User talk:MariusM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/archive 1 27 august - 17 november 2006


Contents

[edit] Tiraspol Times

I think you misunderstand William there: The letter and my post he quoted state that the newspaper is indeed available at certain places, but it's not for sale (evaluation copies, I guess). The guys I asked said that they didn't see it available for sale in public. I say, let's wait for Mark's reply/reaction to my proposal before jumping to conclusions. --Illythr 21:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why you didn't ask your friends to check directly on the places indicated in the e-mail you received? Anyhow Mauco misquoted you, jumping at the conclusion that hard copy existence of Tiraspol Times is an established fact beyond question, using your name as a proof.--MariusM 21:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied to you over there.
The letter states that TT does indeed exist in printed copies. Just not everywhere and not for sale yet. I think it's that English word "available" that may be (and probably was) interpreted in several ways. --Illythr 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Proper place for this discussion - Talk:Transnistria.--MariusM 09:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Way

ahead of you. Check the talk page :) - Francis Tyers · 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Hi Marius,

Thanks for your note. I appreciate the time it took you to write it. I will look into the situation tomorrow, but it is too late here to do anything effective tonight. I would ask that you refrain from making major edits on those articles until this mess can be unravelled. Please do not bother reverting Mauco's additions, as whatever the problem is, quickly reverting it won't solve the problem. I promise to look into the situation more tomorrow, and thanks again for your note. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Da, sunt de acord. Drept sa-ti zic, nu stiam nici eu sa fi existat asa ceva. Dar el cum e insistent, tot zicea ca a citit el ca o republica a fost declarata pentru cateva zile la Odesa. Oricum, daca vei propune stergerea, eu te sustin. Dapiks 06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please contibute

to Transnistria#Propaganda_and_disinformation. Let`s add all those links to The Economist, Ziua, etc. Let`s turn this campaign against them. Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job... hahah haha Greier 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are so evil! Mauco has a familly to feed, think at this!--MariusM 12:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Markstreet and Mauco

Was there ever a ip check on these users? This reply of Street is surprisingly simmilar to how Mauco reverted and argued that the version to which he reverted to is the one "agreed on". Also, I find certain talk patterns in Street, which I also noticed in Mauco... It`s clear (at least for me) that Mauco works for ICDISS, and considering that Street works for TiraspolTimes (itself a ICDISS site), than I think all chances are Street and Mauco are the same person... What do you think? Greier 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Better discuss through e-mails (check it). You can ask a WP:RCU, however, this check is done in only some limited situations (see instructions), and only for recent edits.--MariusM 13:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about checkuser. Checkuser policy allows users to willingly allow for their IPs ot be checked, as to clarify any doubts on the user. I asked Mauco many times to allow a check of his IP with that of all of those anons popping from nowhere to edit Trns-related articles, but he declined... I doubt that if I ask Street the same thing, he will consent... Greier 13:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

Nu a fost intenţia mea să şterg acel pasaj. Eu am vrut să anulez o serie de schimbări haotice de către Markstreet şi Greier, şi se pare că partea cu şcolile s-a nimerit printre cele mai recente editări. Dar totuşi, posibil că ar fi mai bine să adaugi partea ceea la articolul Moldovan schools in Transnistria decât la cel principal. TSO1D 13:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bine, am mai adăugat unele detalii, însă nu întreaga versiune originală. Cât despre referendum, acest eveniment a fost destul de important pentru Transnistria şi secţiunea doar conţine şase linii de text, deci eu nu sunt sigur cu tu vrei să schimbi acolo. TSO1D 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Salut Marius, can you please show me what the consensus intro was? Thanks, Khoikhoi 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. As for the terrorism thing, I don't feel as comfortable about changing that one because I'm not sure if a compromise has been reached yet (unlike the intro). How about "domestic violence"? Usually "terrorism" is a word we try to avoid on Wikipedia (see WP:WTA). Khoikhoi 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Marius, thanks for the link, but you didn't understand my comment. I also don't think we have ever talked about democracy in Transnistria before. You must be thinking of someone else. jamason 23:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

If you want 3RR enforced, put your request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As I told you at Wikipedia_talk:Romanian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Duble_standarde_la_Wikipedia, this is not something I do. - Jmabel | Talk 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now endorsed your request at 3RR. But, I'm sorry, I'm not the one to enforce it. I do so many different things here, and I don't want to set a precedent that I do this one as well. Once I wade in there, people are going to start expecting me to be involved in that activity. As it is, I have almost no time to write articles or work on translation, which is what I originally joined Wikipedia to do; I need to have some things here that I simply don't do. - Jmabel | Talk 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Marius, tare apreciez sprijinul dvs. Mulţumesc frumos. Biruitorul 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionist?

You are badly mistaken, colleague. `'mikkanarxi 05:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you need to read this

Every edit I have ever made has been reverted

The Transnistria page is pure Romanian/ Moldova Secret Service Prpoganda. As a major voice of Transnistria here I have not been allowed a single edit here nor has an other Transnistrian editor. Frankly. it is a sad when they will not allow the Transnistrian voice to have a single word on the main page. Currently It is pure lies and propganda. They agree things and then delete the parts of the agreement they don't like. The link to tiraspoltimes was voted on and is always removed . TSOID removed it again today. We have proven the Terrorism word is not true. But the Romanian Secret Service types just flaunt the rules and plough in their edits and insert Terrorism even though it is clearly not true. . The Independence Referendum is always deleted and the section is deliberately written in a highly confusing manner. The first day I arrived in Transnistria I was told be a senior person that The Moldovans treat the Transnistrians like animals and this Transnistrian page on Wiki is an example of the pure bombastic nature of the Moldovan/Romanian people here that refuse to allow the Transnistrians have a say on there own site. There is three views possible; ours, yours, and how things are. Here thr page is currentlly entirely yours. We want to turn it not to ours but to how things really are. This we are denied. Sadly for you we are Free and will remain free, we are in a position of strenght and this you cannot see. The current tactic is to strangle and starve the Transnistrian people into submission. Treat them like animlas like the Americans treated the indians in the west in the 1850s. When this fails. How can we ever meet in the middle. One place we can currently co-operate togather is here. So far I have not been allowed to insert one single work on the main page as it is defended the the Romanian Sectret Service types. Until there is mutual respect we can abandon hope, Surely it is in your interest to work together, to find common threads? Or am I dealing with pure hatred here ? No effort is ever made to reach compromise. Perhaps I am wasting my time trying. Maybe we are never meant to work together and have respect. Does anyone have any idea how to reach out to the other side. I have tried so many times. Currently you have me. I can leave it if you want. Have your honourless proaganda site and I can go...... and what then. ...Mark us street Dec4th 2006.

I would just note that the article had been locked for quite some time (for good reason) and there is not much point in changing it (especially the intro) once unlocked since you insist the PMR is an independent country, albeit unrecognized for the time being, moreover, needing protection by Russian peacekeepers on the border to protect them from the belicose Moldovans attempting to "starve them" into submission. I, nor most of the participants, have any desire to be drawn into an edit war. I have currently suggested a neutral intro on the Talk:Transnistria page that accurately and as simply as possible states the historical facts with no judgement on what they mean or interpretation of what the PMR should be considered. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ossetia

Marius, here is info about the Ossetian Opposition movement to pro-Russian regime in Tskhinvali, The Salvation Union of South Ossetia and also see Alternative Government of South Ossetia on South Ossetia article. Regards. Luis. Ldingley 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Marius, thank for your massage, i did read your article. There are striking similarities between two pro Russian separatist enclaves in Georgia and Moldova. Both separatist regions (including another one of Georgia, Abkhazia) are utterly militaristic and aggressive towards the other ethnic groups. This is a very hazardous for global stability, especially for the stability and territorial integrity of Russia herself. Best regards, Luis. p.s Do most Romanian believe of being descendents of the great Romans ? p.s.s I have great images/photos of Romanian civil war, if interested, I can email you the most interesting ones Ldingley 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cease-fire

From the block log:

  • 05:55, December 9, 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "William Mauco (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (edit-warring with MariusM on several articles for several weeks)
  • 05:55, December 9, 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MariusM (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (edit-warring with William Mauco on several articles for several weeks)

—freak(talk) 06:08, Dec. 9, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] meta: please confirm

Could you please confirm your identity with the user m:User:MariusM in Meta? It is needed to confirm your vote on the page m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia because of sockpuppetry issues. Thank you in advance. --Yms 15:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I confirm. I am the same person as metawiki user MariusM.--MariusM 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In my case, someone else (not me) claimed to be "William Mauco" over there. It is cleared up now. - Mauco 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned users

This edit summary does not make sense: "read WP:BAN. Is not saying that edits made BEFORE the ban should be removed."
Question: How can a banned user make an edit AFTER his ban?
See also WP:3RR: Removing edits by banned users do not count against 3RR. However, restoring them, as you are now doing - twice so far - does count against 3RR. Do not edit war, please, but seek consensus first if you want to defend Greier's work. You may also want to see Greier's block log as well as his Talk page, so you understand these issues better and hopefully do not fall into the same behavior. - Mauco 17:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also this from WP:BAN: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." You have now done so twice so far [1] [2]. - Mauco 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, you again didn't understand Wikipedia policy or knowingly make wrong comments about it. A banned user can edit after the ban evading the ban (like Bonny is doing sometimes). Greier was blocked after a fake 3RR report (he made 5 reverts in 10 days, didn't broke 3RR) and the block was extended to a ban, but this is an other discussion. Yes, I take responsability for reinstating Greier's edit done before the ban, is my right as a Wikipedia user. When you take out the paragraph you don't revert Greier, you revert me, and this is counting for 3RR. If you don't trust me, just try.--MariusM 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with you with this assessment, and I do believe that I have a pretty good grasp of how Wikipedia works. It is based on consensus and collaborative editing, something which Greier consistently failed to understand and which he is now perma-banned for. You are reinstoring his edits - again, without consensus or prior debate, just like he originally introduced them - and this is hardly acceptable. Not to me, but to Wikipedia, as per WP:BAN: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users."
Your comment "just try" is perceived by me as a threat and overly uncivil. - Mauco 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You have no right to talk about civility after you made edits like "I am disgusted to my bones by the editor who wants to include this" - the editor being me.--MariusM 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that every editor has the right to ask for civility here. That includes me. As for the diff you post, you almost immediately received a polite apology afterwards even though every single editor on the page agreed with me that your original entry was out of place, out of line, and (in the words of one of the Romanians) amounted to propaganda. - Mauco 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Your attempt of accusing me of antisemitic propaganda failed and you apologies only after a Jewish editor wrote his disagreement with you. In fact, I was the one who removed from Wikipedia Smirnov's antisemitic propaganda included here by you [3].--MariusM 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
How on earth can it be anti-semitic to state that someone is Jewish? Is that now a slur? Only in the minds of someone who does not like the Jewish people. As you know, there are several sources who claim that Zenovich is Jewish. I am not sure if they are correct, but I will accept the sources that say that he is not. Either way, if he is or isn't, it is hardly "antisemitic propaganda" but, at the most, a difference between two sources as to his religion. Please chill. And with regards to the current issue: You should not reinstate the edits of banned users, MariusM. It is very uncool and it reflects badly on you as an editor. - Mauco 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't pretend you don't understand. In electoral campaign in Transnistria, pretending that a Smirnov's opponent is Jewish is a way to make propaganda against that person. This is the climate in Transnistria brought by Smirnov's regime.--MariusM 00:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not reinstate the edits of banned users. This goes against the policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits .Firsfron of Ronchester 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered in Firsfron talk page.--MariusM 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "source that in bookstores are only Russian-language books"

[4] Er, the source only mentions libraries in Grigoriopol. I don't think that it is enough to cover the broad statement it is attached to. --Illythr 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truli

User:Truli is out of control on the Transnistria page. I happen to agree with some of his/hers edits, but that is beyond the point. The point is that they are large, they are affecting a fairly stable version of the page, and they are made without consensus. I have written a message to Truli to not continue, along with a vandalism warning, and have instead urged these changes to be dealt with in Talk. I also made a 3RR warning. I mentioned vandalism, so I think that if you and I revert Truli, it will not count against your 3RR or my 3RR. I already reverted Truli once, and I see that you are reverting too. You can safely continue to do so and I assure you that I will not report you for 3RR. - Mauco 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I just posted another message to this user [5] so if he or she continues, we can safely report for 3RR and that is that. No further warnings are required. - Mauco 14:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
A rather unlikely alliance, eh? :) --Illythr 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mark us street

Just letting you know, the RFCU you filed has been completed and acted on. Luna Santin 11:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiraspol

I didn't mean that the tank was ugly, I said the picture was. IMHO it degraded the quality of the article—perhaps you could find a better quality one? Anyways, aren't there any nicer pictures of Tiraspol, or is the city nothing but Soviet monuments and ugly buildings? :-) Khoikhoi 11:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark us street

Jamason, Mark us street didn't leave Wikipedia as he told. He only edited under other names. I caught him using 2 sockpuppets after he told he left Wikipedia Request for check user confirmed, probabily he will use or already is using more sockpuppets. His job is to make on-line propaganda for Tiraspol regime, he will do this as long he is paid for it. He just realized is not a good tactic to openly admit he is editor of Tiraspol Times. I am expecting a lot of sockpuppets invading Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia.--MariusM 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this too. By repudiate I was referring to his claims that the article was "black propaganda" and not his stated intention to end participation. Both Mark and Diana have called the article "propaganda." Perhaps that's not such a bad thing, eh? jamason 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diana

You are writing about me on the pages of other users, what is that about, and why do you not write in English? I just want to know what is going on? You said yourself that it was vandalism to delete paragraphs without discussion, and that is what Diana is doing, you can see this, all I do is to restore vandalism, I never add new things and that is a fact, you can see my log. Pernambuco 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diana_Teodorescu&diff=prev&oldid=97193680 Pernambuco 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) please translate it for me

What, please explain, I do not understand a thing now, do you endorse Diana's version, or what? You said on the talk that the person who removes paragraphs without discussion is a vandal, that it is vandalism, and this is what diana has been doing, and now you reverted me to that version from diana? I do not understand, you are also including the link that the others do not like, it is transnistria.ru.ru and this has not been discussed, it is a terriple POV link and you are putting it under Transnistrian side, what is that, please explain yourself. Pernambuco 20:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
explain.... your comment that ¨Removing paragprahs without disscussion is vandalism¨ only applies when I do it (do you think that I am a vandal) but when Diana does it, then it is oK?? you are digging yourself a big hole, mariusM, you are not making any friends, not with me, with this double standard attitude. Pernambuco 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I also want you to translate the text that you wrote in a foreign language about me.Pernambuco 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Learn Romanian if you want, on my page he is allowed to tell me in my language. I don't speak too well english..--Diana Teodorescu 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are rude, it is polite when you talk about others in a foreign language, that you translate, I am also not from England or United States, it is not my language, but when I discuss others then i do it in a language that they can understand, so do not be rude Pernambuco 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You already were, do you want me to remind how rude and impolite you were? You even lied saying MariusM agree with you since what he said was not that, for me you're a liar and rude. Most Russians hate Romanians, but I never thought that also Brazilians are. But regardless of what you say, there was a conflict that you just keep reverting and trying to impose your POV with rudeness, liars and personal attacks. What you do is discrimination against Romanians and against females. To put it bluntly, it is because of this totally negative, even racist mentality of your that I think you should not be contributing on these matters. --Diana Teodorescu 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop arguing in my user page. Use your own user pages.--MariusM 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Most Russians hate Romanians"? "Racist mentality"? Hmm, deja vu... Now, where did I see this before? --Illythr 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

Er, sorry, that was a wholesale revert, I'll restore the previously agreed stuff back, now. I reverted to Jonathanpops because I thought that he reverted to the last stable version. Looks like I was wrong...

BTW - I'm thinking of Corsica. ;-)

Whoah, I skipped on reviewing the article only for several days and look what's going on with it. I'm surprised that you actually supported those highly controversial edits. I will have to do a thorough review now...

I think the article needs to be reverted waaay back to TSO1D's edits on 27th and locked, so that all the new stuff can be discussed first.

Also, I don't remember who started this, but please stop calling each other's reverts "vandalism". Clearly, none of the regulars here (except Boni) have the goal of doing damage just for the sake of it. Obviously, we have a POV conflict, instead.

I think that reporting Pernambuco the way you did was politically correct, but morally wrong, considering that his last three editswere to revert changes being introduced without any kind of consensus at all. I believe that it's only fair that you report Diana as well; I understand that you have already warned her.[6]

I'm too tired to continue editing tonight, so I hope you will clean up the mess yourself, before the other editors arrive.

Although my good faith of you is severely strained, I will assume it nevertheless. Good luck in restoring the article to a version, where at least some consensus was achieved. --Illythr 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of comments about Tiraspol Times from my userpage

Hi Marius,

Now that William Mauco has shown TT to be a "real" paper newspaper, please remove your entry on your userpage which suggests Mauco is lying and/or that the paper only exists as a propaganda website. Mauco has clearly shown, through photographic evidence, that the paper exists, and apparently is distributed in fairly large quantities.

Generally speaking, we do not use our userpages to try to discredit other users on Wikipedia (in fact, userpages should never be used to disparage or try to discredit another editor! This goes against so many Wikipedia policies I don't know which one to link to). I was uneasy with you posting that message in the first place, but since anyone can now see your statement was incorrect, please remove this from your userpage immediately. I will be checking back to make sure you have done so. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I updated my page. Mauco didn't ask to remove his name from my page, only to tell the truth, which I did. What I written is not a personal attack, but about one of Wikipedia sources - "Tiraspol Times", and is relevant to disscuss the sources we have in Wikipedia. Fact that Tiraspol Times didn't had a printed edition at the end of October 2006 is correct, even chief editor of Tiraspol Times recognized that they operate on-line, while he was newbie at Wikipedia: [7].--MariusM 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: User:Jayjg asked and received confirmation that User:MarkStreet is indeed editor of Tiraspol Times.--MariusM 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Another admin has agreed that your userpage violated WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, and I have removed the most inflammatory content. Using your userpage to attack another user will not be tolerated. Do not restore these comments. You have many good edits to Wikipedia articles, Marius, but your continued attacks on user:William Mauco are a bad idea. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding personal attack on Mauco, in fact is he the one who made the most personal and unjustified attacks: Here he told that he is "disgusted to his bones" by me, claiming that I want to deny mistreatment of Jews in WW2 (while I didn't edit anything related to Jews). He stopped only when a Jewish editor (admin) told he don't agree with those attacks. I am in fact very moderate about Mauco, who is exhausting the community patience. See for example what other users told about him: Peteris Cedrins (registered Wikipedia 20 June 2005, never received any block)[8], [9], Peters J. Vecrumba (user registered at Wikipedia in 3 December 2005, was never blocked) [10], Greier [11], Ldingley [12], EvilAlex (this one is from Transnistria - comment about Alexander Litvinenko, who was allegedly killed by Russian agents, poisoned at a sushi bar - see Wikipedia article) [13]--MariusM 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your note, Marius.
It is never "okay" to use your userpage to try discredit another user; both of you have engaged in repeated personal attacks, incivility, edit wars, and other nonsense in articlespace and on talk pages. I can't stop you, although I have tried, by using warnings, and by eventually blocking both of you to prevent the disruption of the encyclopedia. None of this has worked.
What I can do is remove long "I was right, he was wrong"-type rants from your userpage. These comments have no place on a userpage, and can only stir up more anger between the two of you. You have stated on my talk page that you are "very moderate" about William Mauco. Please do not insult my intelligence; you've complained about this user and/or reported him dozens of times. The very fact that I had to remove your comments about him on your userpage tells me your feelings are not "moderate". Had William Mauco left comments about you on his userpage, I would have removed those as well. Please go back to doing what you usually do very well: editing the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First, Happy New Year!
I've noticed your interest in Transnistria, and maybe you would like to vote in the survey on the inclusion in Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is here. Thank you, Dl.goe

[edit] Moldovan Romanian

Eh, what was that about? I myself "recognize" that Moldovan is a dialect of Romanian. And I don't live in Transnistria... --Illythr 18:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you also read my argument with Adriaticus&guys below? The actual voting entry was a bit too emotional, the more serious reasons for opposing the closure were down below. In short, there are two: 1) There are still people in Transnistria who use it and are taught in it. 2) mo:wiki deserves to live, just like the Latin(dead), Klingon(fictional) or Simple English(non-language). Unfortunately, instead of being a "normal wiki", it was turned into a battleground between Node and Bonaparte&co with way too few users willing to actually work on it. So, those who want to close it due to political reasons (almost every pro vote) are in error, whereas those who point out the real problems of the wiki (Dahn, TSO1D, DPotop etc) are correct.
On a side note, I wouldn't object against a ru-sib (the situation is similar there, but trickier) or ru-padonki wikis either, if the initiators of the former were not so anti-Russian (and that being Russians themselves!) and those of the latter didn't start it just to spite the ru-sib guys. --Illythr 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
We are Wikipedians. Klingons will be assimilated just like everyone else. Resistance is futile!
Actually, I made a few minor edits to the mo:wiki (rvv), but I don't understand a word of Klingon, unfortunately. --Illythr 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] PMSSR

acceptable? jamason 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is so lame. jamason 00:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Anglo-Saxon Chauvunism"

I don't think there's one like that (at least I've never seen it; I think there is something on US-centrism, though, I never bothered to look), but you can create your own userbox based on some other one. Just subst one into your user page and replace the text&picture if necessary. --Illythr 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 209.183.138.82

I don't think I can block him unless he is warned, so I added a {{test3}} template on his talk page. If he does it again, {{test4}}, and then {{test5}} ("blocked"). Cheers, Khoikhoi 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he couldn't help it...neither could I. ([14]) ;-) Khoikhoi 05:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Events which prepared the war

Marius, where are the key events? The introduction of the language law, the refusal of the Moldovan Govt to grant autonomy to Gagauzia and Transnistria, the massive wave of firings of Russian-speaking personnel throughout Moldova, the various nationalist slogans... Why, even the proclamation of Moldova's independence is missing! This form of POV is called "POV forking", except it's done in the same article. Even here, in Moldova the view on the war is not that one-sided.

Additionally, At the bridge near Dubăsari, clashes are held between the police which wanted to open the bridge and separatists. Deaths and woundeds are registered at both sides. this is the first time I hear of police losses in that particular incident. Weren't the 3 killed and 16 wounded from among the demonstrants (or, as you prefer to say, separatists)? Weren't you also claiming that this was a terrorist act staged by Transnistrians themselves?

I will not remove your edits, though. Instead, I intend to enhance them. The usage of a Russian source would be okay, I understand, considering your own choice.

In any event, proposing such a contentious edit on the talk page first would've been the right thing to do. --Illythr 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion take place in Talk:War of Transnistria. You are wellcome to add other events from a Russian source.--MariusM 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

I'm sorry, but I do not have the time to really get involved, nor do I feel compelled to. I think that the editing process is anyway a bit slow (which is normal, given the amount of bad faith and manipulation from Mauco&co), and I am merely observing, only intervening when some obvious fraud is involved. Like in this case. BTW, I have already been involved into such a conflict, on Moldova. This makes me think that the Transnistrian problem is going to last for some time. Dpotop 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

[edit] Inflammatory articles

Posted here due to the apparent lack of relevance to the War of Transnistria.

Do you have issues of Literatura si Arta of the time? I bet any one published during that period will do. I'll keep an eye out for them. Meanwhile, some parts of those slogans are available even on Wikipedia.

  • In this version of the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia article, the last paragraph of the "Consequences (up to 1953)" section describes the Russian arrivals as some criminal uneducated riffraff without any professional qualifications except for the fact that they could speak Russian.
The current version (which is indeed more or less correct) was modified only after I had complained about it on the talk page. The original version was a citation from a relatively fresh Moldovan source printed as late as 1999! I feel that these things are relevant, because they are leftover sparks of the fire that burned bright back in those times. I have to admit, I'm surprised that you seem to be completely unaware of it. You may be the victim of the same circumstances you have attributed to me, having read only Romanian-language literature of a certain bent, but I refuse to believe that Romanian press had completely avoided those issues. --Illythr 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
One single matter - I don't understand the word "only" in the first sentence above. Your complait was logical and constructive, that's why I immediately changed. It is impossible to summarize several pages in one sentance without some non-desireble expressions. After all, it was not a text after "peer-reviewing" - you were partly the "peer". It was your job to recommend changes, and you did your job. That's why the article is better. BTW, I would like in the future to merge June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum article into Soviet occupation of Bessarabia article, and add some info about June-July 1940, the reaction on the ground, time permitting. :Dc76 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This fine specimen of historical accuracy by EvilAlex was (and still is, with some) a rather widespread opinion on Russians that even got published (minus the obscene lexic and "Tundra", Alex's specialty) in serious Moldovan newspapers. Also, "Rusoaicele" (to name one), I think, was a fairly recent series (2004) by N. Dabija, encouraging Moldovans not to marry Russian women, because children of such marriages will be sub-par, compared to their "pure" Moldovan counterparts. That's all written already after 2000, long after the most rabid nationalism had abated, mind you. --Illythr 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I picked the text, because I remember that an outcry occured even in the Romanian-language media, meaning that it had to be really bad (I hear there was even an investigation launched on the issue; he wasn't even fired, of course). Rosca &co had to disavow Dabija because the whole deal could mar them really bad. Hey, do you perchance know where I can get the original text? I had only read a few summaries and comments in Russian and would like to witness those "câteva afirmaţii greşite" :-) in their full glory. And to think that you had earlier proposed the guy as a reliable source on something concerning Russians...meh. Anyways, I'll see if I can find more such pearls that were issued closer to the 1988-1993 period.
As for Alex' comment - this is one time when it's better not to know Russian. Perhaps you can ask him to translate it for you? ;-)

--Illythr 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers at Illythr comments were done on his own talk page [15].--MariusM 13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm glad that you realize that the situation was not black-and-white. All the more surprising then, is the timeline you presented at the War of Transnistria article. Obviously, all parties to the conflict bear a share of responsibility. Highlighting the share of only one side is, well, POV.

Now, to the other concerns. The original Popular Front with its supporters was a rather loose association of various individuals united under the banner of "national awakening". I'd even suggest that most of them had rather benevolent intentions in mind, at least initially. Obviously, when the tensions (and the nationalists' power) subsided, their differences were made apparent and internal tensions arose. But that only happened later. Within the discussed period (1989-1992) the uniting idea was still strong. I think it was precisely the adherence to that uniting idea (nationalism), that caused Rosca to attack Dabija - to deflect the inevitable generalization people are going to make. Their mutual quarrel only strengthened Rosca's reaction.

Dabija's article certainly doesn't prove him wrong, but it demostrates that he is unable to use a NPOV approach when handling Russian-related things, making him an unreliable source there, unless he's admitting something unpleasant to his theories.

As you stated, the situation was by no means black and white. Seeing as how power and education were mostly in Russian and Jewish hands (especially before Khrushchev's "Rise of the Nation" program), and that large cities were almost 90% Russophone, it was certain that a part of the local Russian population would become elitist. Even now I sometimes hear contemptuos muttering about how quickly they came from selling apples in local markets to ruling the country. I'm sure, however, that you do realize the difference between graffiti like "Roşca - bîc" or "rus - jos" (sometimes scrawled on the same wall :-)) by nameless hooligans and a well-written article by a skilled and respected activist that calls the nation to rise up against foreign oppression and oust the invaders back to Siberia, where they came from, or a speech with similar content in front of a huge gathering.

PS: Baran means a ram in Russian, it is rather derogatory when referring to a person.
PPS: Congrats on your Barnstar! You don't have to envy Mauco any longer, now that you have had recognition of your work, too. :-) --Illythr 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is black and white, but NPOV does not mean assigning 1/2 of share. Also I don't think there were only two actors. There were many opinions and forces, which in the end had to adhere to some degree to one of the two "sides". For example Kozyrev, Russia's foreign minister at the time, was viewed as unfair by most of Moldavians, while in Tiraspol, I was told, many viewed him as a traitor. Also, people like former party bossed who stayed in Chisinau but actively supported with their influence on the direct actors the degeneration of the conflict in more bloody one. They have done to Moldovan "side" much more dammage than an ordinary Transnistrian gardsman, who only did something in a group but not by himself. Or, 14th army. Trasnistrians to this day claim it was neutral, but to Moldovans it was synonimuous to Transnistrian "side". Also, there were ordinary Russians from Tiraspol that never took arms against any neighbor, and there was Smirnov, who had an agenda from day 1.
I view the list introduced by MariusM as a working proposal. Noone forbids anyone to complete it with additional information. If I say today that Hitler did bad, and delay until tomorrow to mention Stalin, or leave it someone else's task, are you going to blame me of POV? If I would erase when someone introduces Stalin - that would be a POV.
By contrast, I would say that the vast majority of the people "united under the banner of "national awakening"" had totally "benevolent intentions in mind", and continuously, not only initially. Popular Front was their NGO/political party (both NGO and political parties were still ilegal in USSR when Popular Front started). The unionist (with Romania) idea has developed over time. If you'd taken a poll in 1988 and in 1992, you'd see much more supporters in 1992. The reason was very simple: for 45 years, the word "Romanian" was used in official sourses only together with "burghezo-mosieresc", and sometimes even with "fascist". Many people in countryside were asking themselves if by calling themselves Romanians won't they aslo call themselves fascist. Prior to the summer 1990 there was not even discussion about union with Romania. Only after 6 May 1990 things started to move that that could look possible. But still the question ordinary people asked was "Would Romania provide us as West Germany provided East Germany?" And I have never heard anyone supporting a form of union that was before 1940, i.e. just some more counties, without any autonomy and own government. The general theme in 1988-1990 was "no more big brother" (by that Moldovans understood Russia), noone wanted to replace the "big brother" by the "middle brother".
Dabija has been frustrated for years by what owed to seem him as talking in vain. Sooner or later one or his articles (he was writing at least one a week) was going to contain something over the edge. To say that Dabija "is unable to use a NPOV approach when handling Russian-related things" is like saying the same about Reagan and USSR, or Clinton and Republicans. He was and still is a "leader of opinion", though. He is not an expert scholar on Russia's recent history, he took part in some events. His sources should be used for what they are worth: some are well-documented, some are just attempts to convince different people of something. He is not writing in peer-reviewed journals, neither in extremist press.
The last paragraph that Illythr wrote (before the PS and PPS) - I absolutely agree with it.:Dc76 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I replied to Dc76 on his talk page. --Illythr 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian-Lipovan Cubreacov

Don't know about that, I can ask around. There was a lot of name changes to suit the change in the political climate at the time, I suppose that some "ancestry cleanup" was quite likely to occur as well. Like Vladimir Zhirinovskiy had once said: "My mother is Russian, my father was a lawyer!" (He was Jewish; "yurist" (lawyer) and "yevrei" sound similar in Russian) ;-) --Illythr 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for translations / verification of sourses / following links / bringing in new info

Dupa cum ti-am raspuns mai inainte, sunt destul de ocupat. Totusi, din cand in cand pot gasi cateva minute (sau chiar 1-2 ore) pentru Wikipedia. As vrea sa le dau un randament mai bun. Pe de o parte, imi este destul de greu sa urmaresc toate schimbarile si discutiile din articole si sa raspund la comentoariile inflamatoare care prin "astroturfing" incearca sa creeze o impresie de opinie quazi-unanima in sustinerea unor puncte de vedere de extrema, sustinute (dupa parerea mea) de un numar mic de persoane frustrate de unele evenimente sau realitati. Pe de alta parte, observ ca tu esti destul de activ: contribui regulat, cauti si gasesti foare multe surse si argumente din diverse surse. Observand unele mesaje ale tale din ultima vreme am urmatoarea sugeste: Eu as putea sa-ti fiu de folos cu "sarcini" care pot fi duse la indeplinre in 30 de minute:

  • sa traduc ceva din rusa
  • sa urmez sursele si linkurile respective daca sunt in rusa, cautand daca e ceva relevant pentru o tema data
  • sa verific daca unele editari corespund cu sursele
  • sa adunc surse noi/informatii aditionale despre o tema data

Daca pot fi de folos, te rog lasa-mi de fiecare data un mesaj pe Talk page-ul meu. Daca e vorba de tradus sau verificat, da-mi link-ul (-urile) la sursa. Daca e vreo tema despre care trebuie cautat ceva, descrie in 2 propozitii ce anume sa caut. In felul acesta imi va fi mult mai usor sa fiu de folos fara a promite ca sunt activ zilnic, cand clar nu pot face acest lucru.:Dc76 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

Deoarece tu ai urmarit articolul cu atentie, ai putea sa-mi (sa ne) dai o lista (chiar si aproximativa si incompleta) de ce trebuie schimbat. Ma refer nu doar la [[16]], ci in general la articol. Nu e obligatoriu sa explici fiecare punct, dimpotriva eu o sa inteleg din 2-3 cuvinte despre ce e vorba (daca poti indica la fiecare sectiunea). Detaliile vor trebui discutate direct pe Talk page-ul artiolului. Evident, nu ma astept la intreaga lista azi-maine. Cand ai timp, mai adauga 1-2 observatii, ca sa stiu ce surse/linkuri sa caut si la ce portiuni sa propoun variante de editari. Cel putin sa incerc, ca altfel nu sunt de nici un folos concret pentru articolul acesta. :Dc76 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of sovereign states

Could you take a look at the article and its talk page? Dpotop 13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is just what we need. ;-) - Mauco 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
From that article: "Five states, neither UN members nor recognised by any states that are but sovereign according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria." Also the article says, that the state must be mentioned together with the "mother-state". Conclusion:
"Transnistria, which seeks independence from Moldova, is a but sovereign state not recognized by any state".
That would be legally correct. Problem is, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a legal text. It must say the same thing, but in layman's words. So, I propose that every suggested version be checked against this "legal definition". If it says nor more and no less, then it's ok, otherwise - not.
P.S. If you don't understand, consider this: "The project of European Constitution is all but dead." Only God knows if it will be dead or alive in the end. For now, it is but dead, whatever that means.:Dc76 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veto rights / Edit warring

MariusM, please stop edit warring and please refrain from misleading edit comments. You have at least 3 of those today on Transnistria. See history log. In your latest, you accuse me of wanting veto rights. That is incorrect. As I have pointed out, and as I am now clarifying here again, I merely request that you try to work with consensus. This means that you may want to seek to hear the opinion of other editors first, even of those of us who do not always agree with you. Many of us worked very hard, and very well, with this page before you arrived. You should respect the work of others, and please respect the work of Wikipedia. Your 9 edits in 7 hours has crossed the line for 3RR. If you put the same energy onto the Talk page, it would yield more constructive results. - Mauco 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Heaven of Transnistria

Oh dear, I didn't realise that a dispute may be ongoing - I am rather busy in RL at the moment. As per your message, I just went through the edit history of User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria. You can't remove the MfD tag now, but if you feel that the nomination is in bad faith please comment/point out in the page's MfD discussion. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

I tried to copy-edit one section, but until I have found the best way to do it, the page was protected. I am very sorry, the article is getting hijacked. This is ridiculous and frustrating, all those discussions were in vain, again edit waring. I left this. Why do we have to "police" this article against "intelligent vandalism"? If I did not have the practical possibility to do much on Wikipedia for 2 months, one would think what does it matter one user. But it seems to me most of the honest people somehow dissapeared in meanwhile, where are they?:Dc76 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks

Please see Talk:Transnistria#Marius/Mauco and User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington#Block Logic for information about your's and Mauco's blocks and why I've taken this decision. --Robdurbar 13:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –mysid☎ 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mediation Transnistrian referendum, 2006

I've made a note on the mediation page. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Transnistria (WW2) to Transnistria (Soviet region)

In that case, it probably shouldn't even exist as an article and should instead simply be discussed on the relevant articles for Axis-controlled lands (if such an article exists). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could expand the article's scope in time to discuss the region of Transnistria generally (and name it Transnistria (region) (it could still be called that now, if you wanted--it doesn't have to be an officially-named region). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that the entire area between the two rivers is not considered to be a region called Transnistria today? If there were no country called Transnistria, would the area not still be considered Transnistria? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: 'Check Administrative divisions of Ukraine. Former Transnistria (WW2) is now Moldovan Transnistria + parts of Odessa, Mikolayiv and Vinitsa regions of Ukraine
I'm not sure you're getting my point. I'm not speaking of an officially-named region as part of any country, but the geographical area of Transnistria. If the region has traditionally been called Transnistria (which seems likely), then it can be discussed as a "region"--a place with a name but not a legal existence. Like saying "the Midwestern United States" or " the Balkans", a place can have an existence in the minds of people without being a political entity. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncivil

What is this [17] where you publicly call me "a person who understand with dificulty" can you be civil, these are the rules of wiki-pedia, you have to work with consensus, you have to be civilized, and no edit warring, three things that you had to learn when you were blocked for 10 days Pernambuco 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll results

I have to defend the integrity of the wiki-pedia, if you look at your poll, you do not have a majority for removal of the word "official" from the introduction. it was part of the page for almost all of 2006, and it was part of the compromise, so stop this dumb edit war and stop trying to block and ban the people that you dont agree with, as you can see I am not the only one who restored your deletion attempts.

About the poll, there are only five who support the Remove, they are: MariusM, Dpotop, EvilAlex, Dl.goe, Jonathanpops. There are four who are neutral, they are, Neutral: TSO1D, Illythr, Node, Pēters J. Vecrumba, and you have to read what Vecrumbas says, he explains his position very well, he says he is fine that the word stays, which means he is neutral, read his whole sentences. For keep, there are five also they are: Pernambuco, Helen28, Mauco, OzLawyer, Buffadren. you can read how they explain. This means five for removing, four neutral, and five for keeping, this is not consensus. Neutral supports the Status Quo, the existing version (4+5 = 9).

If there are five men who wants to remove and nine who are fine with keeping, it stays. Wiki-pedia works by consensus, it is bad that theres a person like you who cant understand, and keep edit war, and keep removing words that you dont like Pernambuco 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pernambuco

First of all, wow Marius you have a busy talk page! Anyway I wanted to ask you if you noticed that Pernambuco edited the Somaliland page and added in the word "official" to its introduction because I pointed out that Somaliland didn't use that word anywhere so neither should Transnistria. I think this is a very odd thing to do, carry an argument over to another page like that just to undermine my point. What do you think? Jonathanpops 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I know

Thank you I was aware. The Crime section reads as if Transnistria is out of control. Crime there is very low because the police are like the Gestapo and control it with iron fists. A bit like the Transnistria page on Wikipedia is controlled by you. LOL Buffadren 09:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria, as usual

Some wise guys try to delete important info, as you can see in my last edit. Dpotop 11:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian Student Movement

There have been several Student Movements in Romania, not only in Bucharest, but also in Timişoara, Cluj and Iaşi. I would suggest a separate article. There is not much information available and a comprehensive article is probably difficult to write. And each of the movements have their own specific which should be shown.

Sorry for the late response but I just noticed your comment by chance.

Afil 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past Leaders

I've put down a list of heads of state on the president of transnistria page. Would you say its accurate? im not sure of the early constitution and im getting conflicting reports over who lead the supreme soviet.. how does this sound? i think there is an error:

1 Different sources list him as "Provisional" Chairman of Supreme Soviet and Igor Smirnov as Chairman at same time. 2 Was imprisioned from August 29, 1991 until October 1, 1991. Andrey Panteleyevich Manoylov was acting Chairman of Supreme Soviet.

Vital Component 3/16/07

[edit] Stefan Uritu

You asked about Stefan Uritu and why we're not citing his group. I don't want to embarrass you in public, so I am answering you here. The answer is: He is frankly a clown which shouldn't be taken seriously. Even the victims whom he claims to defend don't want to have anything to do with him.

I know you don't like this source, but the same story appeared in other news media, too. This one is, however, the only version I've found so far in English: Released opposition leader: "The Moldova Helsinki Committee is full of sh*t" (from Tiraspol Times).

What you should also know is that the Swedish Helsinki Committee was funding him, but then cut him off. Today, they want nothing to do with him. They found evidence of corruption and fraud. He then claimed that he was funded by DFID (part of the British government) but their local representative told the press that this, too, was a lie. Today he will not say where he gets his money from. But you can look at the cases he is against, and then look at the cases where he is silent, and that will give you an idea of who his masters are. Who is holding the pursestrings. - Mauco 07:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also an article about him in Russian which has some good sources and covers even more, including the 17 March car incident / border issue. I know that you can't read Russian, so I have provided a link for you via Google Translate. Click here: "How one provocateur is enough to undermine the credibility of the human rights movement"
Note that this is a machine translation, so it is not perfect. But if there's a part which you don't understand clearly, just ask me and I can make a human translation for you. It is important for your own credibility that you don't identify with con-men like this Uritu character. - Mauco 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria controversy

So far I've accepted only adding conflict.md. The discussion about your 7th and 9th points is currently in progress. Alaexis 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You have been reported for 3RR violation on Transnistria. Since this is part of an ongoing pattern of 3RR violation and edit warring, I have blocked you for 3 weeks this time. Please take the time off to reconsider your conduct. Marius, you can decide to edit collaboratively and abide by our WP:3RR rule, or you can continue to violate our policies, in which case you will be blocked for longer periods of time, and eventually be permanently blocked or banned from the site. I hope you make the right choice. Crum375 03:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is unfair because 3 of my reverts was against vandalism of a proven sockpuppet Pernambuco - Kertu3 sockpuppetry case, and I specified this in the edit summary [18], [19], [20] (the last one is after protection was lifted, but is still a revert of sockpuppet Kertu3 [21]). One more revert was against the sockpuppeteer [22]. In fact, I did only one edit that day, to introduce changes discussed 3 days ago in talk page [23] and the majority of participants in talk page agreed with me (see EvilAlex, Dpotop, Dlgoe). The person who reported me, User:William Mauco, has a long history of conflict with me [24](check his block log) and he openly told in debates we had in talk page that for breaching the 3RR through sockpuppets Pernambuco deserve a barnstar [25]. I should also mention that for blocking the 3RR through sockpuppets Pernambuco received 3 days block, is unfair that I received 3 weeks block for fighting against sockpuppetry and reverting the sockpuppet edits. In a similar situation some time ago, Pernabuco's block was lifted after was discovered that he broke 3RR edit-warring with a sockpuppet (check his block log), I should receive the same treatment.--MariusM 08:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no exclusion in the WP:3RR policy for reverting sockpuppets. You may revert vandalism with no limit, but if you read the WP:VAN policy, you'll discover that 'vandalism' is defined as edits that are made with the intent to reduce the quality of the article. If the editor in his/her own mind intends to improve the article, as is clearly the case here, it is not vandalism. So please take your time off to study the WP:VAN policy as well. Many thanks, Crum375 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
One types of vandalism is "blanking": Removing significant parts of pages without first gaining consensus. This is exactly what Pernambuco/Kertu3 did. Look at my contribution, I didn't edited at Wikipedia between 19 February and 27 March. When I looked again at Transnistria article, after this long wikibreak, I saw a lot of changes made against established consensus. I discussed those changes in talk page [26] and I received support from the majority of active editors, some directly expressed in talk page (Dpotop, Dl.goe, EvilAlex) and some expressed through the edits made Domitius. Pernambuco/Kertu3 didn't tell in talk page any reason for his reverts, despite my specific request for this "I am waiting for arguments against my edits". The only thing Pernambuco told is "I am against some of these edits, and I support some of them, and for some of them I am neutral", without explaining which are the edits he support, which not and what arguments he has. In fact he reverted all my work, despite the fact that he admitted that he support some of it (is a mistery what part). After 3 days when Pernambuco didn't tell in talk page any logical arguments for his reverts, despite this being asked, I consider that his behaviour qualify as vandalism. I know his style from previous interactions with him, in an other situation when he reverted I asked a formal mediation and in the period 4 October 2006 - 26 January 2007 when the mediation was opened Pernambuco didn't make the smallest explanation of his reverts, the only thing he knows to tell is "I am neutral". See RFM Transnistrian referendum, 2006. He is a proved liar. I told him not to use sockpuppets and he replied Kertu3 was not him [27], which was proved is not true [28]. With such bad faith persons is difficult to colaborate (anyhow, he don't have explanations for his reverts which you can argue with, he is just pretending he is neutral). The majority of real contributors (not sockpuppets) at Transnistria article support me - see talk page of the article. All my edits were sourced information, discussed in talk, agreed by majority, some of my changes were puting back general agreed information (see for example external link to http://conflict.md which was voted 6 against 1 in a previous archived discussion, Mauco being one of those who agreed with this link, but the link disappeared during my wikibreak). Should be mentioned also that Wikipedia policy is not asking a 3 weeks block for 3RR and is strange that Pernambuco, who used sockpuppets, received a 3 days block and I, who played clean, without sockpuppets, received 3 weeks for the same ofence.--MariusM 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the admin who ruled on this. MariusM, your edit warring started long before this sockpuppet appeared in the log. You were online doing your reverts before Pernambuco/Kertu3 showed up. And after they were blocked, you were online doing the same thing again. You present your crusade in a false light, as if you were the sockpuppet warrior. But your actions were against the article itself. And this is why you are now blocked, as the admin is pointing out. - Mauco 12:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, the person who made the 3RR report against me which is the cause of my blocking, is himself an often-blocked edit-warrior, he was blocked 4 times because of disputes with me. I entered in colussion with Mauco as soon as I started to contribute in Transnistria-related articles, I saw him blanking information which is not liked by the government in Transnistria and he often broke the 3RR. After my 6th report against Mauco for breaching the 3RR which was not followed by a block I made a report at WP:ANI (see [29]). After this report admins started to treat both me and Mauco in the same way, blocking both of us when we have content disputes, even if Mauco broke 3RR with 4 reverts and I did only 3 reverts. This is how both of us received 4 blocks, the last one of 10 days. What Mauco tells above regarding my edit warring before sockpuppet appearance is a plain fallacy, his 3RR report started with my edit of 29 March 23:11, from the history of Transnistria article can be verified that in 29 March I didn't have an other edit. In 28 March I had only 2 consecutive edits at Transnistria and in 27 March after my return from Wikibreak I also had 2 edits, one 8 minutes after the other. My behaviour of 27 and 28 March can not be considered as edit-warring. After Kertu3 was blocked I did only one revert, which was also part of the 3RR report of Mauco, in which I reverted Kertu3's reversion. I waited to have the confirmation that Kertu3 is indeed a sockpuppet and only after that I acted with my last reversion. The majority of editors of Transnistria article are considering that my contributions are improving the article and the actions of Mauco and his friend sockpuppeteer Pernambuco are against the article - discussion in Talk:Transnistria are relevant.--MariusM 13:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable!? That is what i call injustices. The person who fight against vandalism have been blocked and the vandals is freed. Long way to go Wikipedia. EvilAlex 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Marius's email message and above: Marius, please try to focus on your own actions first. You clearly reverted the word 'US' 4 times within 24 hours, a clear violation of 3RR. This has nothing to do with vandalism, and sockpuppetry allegations or suspicions do not extend the 3RR limits. If you don't understand these basic points, I am afraid you may violate them repeatedly, and keep getting longer blocks. If you feel someone else violates 3RR, you should report them, including any sockpuppetry allegations (that are even more useful if supported by WP:RFCU or other clear evidence), on the WP:AN3 page, and they will be dealt with. Crum375 13:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My reversions included entire paragraphs[30], but I don't remember the word "US" being part of the dispute. Maybe you looked in an other 3RR report. I don't understand why my reversions against Pernambuco and sockpuppet Kertu3 can not be considered anti-vandalism, as he/she didn't explain in talk page what he don't like in my edits, despite explanations being asked. As Crum375 told, I may revert vandalism with no limits, and blanking is a sort of vandalism. I did made reports at WP:AN3 and WP:RCU regarding Pernambuco/Kertu3. Why I received 3 weeks sentence and Pernambuco only 3 days, while Pernambuco was using also sockpuppets? I saw an other admin reduced my sentence at 1 week, I consider this still too much.--MariusM 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You are lying when you claim that you merely a) reverted to a stable version and b) that there was majority consensus for your version. You left for a month, and then when you came back, you wanted to un-do 300+ changes made by over 20 editors in your absence. This is fine, but it should be done through consensus. Not through repeated edit warring. Pernambuco is a whole different issue. He/she is also guilty of 3RR, but it was not vandalism as it is normally defined in WP:VAN. Other editors did the same as Pernambuco: Reverted to the version immediately prior to your re-apperance in Wikipedia and the onset of edit warring in the Transnistria article. - Mauco 14:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you are the one who is lying. In 27 March, after more than one month of wikibreak, I made only 2 edits, one 8 minutes after the other, to rephrase and add info in "Human Rights" section + restoring link to http://conflict.md [31] + including Victor Neumoin's assasination [32]. Changes were explained previously in talk [33]. This is not edit-warring or undoing 300+ changes of other editors. In 28 March again I did only 2 consecutive edits - again can not be considered edit-warring. Only in the night of 29/30 March when Pernambuco/Kertu3 appeared I made more edits, as he didn't explained in talk his reversions. The majority of the editors of Transnistria article agree with me, you are relying on the fact that admins don't have time to investigate the situation, this is why you are telling fallacies here.--MariusM 14:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"Reverting to the version immediately prior to my re-apperance in Wikipedia" is not normal, despite what Mauco believes, especially as I explained in talk my edits and before reverting my work somebody who don't want to be considered vandal should also explain in talk what he don't like in my edits. Not even after 3 days bothered Pernambuco/Kertu3 to explain what he don't like in my edits. It seems that Mauco's vision is that my edits should be automatically reverted without any need for explanations. But why Wikipedia should follow only Mauco's vision? His colaboration with "Tiraspol Times" under his own nickname see end of article or under other names [34] compare with [35], [36] is not an enough reason in my opinion. The majority of other editors clearly supported my changes. We should also remind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not even for "Tiraspol Times".--MariusM 15:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I support MariusM on this one. Mauco, with your airs of moralist, are in fact behaving like a political activist and POV-pusher. Dpotop 19:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So you support breaking Wikipedia's policies? You can call me all the names you want (although actually, in the interest of civility, you shouldn't). But the fact of the matter is, quite simply, that MariusM didn't get blocked for his political views or opposing mine. He got blocked for breaking 3RR. - Mauco 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR explanation for MariusM

Marius, please try to understand. Please look at the 3RR violation reported here. Look specifically at the word 'territory' which you kept reverting. Look at nothing else. This reverted word counts as a 'revert', per WP:3RR. You kept reverting it 5 times in less than 24 hours. That's all that counts. It has nothing to do with what the exact dispute was about. Nothing to do with vandalism (since the other edit was not vandalism per WP:VAN), or with copy-vio, all that matters is that you reverted that word 5 times in less than 24 hours, not long after coming off a 10 day block for edit warring. This is what 3RR is about, please re-read the policy carefully. Thanks, Crum375 16:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Is the word "territory" not the word "US" as you wrote previously [37] and I believed I am blind. In fact, I was not reverting the word "territory" but puting this word instead of "republic". We had long discussions in the past regarding the introduction, and a compromise was achieved to use the word "territory" [38]. Mauco told: Good. It is not my Preferred version but Acceptable. You can polish some of the phrasing, however. The first sentence will sound better by moving some words around and you don't lose any meaning. Try: "Transnistria (officially: Pridnestrovie) is a territory within the internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe". - Mauco 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[39]. I was not happy with this compromise, I prefered the description "region" like was the result of a poll between editors [40]. One of those who fight very much to keep the introduction with the word "territory" was Pernambuco. He was happy with the descripton "territory", he wanted only to add the word "officially" [41]. He stated that the introduction with the word "territory" was part of a compromise [42]. Word "territory" was part of the introduction of the article for long time, after long debates, was agreed even by Mauco and Pernambuco. Without any consensus this word was changed with "republic" and I restored the old compromise version (which was not my preffered version). Pernambuco's vandalism include the changing in the introduction of the word "territory" with "republic", which was against even his previous position. And anyhow, for a single word why such a long block?--MariusM 17:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The 'US' was a mis-post - the correct reversion word in your case was 'territory'. A revert does not depend on its length. There are many cases of people fighting tooth-and-nail over a single word, or even less (I have seen big fights over a single space!). The point is very simple - you may not revert your fellow editors' work, of any size, more than 3 times in 24 hours. If you are not sure, try to get someone else to do it for you. 3RR violation has nothing to do with any other discussions going on - it is a simple mathematical limit. Crum375 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
What about your own wording: is allowed to fight vandalism with no limit. Why in other situation no block is done, only warning, like in this case of Pernambuco and 1st case of Mauco, 2nd case of Mauco, or even no warning, like 3rd case of Mauco, 4th case of Mauco, 5th case of Mauco? (I was reffering only at those 2 editors who are involved in my current block). Why in those situations there was not just a simple mathematical limit? Mathematical limit didn't work also for my previous blocks, despite the fact that I didn't breach 3RR I was blocked (admins told me 3 reverts are not automatically allowed). And which is the mathematical formula for the lenght of the block - I received one week while Pernambuco, for same offence agravated with sockpuppetry received 3 days? From the moment I started to have disputes with "Tiraspol Times team" in Wikipedia I saw that admins are taking their part, they are allowed to breach the rules without punishment, I am sometimes punished without breaching the rules or I receive higher punishment than my opponents for same thing.--MariusM 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Enough with the incivility and ad hominem attacks. Apart from me, who you frequently accuse of being an employee of "The Tiraspol Times" even though I am not, who are the other editors who you classify as being part of this "Tiraspol Times team"? Please list them. Usernames, right here. Or else stop playing the victims. Either you give facts or you contain your complaints. It is called put up or shut up. No one likes the speculation and innuendo of being accused of editing in less than good faith. - Mauco 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Marius, vandalism is a very carefully defined term on Wikipedia. It refers only to an act by someone intent in his/her own mind to reduce the quality of an article. If someone has a strong POV and edits while ignoring others, that person may be disruptive and may be blocked for disruption, but s/he is not a vandal. To call an edit by such a person 'vandalism' is wrong and uncivil, and can be construed as a personal attack. If someone blanks a page, replaces it with obscenities, or names of his pets, that would be vandalism. If someone edits an article to reflect his own extreme POV, that is not vandalism. Please read WP:VAN and familiarize yourself with it. Thanks, Crum375 19:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Pernambuco is not a case of strong POV. In fact he has no POV, as proven by the fact that his only argument is "I am neutral". This was shown not only in last dispute but also in the Request For Mediation I tried with him and Mauco in an other occasion. His only POV is to revert me, as he did in several occasions. When Pernambuco is telling "I am against some of these edits, and I support some of them, and some of them I am neutral" (but he is reverting everything) what POV is this? Accusations of vandalism are common thing in Transnistria debates in Wikipedia, for example Mauco, the person who reported me, told that Pernambuco's sockpuppetry deserve an anti-vandal barnstar [43] (the vandal being of course me). Pernambuco also used often vandalism accusations.--MariusM 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Please focus on your own actions. If you don't violate 3RR again, you won't be blocked for it. If someone else violates it, feel free to report them at WP:AN3. And you must learn to distinguish real vandalism, as defined by WP:VAN, from edits you disagree with, extreme or not. That others violate rules is no reason for you to do so. Crum375 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Still no answer why I received one week and Pernambuco 3 days. I know I am free to report others ar WP:AN3, I've just gave above 6 examples I've made such reports without results.--MariusM 20:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You'd be much better off focusing on yourself. The penalties for others have other variables, such as previous behavior and the perspective of the processing admin. If you don't breach 3RR you'd never be blocked for it. Crum375 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Pending request to MariusM: Please name names of the editors who you accuse of being part of the cabal who is out to get you, the "Tiraspol Times team" as you call it. Either that, or stop with the attacks. - Mauco 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer to above request: You Mauco are part of what I consider "the Tiraspol Times team" and I submitted evidence above. Also User:MarkStreet (same as User:Mark us street) is part of "Tiraspol Times team". He claim he retired from Wikipedia but I believe he made at least one other sockpuppet through which he is currently active (he is a known and proved sockpuppeteer).--MariusM 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pernambuco, sockpuppet of Mauco

At least this is User:Dmcdevit's opinion [44].--MariusM 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your email query, it seems that only one of your 5 reverts in 24 hours was reverting Mauco. So if we remove that one, you are still at 4 reverts per 24 hours. Crum375 00:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Mauco, Pernambuco and Kertu3 seems to be the same person. I was reverting once Mauco, once Pernambuco and three times Kertu3, but in fact I was reverting only one person. I received 5 blocks in my wikilife, all of them because of User:William Mauco (he also received 4 blocks because of me). In recent discussions with Mauco he told that I will accuse him of being sockpuppet of Pernambuco and I answered with my usual rudeness: "Plain fallacy. I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock" [45]. It seems I was wrong and for several months I fought in Wikipedia with only one person. I suggest a checkuser between User:William Mauco/User:Pernambuco/User:Kertu3 with User:Ştefan44 and User:Buffadren. I can not complete the request myself as I am blocked.--MariusM 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is your 3RR report. I only see one reversion of a known/banned sockpuppet, out of 5 total, leaving 4. Crum375 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Kertu3 is a proved sockpuppet of Mauco/Pernambuco [46], 3rd, 4th and 5th reverts were against Kertu3, 2nd against Pernambuco (same person). 5th revert seems to be against somebody else as article was protected meantime and there are intermediate edits for protecting/unprotecting the article, but if you took those intermediate edits out you can see that it was still a revert of Kertu3 [47]. 1st revert was against Buffadren, I will not be surprised if Buffadren is also a sock of Mauco/Pernambuco/Kertu3. I suggested above a checkuser.--MariusM 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, even if you are absolutely right and all of these are Mauco socks, you are only allowed to revert known socks of banned users, and since you had no proof of any of them at that time (suspicions don't count), then you were not allowed to revert them. Crum375 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
At least Kertu3 was a known sock, I discovered him. Also, I told this in my edit summary.--MariusM 00:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I now unblocked. A lesson for you for the future: Only revert freely known socks of banned users - suspected ones don't count. Enjoy your editing! Crum375 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Marius, I misread the sockpuppet page - user Mauco is not a banned user, only his sockpuppet has been indef-blocked, therefore you may not revert him or his socks freely. I have therefore, per Dmcdevit·t's recommendation, re-instated your block. I am sorry for the confusion, but you will note that as I stated above, you cannot revert freely just any sock - only known socks of banned users, and Mauco is not banned (yet). Crum375 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally for 3RR I should receive 24 hours block (which I already had). I received such a long penalty because of "ongoing pattern of 3RR violation". I have indeed other 4 blocks in my wikilife, however you can check the 3RR archive, only one of those blocks followed a 3RR report against me (Robdurbar), and even in that case I consider I had 3 reverts, not 4, the rest were consecutive edits (in the same day Mauco had 4 reverts, I reported him and he reported me; admins considered that we are both hotheads and both deserve to be blocked). Please check with the other admins who blocked me: User:Steel359, User:Firsfron (this one almost surely remember me and Mauco and if I recall corectly, he blocked both of us for one single revert) and User:Freakofnurture to check that, while I was edit-warring with Mauco on that ocasions, there were no 3RR violations (as I say, you can check also 3RR archives). I stayed in the 3RR limit, however some admins considered that this limit in too large for me and Mauco in that particular occasions. The "ongoing pattern of 3RR violation" in my case don't exist, and considering that I fought all those months with an army of sockpuppets of User:William Mauco I was not that guilty as it appeared in the moment of blocking decisions against me.--MariusM 12:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest adition:User:William Mauco became a banned user, as User:Seraphimblade discovered him trying to evade the block.--MariusM 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Seraphimblade has committed a major... mistake there, as the "block evasion" circus has been determined to be a setup after all[48]. --Illythr 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought also that some of those newbies which appeared after Mauco's block were not Mauco, he is more inteligent than to make such easy to catch socks like User:Mauco William, User:WMauco or User:MaucoWilliamPernambuco. However, please note that the IP which was the reason of User:William Mauco's ban imposed by User:Seraphimblade is 200.49.177.20, which is missing from your list.--MariusM 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Do note that this IP edited the ANB two minutes AFTER William got his block extended to indef. I think the reason was the initial "unblocking request" by those socks and this thing. Only Seraphimblade knows for sure, I guess. --Illythr 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've checked Seraphimblade's contributions, this is where I saw this IP blocked as being Mauco. Looking at the contribution made through this IP, indeed is not Mauco's style, as I told he is more inteligent and I expect more elaborated sockpuppetry from him. Pernambuco was quite a good one.--MariusM 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This is also why I still think that they are two distinct people. You see, Pernambuco's edit style has always been chaotic (especially when (s)he is upset with something, as in the post you quoted) and looked like a stream of consciousness to me - disregarding punctuation, pauses, often all in a single sentence... Frankly, s(he) had given me the impression of being a somewhat naive, if well-meaning, person, especially after this silly thing. Mauco's behavior, on the other hand, is VERY different (mature) and he does not resort to such childish ways. As I understand it, the Checkuser tool shows positive if two users have edited from the same IP address. Since Mauco didn't react in any visible way to his original block and seemed to accept the two months sentence, I would suspect a case of meatpuppetry gone bad (and duly punished), instead of sockpuppetry. A similar case might happen if you and EvilAlex would meet and edit from a single PC (I am yet to see you two disagree on something).
These are just my thoughts on the issue, not supported by any hard evidence except for that "gut feeling", so I don't believe there is anything else to do here.
PS: This doesn't explain the case with Stefan44, though. Hmm...
PPS: Marius, gloating doesn't suit you and makes you look immature as well. --Illythr 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the styles were different. It is called professional sockpuppetry. Ştefan44 also, it was created long time ago and it was used mainly for edits in Romanian-related subjects to create an alibi. However in the last day Ştefan44 had a too similar style with Mauco and I smelt him. Is a fascinating subject. BTW, I am immature.--MariusM 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your supposition - 2 persons with the same IP. Teoretically is possible, is like 2 persons working in the same office, from the same computer. Do you believe that the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty has only one office?--MariusM 22:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I'd need access to the that particular Checkuser output data to take a look at the editing patterns to know how it happened. Unfortunately, I don't have it. What is this ICDISS thing about? --Illythr 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
ICDISS is the institute employed by Tiraspol regime to make internet propaganda for international recognition of PMR. What is so difficult to understand?--MariusM 22:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Its relevance. And your link is a redirect to astroturfing. --Illythr 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destroying evidence?

I saw the page with RCU regarding User:William Mauco was nominated for speedy deletion by User:WMauco [49]. Is it an attempt of destroying evidence?. Same newbie User:WMauco changed the pages of User:MarkStreet, User:Mark us street and others declaring them sockpuppets of User:William Mauco.--MariusM 12:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think someone is using his name (this user and many IPs) to disrupt things. I know for a fact that Helen28 is not his sock. --Illythr 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Damn, all this looks like someone's sick joke. --Illythr 12:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw also that Talk:Transnistria was archived by an anonimous IP [50]. There were ongoing discussions there (interesting debates between User:William Mauco and some of his sockpuppets), why such a heated page with many long-time contributors is archived by an anon? Illythr or somebody else, can please restore the page?--MariusM 12:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The disruption pattern is pretty widespread, I think we may need admin intervention in this. --Illythr 12:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
One more impostor: [51] --Illythr 12:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am blocked, I can't do anything.--MariusM 12:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What, again?! What kind of circus is this? Ok, the guy's edits have been undone for now, but it's pretty obvious that someone is trying to defame Mauco and doing a terrible job on it. --Illythr 12:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Read in the section above Crum375's message at 03:09. I accumulate more and more records in my block log :-). Anyhow, the short period I was "free" was usefull, I was able to fulfill a checkuser request and prove one more sock of Mauco - User:Ştefan44. As I am number one Wikipedia specialist in Mauco issues I would like to ask for other RCU in this problem after my block is lifted.--MariusM 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh, sorry, didn't read the reblocking message. Good idea on the RCU - I'll do it for you. ;-) --Illythr 15:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I had suspicion regarding User:Ştefan44 too. Finlay everything is clear now. 172.206.86.236 15:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best of Mauco's sockpuppetries

Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)[52]

[edit] Personages of the show

  1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006 [53]
  2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006 [54]
    Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary, words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) and Wikipedia abreviations ("rv" instead of "revert") from his first edit.
  3. User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007 [55]
    Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.
  4. User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 [56]
  5. User:MariusM, opponent, bad guy, edit warrior, black sheep.

[edit] Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

  1. Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni"[57].
  2. In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": [58]. According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet" [59].
  3. Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [60]
  4. Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" [61]. "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[62]
  5. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”[63]
  6. Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"[64]
  7. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":[65]. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"[66]
  8. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"[67]
  9. Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed [68] [69]paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement"[70]. Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise" [71]
  10. Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past [72]
  11. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names[73]. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
  12. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:[74], [75]
  13. Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.[76]
  14. Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.[77]
  15. Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.[78]
  16. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [79]. "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" [80]. Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"[81]
  17. Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson" [82]
  18. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"[83]
  19. Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit" [84]
  20. Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it" [85]
  21. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"[86]
  22. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"[87]
  23. Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"[88]
  24. Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary) [89]
  25. Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say" [90]
  26. Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems"[91]. "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia"[92]. "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary) [93], "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"[94]
  27. Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"[95]
  28. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"[96]
  29. Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"[97]
  30. Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"[98]
  31. Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"[99]
  32. Sockpuppet claiming in a discussion where opponent was part, lack of knowledge about a language the opponent was aware that sockpuppeteer has knowledge: [100], [101]
  33. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[102]
  34. Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories"[103]
  35. Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: [104]. At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead [105]
  36. Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you" [106]
  37. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[107], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[108], "I see. That's bad news"[109]
  38. Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month"[110]. Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"[111]
  39. Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation" [112]
  40. Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring" [113]
  41. Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[114]
  42. Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" [115]. Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"[116]

[edit] Hiding evidence

  1. Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies: [117]

[edit] Say...

Are you limited to editing of your talk page only, or all of your userspace? If the latter is true, then now may be a good time to resume working on your pet project instead of being childish. You claimed to intend to work on it, when you have the time, but your last edit to it was more than two months ago... --Illythr 17:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am limited only on my talk page. Even my main user page is forbidden for me. Don't worry about my projects and try not to became obsessed about what I am doing, there are better ways of spending your wikitime.--MariusM 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's interesting and can be useful. Other prospective sockpuppeteers can copy Mauco's tactics and learn from his mistakes. BTW shouldn't someone be adding {{sockpuppeteerproven}} to Mauco's userpage?--Domitius 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Useful for suckpuppeteers? Awww...
You are right about wikitime there, of course. Too bad about userspace, though. --Illythr 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chestia cu rusul ala

Recunosc ca pentru a fi din Banat, esti tare, dar te sfatuiesc sa te calmezi in cazul cu rusul ala. Nu este cazul sa postezi materialul tau pe pagina lui de utilizator. Tu esti in avantaj acuma: ai dovedit ca acel om nu are credibilitate mare, dar nu strica totul prin a te comporta in acest fel. Faci ca vaca care da lapte, iar dupa aceia da cu piciorul in galeata. Iar Transnistria nu este cel mai interesant subiect de pe Wiki. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Mauco

I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. All the socks you listed of Mauco's were already identified by checkuser and blocked. As to your own edit warring, yes, edit warring is edit warring. Generally, if you find yourself reverting (or being reverted) even once, it's time to stop and talk. Reverting the second time isn't going to get you any farther than the first, reverting the third time is pushing it, and reverting the fourth time will definitely get you blocked. That doesn't mean any fewer won't get you blocked, though. 3RR is there to remind you that it's never acceptable to revert more than three times, not to assure you that it is acceptable to revert three or fewer. As to another user's socks, yes, he got caught and blocked for those, but the fact that someone else is misbehaving doesn't mean you should. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, and my comments are in no way intended to belittle anything you've done well. Basically, just stop edit warring, with Mauco or anyone, bring disruptive or inappropriate behavior to the attention of the community, and utilize the dispute resolution processes we have for the purpose of resolving disputes. Mauco's sockpuppetry has been dealt with, and hopefully he will take that lesson and stop. If he does not, and you have reason to believe he's using socks again, report them at WP:SSP, or request another checkuser. The community will back you up if you're right, don't be afraid to ask for involvement rather than trying to go it alone! Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordon already explained that to you. The data is stale, so it is impossible to run checkuser. Server logs are only kept for a limited period of time. If the suspected socks have stopped editing or signing in that long ago anyway, it's not too big a deal unless they start editing again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Hmm, Marius, it seems that your "detective work" consists mainly of a shotgun approach to your opposition[118]. I kinda wonder, why am I not up in the suspect list as well, considering that I significantly contributed to pulling Mauco out of his permablock, among many other things... --Illythr 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War of Transnistria

I provided the reason within the very tag AND in a rather extensive talk page section. Did you fail to read it before deleting? Oh, look, [119] Alex has reverted me without a single comment. If this is not meatpuppetry, what is? --Illythr 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User_talk%7EMariusM_33c9.html"