Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by MariusM

[edit] Mauco used sockpuppetry in a malicious way for POV-pushing and smear campaign against opponents

[edit] Personages of the show

  1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, wikilife started in 9 March 2006 contributions summary
  2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, wikilife started in 21 September 2006 contributions summary
    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, wikilife started in 4 February 2007 contributions summary
    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, wikilife started in 18 February 2007 contributions summary

[edit] Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

[edit] Using sockpuppets in formal dispute resolution process
  1. Sockpuppeteer protesting because sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards 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 (...) 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"[2].
  2. Sockpuppet agreeing to mediation Pernambuco 12 October 2006, while sockpupeteer still not convinced about the necesity of mediation: "I am mildly disagreeing to this particular mediation" Mauco 18 October 2006
  3. In the mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": (report creation), (page with all discussions). 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" [3].
  4. Sockpuppet denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [4]
  5. 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"[5]
  6. 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: [6]. At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead [7]

[edit] Poll fraud in Article for deletion
  1. Sockpuppet voting for deletion in a debate where sockpuppeteer proposed deletion: [8] (edit summary "a neutral look"), deletion proposal
  2. Deletion of Bolohoveni: Mauco's vote, Pernambuco's vote

[edit] Smear campaign, hypocrisy etc.
  1. 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" [9]. "I have defended your intro compromise (...), but where are you (...) 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") (...) if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[10]
  2. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? (...) 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”[11]
  3. 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"[12]
  4. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":[13]. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again"[14]
  5. 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"[15]
  6. Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed [16] [17]paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement"[18]. 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. (...) I try not to get involved" [19]
  7. Sockpuppeteer making effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position: if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus (...) a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR [20]
  8. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out[21]. That is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
  9. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:[22], [23]
  10. Sockpuppet asking others 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). (...) When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people.[24]
  11. 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 (...) 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.[25]
  12. Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this.[26]
  13. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [27]. "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" [28]. Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"[29]
  14. Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just reverting you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also (...) 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" [30]
  15. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco"[31]
  16. 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" [32]
  17. 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" [33]
  18. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do (...) you are acting badly"[34]
  19. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"[35]
  20. 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) [36]
  21. 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" [37]
  22. Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away (...) why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him"[38]. "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia"[39]. "stop this insane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary) [40], "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"[41]
  23. 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"[42]
  24. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"[43]
  25. 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"[44]
  26. 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"[45]
  27. 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"[46]
  28. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info (...), read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[47]
  29. 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"[48]
  30. 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" [49]
  31. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[50], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[51], "I see. That's bad news"[52]
  32. 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"[53].
  33. 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" [54]
  34. 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" [55]
  35. 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 partial disagreement with his sockpuppet's edits: "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 (...) Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[56]
  36. 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" [57]. 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"[58]
  37. Sockpuppeteer detesting sockpuppetry and accusing opponents for usage of sockpuppetry, which is a "lack of ethical balance": "I detest sockpuppetry. Unfortunately, (...) some of our less ethically balanced editors feel differently than I do and don't shy away from creating several user names" [59]

[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: [60]


[edit] Mauco asked 3 different admins to block opponent who expressed political beliefs in own userpage

"Please block him now" [61], [62], [63] (the request was not succesfull)

Comment: While asking a block of a wikipedian engaged in incorrect behaviour is not inherently wrong, there are noticeboards for such reports. Is incorrect to ask directly 3 different admins in the same day for the same thing, thinking that at least one of them will block your opponent, avoiding a noticeboard were such decision can be discussed in a transparent way.

[edit] Mauco evaded previous blocks through sockpuppets

The 72 hours block from 9 December 2006 and 10 days block from 20 January 2007 evaded through sockpuppet Pernambuco, 24 hours block imposed to sockpuppet Pernambuco in 9 February 2007 evaded through his main account William Mauco. See block log and contributions of William Mauco and Pernambuco.

[edit] Mauco had many other breaching of 3RR which were not followed by a block

  1. I reported this situation at Admin noticeboard - see Wikipedia's double standards?: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] (under the name Mauco) and [70] (under the name Pernambuco). I didn't count the situations were no 3RR report was made as nobody suspected that William Mauco/Pernambuco/Ştefan44/Kertu3 are the same person.
  2. Mauco aware of admin's full support for edit warring and 3RR breaching (+ unjustified personal attacks):"I have personally been the target of several attempts of his to report me for 3RR violations just for cleaning up after him, but never got blocked (see my block log) simply because the admins have seen this kind of behavior from people like him before and know what they are dealing with"[71]

[edit] Mauco attempted to disclose the real-life name of opponent

"What say you, (suspected real-life name of opponent)?"[72], while he was aware of opponent's privacy concerns:"I am not sure that I am doing a good thing, as Mauco will be able to search for my e-mail address that, for privacy reasons, I chosed not to be available at Wikipedia. However, I take the risk and give here an example of forum.tiraspol.net democracy" [73]. Note: Meantime I made available at Wikipedia an e-mail address for Wikipedia-purposes only, however it seems Mauco made research about the e-mail used by me at http://forum.tiraspol.net in order to identify my real-life identity.

[edit] Mauco raised fake accusations against opponent

  1. Accusing opponent of pattern of 3RR violation: At the "Wikipedia's double standards" report Mauco wrote: "MariusM himself has violated 3RR more than the single instance which he claims"[74]. I answered immediatelly: "Mauco, if you claim that I violated 3RR more than once, please prove it" (6 November 2006)[75]. He never submitted evidence for my violations (prior to 6 November 2006), maybe he will do it now, during this arbitration.
  2. Accusing opponent of raising fake accusations against other users: "Jonathanpops, what happened to being my meatpuppet? I remember that MariusM was all over you when you agreed with me on something, and wanted to check you as sockpuppet as well, insinuating that you and me were both part of a huge KGB conspiracy?"[76].
    Comment: I never raised such accusations against User:Jonathanpops. Jonathanpops is a good example of a person who started having more or less similar views with Mauco regarding Transnistria, but after watching months of disscussions in Wikipedia, he understood the reality [77].
  3. Accusing opponent of sockpuppetry: "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"[78] (the accusation itself was raised through a sockpuppet!)
  4. Accusing opponents of meatpuppetry: "I must also call your attention to some highly suspect and unethical behavior by my accuser, User:MariusM in his actions on this particular article where he violates WP:SOCK. Here, he advertises for a meatpuppet [79]" [80].
    Comment: I've asked EvilAlex to help me in the dispute with Mauco came as I saw previously admin Robdurdar advicing Mauco to do a similar thing in disputes with me: "you can always: Ask another editor to look at the dispute for you. If he/she agrees, then they can revert (the rule does not apply to groups of people)" [81]. My behavior can not be considered meatpuppetry, as, meatpuppetry is: "when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate." [82]. Obviously, EvilAlex is not a brand new account or a newly created account, he is a veteran user (older than both me and Mauco at Wikipedia), asking his intervention was legitimate. At that time, being a newbie at Wikipedia, Mauco managed to intimidate me with his meatpuppetry accusations.
  5. Accusing opponent for making "a mockery of the institution of mediation": "As for mediation, this is not a step that I can accept to participate in if you have not yet tried other dispute resolution methods (...) should not be tolerated as this makes a mockery of the institution of mediation" [83]
    Comment: it was the same mediation reffered above at usage of sockpuppet section, where Mauco participated together with his sockpuppet.
  6. Insinuating that opponent is a sockpuppet of a permabanned user: "another user here already wrote me in private to tell me that he thinks you are permabanned Bonaparte" [84]
  7. Accusing opponent of wikilawyering:[85]
    Comment: I've asked mediation in that case in order to avoid edit-warring.

[edit] Mauco combined fake accusations with uncivil behaviour ("disgusted to his bones" by opponent)

  1. Using straw man arguments to accuse opponent for justifying the killings of hundreds of thousands of Jews: "What does the so-called "Soviet genocide" have to do with this article? (...) To show that the Romanian invasion was somehow justified, and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Romanian holocaust? (...) I am disgusted to my bones by the editor who wants to include this" [86].
    Comment: I wanted to include a paragraph about Soviet genocide. There is no limit in the bad faith of Mauco, I never made any edit to justify the killings of hundreds of thousands of Jews during WW2.

[edit] Mauco raised fake accusations against an admin who supported my point of view

  1. Accusing admin Jmabel of being Romanian: "MariusM went vote-shopping by actively soliciting the opinions of Romanian admins whom he knew from past interaction would be friendly to his POV" [87].
    Comment: Admin Jmabel, who agreed on my interpretations of WP:BAN, is not Romanian, he is an American Jew, not born in Romania, not living in Romania. When somebody is raising accusations based on ethnicity, at least be accurate about this ethnicity! Regarding vote-shopping comments, what I did was only to follow Mauco's advice: "Ask some more admins, then. The policy is obviously not as clear as you say, if there can be this kind of doubt about it"[88]. For Mauco, I am guilty even when I follow his advices!

[edit] Mauco used Wikipedia as a soapbox in favour of political regime from Transnistria

  1. Inaccurate and inapropiate information added at an article about Jewish-American political analyst Vladimir Socor, known for his unfavourable comments about the political regime of Transnistria: in this edit he is fakely accusing Socor that "prior to Irak war he advocated the US-led war to rid Irak of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass-destruction" and is giving quotes from articles NOT written by Socor, in order to associate him with "right wing think tank funded by Jewish hardliners dedicated to scrapping the Middle East peace process in favor of attacks on states like Syria and Iraq". In fact only after the begining of Irak war Socor wrote an article on this subject and can not be considered responsible for the desinformation regarding Irak's WMD. A third part express the opinion that such edits "reads like a character assassination of Socor"[89], who is a living person.
  2. Removing information about arrests or harassment of antiseparatist political activists, opinion of antiseparatist organisations, and doubts about corectness of electoral processes in Transnistria: [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98] (not agreed in Talk, despite claims), [99], [100], [101], [102]; [103]; [104]; [105]; [106]; [107]; [108]; [109]; [110]; [111]. Those are only few examples, giving a complete list of such edits seems unnecesary for me.
  3. Promoting propaganda sites of separatist regime, pretending that those are reliable sources for Wikipedia. I think this is the main issue regarding Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia: There are few websites which appeared in 2006 to support Transnistrian separatist regime, are those sites reliable sources or not? Based on those sites was Mauco promoting the image of a democratic Transnistria, where people overhelmingly support the separatist regime and political repression, if existed, is a question of the past. He could claim he added sourced information, as those sites are providing articles with such informations. The sites we are talking about are: http://pridnestrovie.net, http://visitpmr.com and http://tiraspoltimes.com. On this issue should arbcom take a decision in order to stop editing disputes in Transnistria-related articles. Further, my thoughts about those sites:

[edit] Tiraspol Times

Discussions about this website archived in Talk:Transnistria:

  1. Astroturfing,
  2. Congratulations for Tiraspol Times columnist William Mauco,
  3. Censorship at Tiraspol Times,
  4. Controversy about Tiraspol Times,
  5. Not journalism,
  6. New censorship at Tiraspol Times,
  7. the neverending Tiraspol Times saga...,
  8. Mauco's work on wikipedia, copied again in Tiraspol Times.

But the most relevant info about Tiraspol Times is given by its editor, who registered at Wikipedia as MarkStreet [112] confirmation of identity at request of Jayjg aka Mark us street [113]. I had heated debates with Mark. After a friendly discussion: Marius, I enjoy your observations and you clearly have somethig to offer, his tone changed in You disgust me (accusing me also of accusing him of religious sectarianism, because of this comment, but probabily because of this) and straw man accusations of "pure racism" [114]. One of the concerns of MarkStreet was that because of some editors from Wikipedia Moldovans and Transnistrians are suffering: Your campaign onthese pages is keeping Moldovans and Transnistrians in a economic quagmire. Quite strange this comment of Mark, who previously dismissed EvilAlex's comments about economic hardships of transnistrians: NO HOT WATER In TIRASPOL...THATS A LIE...NEXT YOU WILL CLAIM THERE IS NO BREAD. The ironic tone of Mark about economic problems of Transnistria changed after a while and he was talking even about "starvation" that Transnistrians are suffering, main guilt belonging to Romanian Secret Service and Wikipedia: The Transnistria page is pure Romanian/ Moldova Secret Service Propaganda (...) the Romanian Secret Service types just flaunt the rules and plough in their edits (...) 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. (...) The current tactic is to strangle and starve the Transnistrian people into submission. Treat them like animals like the Americans treated the indians in the west in the 1850s. I asked Mark to be more specific about who are the Romanian Secret Services guys here at Wikipedia but he didn't answered [115]. Regarding the question why "Tiraspol Times" is using the same software, the same server and the same IP with governmental official sites, Mark explained that everyone in Tiraspol is doing so, everyone in Tiraspol is on the same IP address, but after a while he deleted his comments [116]. We should add at the picture confirmed sockpuppetry Henco, Truli + Esgert and Buffadren. In 14 December 2006 Mark anounced that he left Wiki, however this was a fallacy, he returned as sockpuppets Esgert, Truli and Buffadren, he wanted just to avoid scrutiny from other editors after he realised that openly admiting he is the editor of Tiraspol Times is making more difficult for him to impose his POV in Wikipedia, he should play the neutrality game.

[edit] Pridnestrovie.net

This is an official site of the separatist regime in Transnistria. In their About us page ("About this website section") is written: "Pridnestrovie.net is developed in collaboration with the PMR government and partially financed with a grant from the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty". PMR ("Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika") is the "official" name of the separatist regime of Transnistria. We have a confirmation that the PMR government is working together with International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty for internet propaganda aimed to obtain international recognition of separatist regime of Transnistria. Look also at Who is pridnestrovie.net, where registrant organisation is ICDISS and at "Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact" is mentioned "Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica".

Mauco's first edits in Wikipedia was to propose the inclusion of pridnestrovie.net as an external link in Transnistria article [117].

Regarding Mauco's conections with ICDISS, he recognised in Wikipedia that he attended one of their conferences [118] and defended the credibility of this institution Talk page of article, but after The Economist published an article about ICDISS being part of a desinformation campaign and it was difficult not to mention such an article from a well-known publication in Wikipedia article about such a less known organisation, same Mauco, through his sockpuppet Pernambuco, insisted for the deletion of ICDISS article (article was not deleted, but redirected at Astroturfing).

"Tiraspol Times" claimed being independent, however, until this arbitration case each single article published in Tiraspol Times was featured also at http://pridnestrovie.net , fact that changed after I pointed it in this arbcom case. This arbcom case is followed by ICDISS, the organisation in charge with Transnistrian propaganda on internet (including pridnestrovie.net) and with which Mauco is connected. As evidence that in the past pridnestrovie.net featured Tiraspol Times articles see my previous discussions with Mauco [119], [120].

Later addition: Pridnestrovie.net is featuring again all recent articles from "Tiraspol Times" (see right column and [121]).--MariusM 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] visitpmr.com

Other site registered by "Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika", having as registrant organisation "Spectrum Travel Company" and as Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact mentioned ICDISS [122]

In its about us page is mentioned "The site is jointly developed by the PMR government and Spectrum Travel Company of Tiraspol, PMR".

There are few articles published on this site, if you read any of the subpages, at the bottom there are links to all recent articles of Tiraspol Times.

[edit] External sources about Transnistrian astroturfing campaign

  1. The Economist 18 May 2007: link for subscribers, free link
  2. Article on Radio Free Europe website: [123]
  3. The Economist 3 August 2006: link for subscribers, free link - see at comments mentioned William Mauco twice
  4. The Economist 3 August 2006: link for subscribers, free link

[edit] MariusM was not an edit warrior and his blocks were undeserved

I was trying to achieve consensus in Talk pages and, with few exceptions, didn't breach the 3RR.

  1. The summary of my contributions is proving that I tried to achieve consensus in talk pages: today 22 April 2007 I have 2948 edits in English Wikipedia, from which only 734 in mainspace (24,9%).
    Later adition: For Transnistria the efforts to achieve compromise in Talk is even more clear, today 21 May I have 181 edits in mainspace and 680 edits in Talk:Transnistria.
  2. I've tried WP:DR when consensus in Talk was impossible, Mauco was the person who make obstacles on this: Mediation rejected because of Mauco's opposition, Arbitration rejected, Other Mediation without a clear end. My experience with WP:DR showed that this is time consuming and without positive results. For example, after the mediation regarding Transnistrian referendum, 2006 ended and no reasons for removal of information were given by Mauco during months of mediation, information was still removed by his sockpuppet Pernambuco [124].
  3. There was no "pattern of 3RR violation", my first three blocks of 23 November 2006, 29 November 2006 and 9 December 2006 were not the result of a 3RR report against me. For evidence, check 3RR archives from the days of my blocks (I can't give evidence in diffs form as I am talking about something which is missing). I reverted Mauco and he reverted me (he was blocked at the same time) but surely I didn't breach 3RR. The blocks happened after my report of 6 November at ANI Wikipedia's double standards, after it all admins considered that both me and Mauco should be blocked, while I was trying to play by the rules (the 3RR in this case) and Mauco not. Please notice that before my block of 29 November, editor of "Tiraspol Times" Mark us street had 10 (ten!) reverts in Transnistria article, which I reported [125].
    Comment: I know that 3 reverts is not a granted right, however I see as a habit in Wikipedia not blocking users without entries in their block log without previous warnings, even if those users broke 3RR.
  4. Block of 20 January 2007. This followed a 3RR report I made against Mauco [126] and a 3RR report Mauco made against me [127]. While Mauco indeed broke the 3RR, I didn't. I was adding corect info long time discussed in Talk. Mauco listed all my edits on that day as "reverts", while only 3 of them were reverts, the rest were simple edits, some of them consecutive edits of different sections of the article, as another thing I was accused is that I make "en-masse" edits (to avoid this accusation I edited each section of the article separately). Mauco's claim that I was unwilling to "seriously discuss changes in the article's Talk page" is falacious, almost entire archive 12 in Talk:Transnistria and part of archive 13 is about those discussions and the majority of established users were supporting the changes (in big part, only reinsertion of previously deleted information). In his 3RR report Mauco reported even those changes he explicitely agreed in talk page (see my comments at his 3RR report). First reaction of admins was to protect again the page without any block, but Robdurbar overruled this giving both to me and Mauco a 10 days block. After the block a poll was made in talk page of Transnistria article and the results confirmed that the majority of users agreed with my edits. What I never agreed is to let Mauco to have veto rights on Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia, this will be against WP:OWN.
    Comment: After this block I remember admin TSO1D writing to Robdurbar and proposing to lift the block for both me and Mauco, as we are "skilfull editors". I can't show the DIFF, as older messages from Robdurbar's talk page were deleted, but probabily arbcom will be able to find it. TSO1D was elected admin in 18 January 2007 with big majority (52-2), I was one of the two persons who voted against him, while Mauco supported him.
  5. Block of 31 March 2007. With this occasion I broke 3RR and a report was made against me, however my breaching was for reverting what was for me a known sock (Kertu3), and I stated this in edit summary: rv sockpuppet, rv vandalism; obvious sockpuppet with only 5 edits at Wikipedia, and after the official confirmation of sockpuppetry [128] I made one more revert restore info. One more revert was against an other sock of Mauco (Pernambuco) [129], I didn't knew at that time that Pernambuco is Mauco's sock. From a total of 5 reverts, 4 were against Mauco's socks. Mauco hypocriticly claimed in the 3RR report against me that he was NOT part of the conflict [130]. One day before Pernambuco was guilty of 3RR [131]. I saw in other occasions that reverting socks is not punishable, like in Alaexis case (Khoikhoi's comment that one revert was against a Bonaparte sock seems to be untrue [132]).
    Comment: An admin told me that in the moment I reverted Kertu3 he was not a known sock, as official confirmation of sockpuppetry came few hours later. For me it was a known sock, as I stated in edit summaries. Any newbie who start contributing in Wikipedia using the word "sockpuppet" is a sock, normal newbies don't have "sockpuppet" in their vocabulary
    Second comment: Edit war is not the worst thing in Wikipedia. Without edit war in 31 March, sockpuppeteer Mauco would not have been obliged to use sockpuppets in the edit war, without edit-war checkuser is not accepted and this sockpuppetry case will be still undisclosed. Sometimes, you need an edit war to have legitimate reasons to ask a checkuser.
  6. Block of 17 April 2007: Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked me for "continued edit warring on Transnistria". In 17 April I had only one edit in Transnistria article in only one section of the article (Politics) [133]. In the same day I had 11 edits in Talk:Transnistria: [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144]. In previous days I also had an average of only one edit/day at Transnistria article. For example, in 16 April I had 2 consecutive edits in Transnistria but 5 edits in Talk:Transnistria [145], [146], [147], [148], [149]. The second edit in 16 April was about removing a category [150], which afterwards was unanimously voted for deletion [151]. In 14 and 15 April I didn't had a single edit in Transnistria, in 13 April 1 (one) edit, in 12 April no edit. The history of article Transnistria [152] and Talk:Transnistria [153] is proving what I am saying. Conclusion: The block of 17 April 2007 was undeserved, I didn't have in that day and in previous days a behaviour of an edit-warrior, one edit/day at Transnistria can not be considered "edit warring on Transnistria" especially as there were many more edits in talk page. Without an arbcom decision forbiding me to edit Transnistria article, my block by Future Perfect of Sunrise, for only one edit/day, is abusive.

[edit] Mistakes I have done

  1. After I wrote: "Border issues paragraph was added by me in 4 September. During 3 1/2 months nobody objected in this talk page against this paragraph, but was silently removed by Mauco during my short Christmas wikibreak"[154], Mauco answered: "Not removed be me. Please assume good faith" [155]. After this answer I apologised: "Indeed, I saw that border issues section was removed by Pernambuco. Apologies for my mistake"[156]. I didn't knew at that time that Pernambuco is Mauco's sockpuppet, it was a mistake to assume good faith and to apologise to Mauco. Pernambuco's edit to remove a long-part section of the article: [157]. Please note that my attempts to reintroduce the generally agreed "border issues" paragraph was the main reason for my block in 20th January (see above).

[edit] Comments regarding Future Perfect at Sunrise's "evidence"

  1. Heaven of Transnistria sandbox. As a newbie, I (not EvilAlex) created the article "Heaven of Transnistria", which was deleted. Was it a mistake? Maybe, but don't bite newcomers! I considered that parts of this article are good for Wikipedia, this is why, after deletion, I created a sandbox with the same name on my userpage, where I added some improvements. My sandbox was proposed for deletion by Mauco and, despite the fact that he cheated in the deletion discussion (sockpuppet Pernambuco voted also - see above), deletion failed. After arbcom case begun Sunrise made a second deletion proposal. As I proved during discussions parts of this sandbox were already used in Wikipedia articles, this sandbox is keeping some sourced informations with their supporting links which are usefull in other Wikipedia articles. I consider those attempts to delete my sandbox as harassment. I defended my sandbox in both MFD discussions, what is wrong with this? Do we have a new policy or guideline in Wikipedia "don't contradict an admin"? If yes, indeed Wikipedia is not a place for me, as, result of my education, I usually show low respect for authorities (starting with Romanian authorities). I consider unacceptable Mr. Sunrise's dismissal of all people who supported my point of view in first deletion proposal as being "my political allies" [158]. Those are real people, not sockpuppets, they deserve more respect. As Sunrise is an admin determined to use his blocking powers against any person he consider guilty of some wrong-doing related with Transnistria category, I think some wikipedians are actually afraid of supporting me, they don't want to be labeled as my "political allies". This is not an healty climate for debates in Wikipedia.
    Later adition: Deletion discussion about my sandbox was closed in 4 May but relisted in the same day as result of Sunrise's insistance [159], and finally the sandbox was deleted despite the fact that majority was against deletion.
  2. Youtube link French video documentary about Transnistria part1 · part2 · part3 · part4 · part5. I also supported the inclusion of this French documentary as a refference in Transnistria article, even if my name is not mentioned by Sunrise on that subject. I defended youtube links in Sunrise's own talkpage. Sunrise admited that his "memory of what the state of affairs is with youtube failed" as he "really thought we had an all-out prohibition. There was a huge debate over this, and it resulted in some kind of stalemate". As there is not any official policy or guideline regarding youtube links, discussing about this subject in talk pages is legitimate. Yes, we had different opinions but why is this labeled as "tendentious editing"? Please assume good faith. Discussions about the French documentary are not only where Alaexis told, but also here, here and here.
  3. Antitransnistrian label. The french documentarry discussed above was labeled by Sunrise as "anti-Transnistrian" and he is also speaking about an "anti-Transnistrian team". Why is a french movie "anti-Transnistrian"? France is not involved in any way in Transnistrian conflict. I believe the documentarry is reliable and conspirational theories about the Moldovan government influencing the french journalist team are ridiculous. I also object and find deeply offensive any insinuation that those who shared similar views with me are "anti-transnistrians". I am "pro-transnistrian", I love people of Transnistria and I wish them all the best, while I don't have a good opinion about the political regime actually in power in that region. The "anti-Transnistrian" label used by Sunrise is raising doubts about his neutrality on this subject. Is absurd to accuse somebody like User:EvilAlex, who is born in Transnistria and has his family still living in Transnistria as being "anti-Transnistrian".
  4. My block of 17 April, already discussed above.

[edit] Comments regarding evidence presented by Alaexis

[edit] Alaexis spreading plain fallacies in an arbitration case

  1. Alaexis accused me of requesting checkusers I never requested [160]. I didn't accuse User:Jamason or User:Helen28 as being sockpuppets of User:William Mauco.
  2. Alaexis making misleading comments regarding checkuser results: "In all these cases no relationship was found between any suspects" [161]. In User:Sephia karta and User:Catarcostica cases the checkuser was declined, those can not be considered as cases when I made wrong requests.
  3. Alaexis accused me of backing a vandal, while I wanted to stop him. In 30 March 2007 I wrote to User:Mr. Sure Entry's talk page: "If you are a sockpuppet please let Transnistria article in peace, I don't believe you are helping" [162].

[edit] Alaexis engaged in hypocrisy

  1. After expressing full support for a checkuser request [163] and repeating that "asking for checkuser is of course legitimate" [164], Alaexis presented my checkuser requests as an "evidence" against me at arbcom case [165]. If he believes that asking checkuser is legitimate, then there is no reason to present checkuser requests as "evidence" of bad behaviour of a person.
  2. Alaexis told that he agree with conflict.md link. However, he removed this link and ten hours later admin Mikkalai removed the sentences as being without refferences [166]. A good example of teamwork.

[edit] Usage of admin powers in content disputes

I disagree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's way of using his admin power in content disputes - I am reffering at the new 2 weeks block of EvilAlex [167] for restoring a version of the introduction which had support of many editors. Alaexis added POV word "state" in introduction with misleading edit summary "restore compromise intro". There are several users who expressed disagreement with Alaexis proposals about introduction (Dl.goe, DC76, Ldingley, me) and the EvilAlex variant of introduction was discussed long time ago in talkpage. Some time ago we were discussing between "region" and "territorry" [168]. The big majority was against any usage of "country". Now is pushed description "state". Of course, Future Perfect at Sunrise has the right of its own opinions but blocking those who disagree with him is not fair. Building consensus through eliminating opposition is not the right choice. Intimidating users with other opinions is not the purpose of admin tools. I see the block of EvilAlex as an intimidation attempt for all those who will be inclined to support similar views. For the record: the intro Evil was putting was almost the same "compromise intro", to which even Mauco agreed, and for which sockpuppet Pernambuco fighted so much (against me). The climate of debates in which some admins are keeping Transnistria article is not a healty one for Wikipedia.--MariusM 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffadren, confirmed sock of MarkStreet/Mark us street/Henco/Esgert/Truli

A new sock of "Tiraspol Times" editor was confirmed [169]. I am asking for a permanent ban for him. Please add all his blocks under his various names User:MarkStreet, User:Mark us street, User:Buffadren, to have a complete picture of his disruption. He was changing his wikiname in order to avoid scrutiny from other editors and to receive short duration blocks when he is disruptive again, instead of long duration.

Later addition: Tiraspol Times editor Buffadren/MarkStreet, praised in 14 May admin's vital role in Transnistria article in Wikipedia and also expressed opinion that Wikipedia is a place of a "propaganda war". According Buffadren, "there is an intensive campaign to collapse the Transnistrian economy", "Wiki represents a new way to attack Transnistria" [170]. This link between the collapse of Transnistrian economy and the edits in Wikipedia are similar with an edit of Mark us street "Your campaign onthese pages is keeping Moldovans and Transnistrians in a economic quagmire". However, Buffadren is still denying that he is Mark us street. Contrary with MarkStreet/Buffadren, I don't like the actions of admins who appeared at Transnistria article. As I told previously the solution used by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was "Building consensus through eliminating opposition", me, EvilAlex and other wikipedians who share our views being subjected to intimidation. My block of 17 April was abusive.

[edit] Mauco used sources in a misleading (propagandistic) way

  1. In Media in Transnistria he denied the conclusions of OSCE: "The media climate in the Transdniestrian region is restrictive"OSCE - Media in Transdniestria misleadingly using the name of the British Embassy [171]: "A seminar organized by the British Embassy in September 2006 concluded that a relatively free press exists which is independent from authority". He provided only a Russian-language source[172]. However, those were not the conclusions of the seminar. It was a seminar organized by Association of external policy of Moldova in conjunction with British Embassy where anybody could attend. An unknown person expressed this opinion, misleadingly presented by Mauco as "conclusion" of the seminar. British Embassy didn't endorse such a conclusion. I've asked Mauco to provide exact translation [173] [174] [175], he refused "find someone to help you who can translate for you. I do not want to sound crass, but I can not do your research for you. That is your job, and not mine". When I brought in discussion a Russian speaker (EvilAlex) who provided translation [176] he accused him of wrong translation "If you want to translate the report, at least give us all a fair assessment, but still refusing to provide correct translation. See Talk:Media in Transnistria for further details.
  2. In History of Transnistria he made a deliberate confusion between the teritorry actually known as Transnistria (the part of Moldova where a separatist movement declared independence, unrecognized internationally) and the entire teritorry between Dniester and Bug, in order to show a Slavic majority in this teritorry during history [177]. He quoted a book of Andrew Wilson "The Ukrainians" [178], but this book was reffering at entire Dniester - Bug teritorry, while actual Transnistria is only about 10% of this teritorry, so, the refference Mauco gave is simply irrelevant. He was aware of the confusion because this was discussed in Talk page [179], [180], however he knowingly insisted to introduce the misleading quotes.

[edit] Mauco engaged in trolling

  1. I wanted to discuss trolling in the mediation and afterwards arbitration that I asked at Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie, which was rejected. Mauco claimed that "As stated in 2004 by an OSCE report, ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova"[181]. See talk page of the article for all discussions (Talk page was arranged by Mauco, he put his later comments at the top). In fact, Mauco gave as source not an OSCE document, but the propaganda site http://pridnestrovie.net made by Transnistrian authorities in cooperation with ICDISS. When I asked him to give the link at OSCE report, he gave a link reffering at an other report based on CSCE Conflict Prevention Center, not from 2004 but from 1994, and which didn't include the conclusions he claimed. After I pointed this Mauco changed tactic, saying that even if there is no OSCE document with such a statement, there are other sources to back this. He adviced me to read a bibliography of over 100 books and articles about Transnistrian conflict [182]. After I told him that he should provide exact refference for his claims, he told that is a report from International Crisis Group and a survey made by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. International Crisis Group has a website with hundreds of articles, Mauco didn't provide the exact refference (I suppose because it don't exist), he was just making me losing my time. Then he came with an other refference - a study wrote by John O'Loughin in cooperation with 2 Russians, but this study was just quoting a well-known propagandist of Transnistrian regime (Nikolai Babilunga) who quoted at his turn a survey made by an unknown company from Tiraspol, without any data about the ethnicity of the persons who answered at the survey. Also he made refference at another website with hundreds of articles claiming that there is a study of Pal Kolsto who support his affirmations [183], making me to lose time digging on this site, only to admit afterwards that he don't know if Kolsto's paper is online [184]. Anyhow, the statements he gave from Kolsto didn't support what he wrote in the article. Mauco's tactics was: he made a statement claiming that it is supported by reliable organisations or persons who, in fact, either didn't make such statements or quoted a statement of a propagandist of Transnistrian regime, without endorsing it. In order to make more difficult the examination of the sources, Mauco often didn't provide exact link, but links to websites with hundreds of articles or bibliography with hundreds of titles.
  2. Trolling with the help of sockpuppet. In History of Transnistria we discussed about a book of Charles Upson Clark. Mauco knew this book: "I have read the entire work by Upson Clark" [185] (following comment, that he provided me the link at Clark's book is untrue, it was User:Greier, actually banned, partially because of disputes with Mauco, who provided the link). When Mauco was without arguments against this source, he used his sockpuppet Pernambuco to revert refferences at the book [186], [187]. Pernambuco claimed no knowledge about the book: "I havent read it, I can not say if it is neutral, but I want to read it if I have time, how big is it and, where is it do you know?" [188].

[edit] Mauco claimed consensus in his favour, when only his sockpuppet agreed with him

  1. At Transnistria article we had a debate if we should include some comments of Vasily Yakovlev, one of the first leaders of separatist movement of Transnistria. A general agreement was reached for the inclusion, nobody was against (see archived debates). Mauco knew very well who is Yakovlev: "He is a communist who is slamming Smirnov for being too open, too Western, too capitalist, and for not being committed to the old Soviet ideals" and finally agreed with the inclusion of Yakovlev's comments: "Go ahead and mention Yakovlev" adding also misleading comment "It only shows that there is free debate in Transnistria, and room for criticism" [189] (Yakovlev is not living anymore in Transnistria, his criticism is not a proof of freedom in Transnistria). However, he removed Yakovlev's comments. When I protested why this unanimously agreed paragraph was removed without discussion, sockpuppet Pernambuco argue with bad faith against the paragraph claiming no knowledge about who Yakovlev is: "i forget, who is Yakovlev". Mauco claimed that a consensus exist against the inclusion of the paragraph: "is this issue now closed? Or will Yakovlev mysteriously re-appear, in spite of consensus, as soon as page protection is lifted?", despite the fact that only his sockpuppet Pernambuco supported his views. Afterwards we had also a poll on this subject which showed the general agreement for inclusion. This didn't stop Mauco to revert me when I included Yakovlev's comments and this was one of the reasons for my block in 20 January 2007. Is impossible to achieve consensus with Mauco. Despite consensus he agreed on, he silently removed the paragraph, was using a sockpuppet to chalange this consensus, claimed despite all evidence that consensus exist in his favour and only I am a troublemaker who don't want consensus, accused me of edit-warring when I wanted to stick at previously achieved consensus and obtained a 10 days block for me (the Robdurbar block). This paragraph is mainly about user conduct, the value of Yakovlev's comments is irrelevant.

[edit] Wikistalking

  1. Mauco declared he is monitoring my contributions: I am monitoring his contributions - not wikistalking - in order to gather the necessary information for an RfC on his behavior [190].
    Comment: I don't understand which is the difference between monitoring my contributions and wikistalking, especially when monitoring came together with reverting me in Wikipedia articles, commenting against my proposals in article talk pages and commenting my interventions in other users' talk pages, even if the discussions are unrelated with him. Regarding my behaviour, I think this arbitration is an excellent place for Mauco to present the evidence he found after months of "monitoring" my contributions. I'm waiting.


[edit] Evidence presented by Fut.Perf.

[edit] Tendentious editing

Some examples of tendentious editing include:

  • MariusM and EvilAlex created Heaven of Transnistria, a blatant anti-Transnistrian POV fork (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven of Transnistria). After its deletion, MariusM kept the page in his userspace, allegedly as a "sandbox" for further work, and insisted on it through two MfD's ([191], [192])
  • EvilAlex and various anon IPs insisted on insertion of external links to an anti-Transnistrian alleged TV feature hosted as a copyvio on YouTube ([193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198])
  • EvilAlex created a polemical image, Image:Welcome2.gif and Image:Welcome3.gif, likening Transnistria to a Nazi extermination camp ("Welcome to Transnistria - Arbeit macht frei", in the style of the infamous Auschwitz portal). He used this image on his userpage and re-uploaded it at least five times after as many speedy deletions.
  • User:Catarcostica tried to insert a user sockpuppet tag into article space to express his conviction that Transnistria was a Russian "sockpuppet" regime ([199], [200])
  • User:Buffadren openly admits being motivated by a desire to promote certain (pro-Transnistrian) political POVs through his Wikipedia editing [201]

[edit] Edit-warring

  • Several editors continued revert-warring even after the opening of this Arbcom case and after Dmcdevit had established an informal edit-warring ban on the article (i.e. warning that revert-warring would be met with blocks even below the 3RR level [202]). Blocks handed out since then include:
    • MariusM, blocked for edit-warring by Fut.Perf. on 17 April ([203])
    • Buffadren, blocked by Fut.Perf. on 17 April ([204]), warned again 20 April ([205]), blocked again 24 April ([206]) and 27 April ([207])
    • EvilAlex, blocked by Fut.Perf. on 17 April ([208]), by El C on 24 April ([209]) and by Fut.Perf on 4 May (2 weeks, [210])
    • Catarcostica, blocked by Fut.Perf. on 26 April after announcing he would continue to revert-war about one particular detail if he didn't get his way ([211], [212], [213])
    • Jonathanpops, warned by El C on 24 April ([214]), blocked by Fut.Perf. on 27 April ([215])

[edit] Single-purpose accounts

The following are essentially single-purpose accounts, having no or little editing activity outside the Transnistria-related articles and each clearly following a strong (pro- or anti-Transnistrian) POV agenda:

Not quite single-purpose:

  • Dl.goe (talk · contribs) (hardly any non-Transnistria edits since January)
  • Jonathanpops (talk · contribs) (large majority of edits are about Transnistria, but has at least one other unrelated, genuine field of interest where he contributes)

[edit] Buffadren blocked as abusive sock-/meatpuppet

Checkuser evidence has shown Buffadren is a likely sock-/meatpuppet of "MarkStreet", the editor of "Tiraspol Times". Challenged about the identity ([216]), he failed to provide a plausible explanation of how he was related to MarkStreet or to his organisation. Instead he continued to deny any relation with them ([217], [218], [219]). At the same time he has continued to lobby for the inclusion of external links to the "Tiraspol Times" ([220]). I have therefore blocked him for engaging in abusive sockpuppetry for purposes of hiding his conflict of interest with respect to that site and its political goals. Whether he is in fact MarkStreet or just a person working for the same organisation as him, he is part of a concerted astroturfing campaign trying to misuse Wikipedia for a political agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britlawyer blocked as abusive sock

Despite being aware of a negative checkuser result the other day (but then, we've seen other false negatives in related checkusers too), I have felt the editing patterns of Britlawyer (talk · contribs) and William Mauco (talk · contribs)(Pernambuco (talk · contribs) etc.) are sufficiently similar to warrant a sockpuppet block on criteria of the "Duck Test". Britlawyer's account was created almost simultaneously with the latest block of William Mauco. He was clearly not a new user, claiming to have previous IP edits ([221]). His pattern of editing times matches that of other Mauco socks. Britlawyer, Mauco and Pernambuco were all busy propagating inclusion of Transnistria on List of independent states, using the same type of legalese arguments ([222], [223], [224], [225]). Britlawyer also continued Mauco's and MarkStreet's campaign for inclusion of links to "Tiraspol Times" in the Transnistria article ([226]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Since the evidence for this block has been called into question (see Alaexis' section below), I am forwarding details about the evidence and my reasoning to the committee for review. For WP:BEANS reasons, I am doing this by private e-mail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other disruptive editing

(to be continued...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Dl.goe

[edit] Mauco tried to intimidate me

Here's what he wrote on my talk page:

  1. "Be careful with the company you keep, DI.goe, because in the future, this will reflect badly on you" [227]
  2. "DI.goe needs to watch his/her steps carefully if he wants to play along with this sort of behavior." [228]


Dl.goe 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mauco constantly tried to exclude editors from editing Transnistria related articles by making them waste more time than they can afford

Mauco, under his pseudonym Pernambuco imposed a tremendous bureaucracy that made impossible for others to edit the article:[229][230]. What kind of arguments would convince somebody who reverts the edits he claims he agrees with?

He deliberately wasted community time: his source was in Russian, but he didn't tell us what it was about[231]. Further more, he used his sockpuppet to revert and demand us to wait and translate his source [232].This is only one example; another: he had same behavior at Tiraspol: first removed content under edit summary rv.rubbish[233], than here is the discussion [234]; finally the information was included, according to a poll (in which Mauco and his sockpuppet voted differently)[235]

Also, Mauco refused mediation, but still wasted community time in an endless discussion whether mediation is necessary[236]

I think Mauco is the type of editor most damaging for Wikipedia, considering how much of our time he wasted!

Dl.goe 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-arguments to User:Alaexis

I find interesting how, after MariusM unmasked Mauco's sockpuppets, Alaexis condemnes MariusM for too many checkuser requests...

His "evidence" of MariusM and EvilAlex backing vandals are wrongly interpreted. In his edit, MariusM undid and tried to temperate User:Mr. Sure Entry (other evidence of MariusM trying to stop Mr. Sure Entry). Regarding EvilAlex, he made an edit(to tell Alaexis he broke 3RR)and reverted his own edit [237]Dl.goe 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Alaexis

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Checkusering nearly everyone with different opinion

Besides findind User:William Mauco's sockpuppets User:MariusM by now has asked for a checkuser of the following users: User:Jamason, User:Buffadren, User:Sephia karta, User:Helen28, User:Dikarka, User:Alaexis, User:Catarcostica and User:Britlawyer (as a socks of User:William Mauco) (see here) and User:Buffadren, User:Helen28, User:Dikarka as my sockpuppets (see here). In all these cases no relationship was found between any suspects.

My mistake: it was not MariusM who checkuser'ed Jamason but User:Dpotop.

[edit] Backing vandals

In the process of the edit war of 27-31 March, 2007 User:Mr. Sure Entry (suspected sock of User:Bonaparte) made several edits ([238], [239]). By making a minute two-words change MariusM "legitimised" Sure Entry's version ([240]), User:EvilAlex reverted the article to Sure Entry's version ([241]).

Here is another example of the same thing by MariusM.

[edit] Stalking

User:MariusM reverted my edit of the Second Chechen War article (see here). MariusM did not make any more changes to that article before or after that instance. Alaexis 05:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube link chronicles

User:EvilAlex added it [242], I noted on the talkpage that it's quite likely a copyvio [243]. After some time I've made partial revert [244], EvilAlex returned the link accusing me of trolling [245]. After someone deleted it another time MariusM put it back [246].

my partial revert after discussion (Talk:Transnistria/archive_16#Political_climate) - [247]


There was a series of addings/removals of this info in the 16-22 of April.

MariusM: [248] [249]

EvilAlex: [250] [251]

These links were finally dealt with - [252]

Another issue is the quality of the movie itself. Here is opinion of Illythr - [253] and here are some other opinions - Talk:Transnistria/archive_16#YouTube_links


[edit] uncivil behaviour

[edit] User:EvilAlex

[254] In Russian but with ethnicity-based insults like 'wild Russians'

Calling conventional edits vandalism (my removal of references to partisan site and Dikarka's move of some info to the appropriate article).

[edit] {More to come}

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

[edit] Answers to Marius

[edit] Hipocrisy.2

Here I agreed to include conflict.md to the external references section. Here I've replaced references to it with {{fact}} tags so that more neutral references could be added. No contradiction at all, imho. Alaexis 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Future Perfect's evidence

[edit] About Britlawyer

Imho the evidence against User:Britlawyer is very circumstantial. Indeed he registered on the same day (31st of March) when it was found that Mauco and Pernambuco are one but he had done it before this was found (at least it looks like that - the first Mauco's sock was blocked in 23:32 ([255]) while the first edit of Britlawyer came in 20:00([256])).

“ His pattern of editing times matches that of other Mauco socks. Britlawyer, Mauco and Pernambuco were all busy propagating inclusion of Transnistria on List of independent states, using the same type of legalese arguments. Britlawyer also continued Mauco's and MarkStreet's campaign for inclusion of links to "Tiraspol Times" in the Transnistria article ”

This piece of evidence seems to me not very convincing either. A lot of people (including myself) supported inclusion of Transnistria and likes in the List of sovereign states.

Anyway his contributions were by no means disturbing and some were quite valuable ([257]) so the punishment is too harsh imho. Alæxis¿question? 16:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Dpotop

Formal evidence has been amply presented before. For my part, I would like to emphasize the good sense MariusM and EvilAlex proved in an edit process where the opposing side used the dirtiest means to corrupt information. Funny enough, actual actions of admins against, for instance, User:William Mauco, only started when checkuser proved formally his bad faith. All previous statements proving the existence of information corruption attempts were practically ignored. Moreover, behavior incompatible with wikipedia was tolerated for a long time, and I feel Mauco started to use socks massively only when he felt he can do it with impunity.

Under such conditions, the behavior of MariusM and EvilAlex helped preserve a certain level of credibility in this Wikipedia article. Dpotop 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by Vecrumba

I'm on the road, it will take me several days to go through all the appropriate examples.

[edit] Malicious and hypocritical accusations by Mauco against editors opposing his POV

  • Please note Mauco's way of dealing with me over an IP check, he didn't simply ask if I would submit to an IP check, he attacked me with "will you voluntarily agree to an IP check? If not, why not? I find it curious, and highly suspicious..."--innuendo and a smear tactic. When I called him on it, he declared me a troll.
  • More importantly, read through the thread of the Anna Planeta accusation.
  • Finally, note Pēteris Cedriņš' reference to Pernambuco, another Transnistrian editor, who it turns out was a sockpuppet of Mauco. So, even as Mauco is happily sock-puppeting, he is accusing all those around him of sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry.

[edit] Mauco Wiki-stalking MariusM

  • Here we have Mauco stalking MariusM on a user's talk page, claiming he's only "monitoring" MariusM to file a complaint about him. [258]

[edit] Pushing non-objective sources as objective by Mauco

Here [259] is a good microcosm of pushing POV sources, in this case olvia.net (in Russian, the press organ of the Transnistrian regime).

  • Untranslated quote in Russian (lengthy paragraph), what do you think of it, don't dismiss it because it is from a POV source, they are only quoting someone--making it as difficult as possible.
  • Turns out the someone is a over-the-top Zionist pro-PMR crackpot publishing "fact based" novels smearing the Moldovans and doing his book launch in Tiraspol

An editor locking every other editor in eternal "dispute the words not the source" discussions, pushing POV sources at every turn because they should be considered reputable until proven a lie, is practicing the "intellectual dishonesty" he accuses others of (will find the ref in archives and insert here, I have a specific example in mind of Mauco chiding/berating MarisuM). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

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

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

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