Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Owdki

message: Sorry: I'm too nervous and excited and I thought that Dúnadan talked about me (when he said "has been blocked 7 times"). I've corrected it.
I've opened my account yesterday (August 19, with all my illusion) and I've found this circus. I'm new here and I feel harassed, persecuted and compelled by Dúnadan and GillesV. Please, help. May be because I think different and I don't agree with their opinions they have started to work "in the shadows" giving false information about. I have no information and I don't know what to do against this defenselessness. Please, help. I don't how to act and they are two very informed working in group. 
Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Catalonia#Should_we_be_expecting_a_final_resolution_any_time_soon.3F
--Owdki 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP 

message: Well, I also feel that this checkuser may be useful for the resolution of the Arbitration Comitee (specially if it is positive). The general attitude of Owkdi remembers me a lot to Maurice for the very same reasons that pointed out Dúnadan.   Personally I feel it is important to discard that Owkdi is a sockpuppet because Maurice27 is a very disruptive user (you can look Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Evidence#Some selected contributions from Maurice27 to make a picture of his attitude). Despite there is no IP evidence to request the checkuser I agree that it is important to know if they're sockpuppets or not.   --GillesV 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Losing,Winning? The arbitration is not a football match. One of the reasons for the arbitration  is to find a solution to the continous uncivility in talk-pages.  After your contributions in Catalonia and other related articles it is hard to me to assume good faith with you so I think that it is necessary to verify it.Oh, and I disagree with your affirmation about the locations, it is so easy to use a proxy server in order to avoid tracing and then IP-check will be false. Let's wait and see if it is proper to ask for this IP-check and if it is proper then what happens with the result.--GillesV 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maurice I never edited Valencian Community and please avoid personal attacks like "Cree el ladron que todos son de su condición" or saying that I become histerial. To explain you what is a proxy server is just for your information and yes I am an electrical engineer so I know about IP addresses, should I hide that?  I don't feel that suspecting  about sock-puppetry and requesting a checkuser involving two users is an uncivil attitude and sorry if you consider this in that way. If you want request as many checkusers as you want involving my user.  --GillesV 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I only hope that you become a great contributor and that you don't feel oppressed by these pseudo-editors. --Maurice27 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The behavioral pattern and verbosity, open questions and sarcasm are strikingly similar. In any case, is Owdki sure he followed Maurice27's links, or his own links, which he himself found and added to Maurice27's talk page when requesting desperately for help?. His request for an immediate answer (like if we are online precisely when he demands so)  and his comments that he is "still waiting" and that I "had plenty of time to give an answer" (less than 12 hours) follow the pattern of Maurice's words before., not to mention the style of using quotes, and his rapid knowledge of how to use wiki code to edit in Wikipedia.  If Owdki is not Maurice27, I apologize. Please read WP:SOCK, it will tell you that when somebody accuses you of being a sockpuppet, you shouldn't take it personally; usually your own edits (over the threshold of 100) are solid enough to prove your innocence. If there is no sockpuppetry, and the checkuser proves it,  I apologize to both. But as Maurice27 well knows (and after a spurious filing of sockpuppetry cases against me and others within this Request for Arbitration) this request is necessary, even if I am proven wrong. --the Dúnadan 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for my poor english. It seems  that Owdki was using the following proxy: 81.36.173.154 . I know it is an open proxy  after requesting a proxy check solved by user:Prodego yesterday. He pointed out that this IP was a proxy server. 
*You can see my request 05:28, 21 ag 2007 here. 
*Now that open proxy is blocked for 5 years.  
*To understand why I think Owdki was using that open proxy see the following links: only anonymous contribution from the open proxy and the first edition of Owdki. 
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. --GillesV 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If Owdki was a sockpuppet, would we interesting to find who was de master (and I am not accusing anyone). I propose that we all the people related with that problem are checked.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important in all this affair is to know the maximum information about the puppeteer, if we don't act like this probably the same user will enter wikipedia from another proxy with another new user soon or later. It is not a bad idea a checkuser for all the users involved in the arbitration but if I have to choose only one user personally I feel it would be Maurice27 for similarities in interests and editing style. I doubt that the check appears to be true with any of the users but may be the puppeteer failed twice and in an occasion accceded wikipedia without the proxy enabled. --GillesV 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a bit stressed with your rhetorical, I have my own point of view about the whole affair and I think it is fair to explain that to the community like I did above. I used conditional and tried to avoid any personal attacks but Owkdi and you from the outside looked like a team. Sorry if you don't like my opinion and I apologise if it affected you but this is a request for a check (that probably will be false or rejected for the lack of IP<->user evidence), not a direct accusation so I don't understand why are you worried about that. --
GillesV 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk action: Lengthy discussion moved off of main page (by MSJapan) 

message: :Sorry for my poor english. It seems  that Owdki was using the following proxy: 81.36.173.154 . I know it is an open proxy  after requesting a proxy check solved by user:Prodego yesterday. He pointed out that this IP was a proxy server. 
*You can see my request 05:28, 21 ag 2007 here. 
*Now that open proxy is blocked for 5 years.  
*To understand why I think Owdki was using that open proxy see the following links: only anonymous contribution from the open proxy and the first edition of Owdki. 
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. --GillesV 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Owdki was a sockpuppet, would we interesting to find who was de master (and I am not accusing anyone). I propose that we all the people related with that problem are checked.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important in all this affair is to know the maximum information about the puppeteer, if we don't act like this probably the same user will enter wikipedia from another proxy with another new user soon or later. It is not a bad idea a checkuser for all the users involved in the arbitration but if I have to choose only one user personally I feel it would be Maurice27 for similarities in interests and editing style. I doubt that the check appears to be true with any of the users but may be the puppeteer failed twice and in an occasion accceded wikipedia without the proxy enabled. --GillesV 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a bit stressed with your rhetorical, I have my own point of view about the whole affair and I think it is fair to explain that to the community like I did above. I used conditional and tried to avoid any personal attacks but Owkdi and you from the outside looked like a team. Sorry if you don't like my opinion and I apologise if it affected you but this is a request for a check (that probably will be false or rejected for the lack of IP<->user evidence), not a direct accusation so I don't understand why are you worried about that. --
GillesV 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong reasons to think that Owdki is behind an open proxy