argue that you are disregarding WP:Verifiability. I have no political opinion whatsoever: I am not even Catalan. I read what the constitution says, and I report it. Simple. --the Dúnadan 22:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you really not understand what I'm saying Dunadan? A government can legislate and we can report what they have legislated. Which of these goes better in an Encyclopedia

"All Americans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

OR

"According to the constitution, all Americans havew the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Boynamedsue 08:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. That is why the consensual version proposed by Joan sense nick, avoided the term from the lead paragraph, and contextualized it in the lead section by literally citing, in quotation marks, and referencing, what the Statute of Autonomy says. (I think you were absent during that time; I am not sure). However, this consensus was, yet again, contested for being "inaccurate" and "biased". --the Dúnadan 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that was more or less what we were working on a few days ago. It wasn't contested by me, I just think it needs extending.

Boynamedsue 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(formerly User:Joanot)

I've stopped during a time to contribute in wp:en as User:Joanot because I was tired that Valencian related articles were hijacked by Maurice27 and Mountolive, as they act as a coordinated team to avoid (see this) and to check (in a censor-way style) contributions of Valencian and Catalonian wikimedians users came from wikipedia in Catalan. Note that in the involved parties, there are four administrators from wp:ca (Xtv, SMP, Dunadan, and me) which are being having problems with these users when we want to improve article related to Catalan-speaking world in wp:en from our quality-rated articles there.

Very later (around of four months) I've again started to participate but from anonymous to check if the situation is the same, and I had considered that it was not necessary to reveal who I am. When Mountolive and the disruptive user Maurice27 (see: block log) asked me to register a new account I've tried to recover my forgotten password but the email address related to User:Joanot is unaccesable for me, so I've created this another one.

I'm not consider myself as sockpuppeeter because: a) I have not used twice any of my rights as wikimedian user; b) I have not contributed with two accounts at same time; c) I have not used both accounts to figure out there are two different persons: d) In the same day I've registered this new account, administrator User:Physchim62 have blocked me quickly in a unbehavioured action based simply on casual facts, and so I had not be able to notice soon about my new situation.

In my humble opinion, I think that anybody can see at every historial that the attitude of Maurice27, as the bad person (very unrespectful, see this), and Mountolive, as the good person, is avoiding and to disrupt the normal participation of Catalan and Valencian users fron ca:wp on Wikipedia in English.

--Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC) PD: And unrespectful attitude is going on, before if it was about penis, and now it's about LGBT people...[reply]

Dear all, I lament not having contributed to Wikipedia much lately, partly because of lack of time due to personal and professional reasons and, I suppose as well, partly because of the attitudes pointed by some other Catalan-speaking wikipedians before. I'm writing this and I'm not sure why I am supposed to do this and what it is the point of this arbitration. Am I asked not to contribute anymore? I joined English wikipedia because I thought I could contribute about Catalan-related matters not covered in this project. And, as you can easily check if you follow from my profile, I think I can help well enough. During this time I have been personally insulted and threatened, sadly I think under the condescension of some admins, and all this despite I believe I have always tried to have a respectful attitude with all people with different POVs.I hope all these dynamics may change in the future, and I may contribute back again in the different topics where I think I could still offer plenty of information.Best regards, Toniher 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. James F. (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. SimonP 13:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, may be s/w premature in terms of dispute resolution, but the claims of sockpuppets and the mention of improper blocks makes me think that we need to take the case. FloNight 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]