Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Request: Illythr and Alaexis being listed as involved parts in this arbitration

1) Considering their involvement in this case I believe they should be included as "involved parts" in this arbitration. Illythr, for example, without presenting any evidence at apropiate page, is asking me a lot of questions related with arbitration and is accusing me of "Very Bad Faith" (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence). I consider unnecessary to answer him until he is an "involved part" in this arbitration. I am wondering why the only opponent actually listed as "involved part" is not submitting his evidence, while he was asked several days ago to submit it through e-mail. This is making more difficult for me to prepare my defence (copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence).--MariusM 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Checkuser request Buffadren/Mark us street/Showninner/Soonpush

2) I suspected that Buffadren is a sockpuppet of Mark us street (also MarkStreet), editor of Tiraspol Times[1] confirmation of identity to Jayjg and known sockpupeteer [2], [3]. I made a RCU which was declined, as "User:Mark us street made his last edit in December, which is too old to check". In 24 December Essay blocked the IP of Mark us street for a month, maybe this IP is still registered somewhere and a check can be done. If not, we should check with this IP. Please note that Buffadren registered at Wikipedia in 26 January 2007, imediately after the one-month block of Mark us street's IP was over and he is pushing to include "Tiraspol Times" as a source in Wikipedia articles [4]. Similarities between Mark us street and Buffadren: Mark us street telling that opponent may be conected with rival media, Buffadren telling that opponent has a personal comercial interest against Tiraspol Times. Please note that in the first case the person accused of having personal comercial interest in editing Wiki was me, in the second case Jonathanpops, person changed, but the style remained the same. Also the usage of expression "black propagandist/black propaganda" by Buffadren and Mark us street.

In 12 May, admin Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked other 2 users accusing them of being sockpuppets of Bonaparte (Showninner and Soonpush) [5]. While I agree that those 2 newbies are likely sockpuppets, I consider this an attempt to hide the real sockpuppeteer. I suspect User:Buffadren as being the sockpuppeteer of Showninner and Soonpush and I ask arbcom to aprove a checkuser for Buffadren-Mark us street-Showninner-Soonpush (with Mark us street's IP mentioned above if no other IP of Mark us street is recorded). Verification of the usage of open proxies is also necesary. Soonpush activities - changing "Transnistria" with "Trans-dniester" [6] and Showninner activities - eliminating category "Moldovan politicians" from some Transnistrian politicians pages [7] (implying that Transnistria is not part of Moldova) don't match with Bonaparte's style, but is matching with Buffadren/Mark us street and as a second posibility, with User:Dikarka or User:Helen28.--MariusM 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't wait to arbcom to decide (it takes too long to answer my requests) and I asked a checkuser, which confirmed that Buffadren is a sock of "Tiraspol Times" editor User:MarkStreet (also Mark us street, Henco, Esgert, Truli). Showninner and Soonpush were confirmed as being only one person, but not as being Mark us street/Buffadren [8].--MariusM 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Tiraspol Times editor and sockpuppeteer MarkStreet/Esgert/Truli/Mark us street/Henco/Buffadren to be listed as involved part

3) As edit wars in Transnistria-related articles is mainly because of the attempts to introduce in Wiki articles a propagandistic image of Transnistria like in "Tiraspol Times", MarkStreet/Mark us street/Buffadren were part of edit wars (check their block log, keep in mind that they are only one person), we need to have MarkStreet, under whatever name he will appear, as involved part of this arbitration. It is also a problem of a Conflict of interest. MarkStreet confirming as being editor of Tiraspol Times, confirmation of identity to Jayig (at that time, the link http://tiraspoltimes.com/aboutus.html mentioned MarkStreet's name with a link back at his Wikipedia userpage), Mark us street explaining that he is same person as MarkStreet, Henco = MarkStreet, Esgert = Truli = Mark us street, Buffadren = Mark us street.--MariusM 19:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Revert parole

1) William Mauco (talk · contribs), MariusM (talk · contribs), EvilAlex (talk · contribs), Domitius (talk · contribs), Alaexis (talk · contribs), and Buffadren (talk · contribs) are limited to one content revert per article per day until the conclusion of this case. Furthermore, each content revert must be accompanied by a rationale on the article's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
These are the main parties edit warring. Transnistria (and perhaps other related articles) are currently protected because of the continued edit warring despite William Mauco and his sockpuppets' blocks. Dmcdevit·t 09:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is any temporary injunction approved, involved parts should be informed in their talk page or at least on the article talk page. Only today I saw this proposal (which seems was not yet aproved), actual situation is that users are blocked based only on some admins moods. In 17 April (before this proposal was made) I was blocked for only one edit in article Transnistria, despite many edits in talkpage.--MariusM 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
The latest article protection has just expired. Given the highly fluctuating cast on the show, I'd personally prefer injunctions defined by-article, not by-user. De facto we already have a state of informal article probation, enforced by blocks handed out well below the 3R level. This seems more flexible to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That's better than nothing, but I'm concerned they'll simply continue warring on other pages. That's typically what happens with such cases, ad why arbcom has largely stopped using topical and per-article probations and revert paroles, which were common early on. Dmcdevit·t 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Single-purpose accounts

1) Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Proposed decision#Single-purpose accounts for precedent in another case. I'm assuming this will be complementing the wording of obviously pertinent standard principles regarding edit-warring, POV/Tendentious editing, and sockpuppeting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Protest: This is a wiki world. Editors should not be accused of having a narrow area of interest. I got involved in this dispute because I felt it would be unjust to let Mauco misinform and mislead the reader into accepting Transnistrian authorities’ human rights infringements. I am a now accused of being a not quite single-purpose account.Dl.goe 10:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Astroturfing"

2) Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for so-called "astroturfing", i.e. concerted, externally driven campaigns that are designed to promote a given agenda in such a way as to give the fake impression of wide-spread and spontaneous popular support for an issue, is extremely disruptive and damaging to the project. Accounts that are shown to be connected to such campaigns will be banned. Other accounts, especially single-purpose accounts, whose contribution profile coincides conspicuously with a known astroturfing campaign, can be treated as sock- or meatpuppets and be banned also. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed, to complement the standard wording of anti-sockpuppetry principles. I believe this is the most pertinent point at the root of all of this affair, at least on the pro-Transnistrian side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] "Astroturfing"

1) There is substantial evidence, published by reliable sources outside Wikipedia ([9], [10], [11], [12]), that there exists a professionally concerted campaign of promoting pro-Transnistrian opinions on the web in the fashion of "astroturfing". This campaign operates from several countries. Among the websites connected with this campaign is "www.tiraspoltimes.com". Editors professionally connected with tiraspoltimes have edited Wikipedia to promote this and related websites and the political views they represent. This includes User:MarkStreet, User:William Mauco and their sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Links provided by Future are from a blog, but originally this astroturfing campaign was subject of articles in The Economist. Direct links to "The Economist", which are available only for subscribers: Covering tracks, Old and new information tricks. A separate outside Wikipedia source on this subject is Radio Free Europe.--MariusM 21:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Please ask for clarifications if you find the evidence not yet self-evident enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Street / Buffadren

2a) MarkStreet (talk · contribs), aka Mark us street (talk · contribs), is a single-purpose account professionally connected in real life to an organisation whose purpose it is to promote Transnistrian independence. He has stated he works for Tiraspol Times ([13]), and identified himself as its founder and chief editor, Des Grant ([14])

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2b) MarkStreet has engaged in disruptive editing on Wikipedia, including extensive sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, revert warring, and violating Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy by pushing for the inclusion of links to his external site.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2c) Buffadren (talk · contribs) is a sock- or meatpuppet of MarkStreet. Although he did not use both accounts simultaneously, he has violated WP:SOCK by persistently denying any relation with MarkStreet, thus faking a larger amount of editorial support for the positions they both advocated. He has edited disruptively by engaging in extended revert wars and pushing for the inclusion of links to his external site.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Mauco

3a) William Mauco (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account promoting a pro-separatist Transnistrian POV and engaged in a long-standing conflict with MariusM and other pro-Moldovan editors. He has a history of disruptive and tendentious editing, involving extensive sockpuppeting, evasion of previous blocks, revert warring, using Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, raising fake accusations against opponents, unjustified personal attacks, misquoting sources, trolling.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Improved.--MariusM 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

3b) It is likely that William Mauco is associated with the same external professional organisation promoting Transnistria as MarkStreet. He has worked for them openly on at least one occasion, publishing pro-Transnistrian texts on the "Tiraspol Times" website ([15]) and has taken part in "conferences" of the organisation behind TT ([16])

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
More evidence should be added for this finding, in order to convince the skeptics and to avoid accusations of superficial rulling against arbcom. In addition of the article he openly admited he wrote for TT, there are some phrases used in Wikipedia articles by Mauco who were later used without changes in "Tiraspol Times". For example:

Wikipedia's Khozyain, stub written by Mauco 21 July 2006: Khozyain is a Russian term often used to describe a certain type of political leader. It is rich term which traditionally refers to a leader of a given social domain, a home, a village, an enterprise, or a country. The khozyain of a household is usually the oldest male and is entrusted with the welfare of the group. For someone to merit the title of a real khozyain he must take care of those in his domain. Russians tend to judge leaders, including politicians, on whether they are (or give the impression of being) a real khozyain. They are sometimes hard to classify in a classical political sense since their overriding concerns are not a leftist or rightist political agenda, but the welfare of the group where ideology is less important than pragmatism, strength of character and problem solving skills. A person who displays talents in this direction is called a khozyaistvennik. A khozyain politician can easily be seen as authoritarian in a Western political context. A more accurate description would be to classify him as a father figure. Examples of khozyain politicians: Yuri Luzhkov and Igor Smirnov.

article in Tiraspol Times by Karen Ryan, 11 September 2006, part "The Khozyain president": Khozyain is a Russian term often used to describe a certain type of political leader; the prototype of the style of Igor Smirnov, Pridnestrovie's own "Khozyain" head of state. It is a rich term which traditionally refers to a leader of a given social domain, a home, a village, an enterprise, or a country. The khozyain of a household is usually the oldest male and is entrusted with the welfare of the group. For someone to merit the title of a real khozyain he must take care of those in his domain. Russian voters judge leaders, including politicians, on whether they are (or give the impression of being) a real khozyain. They are sometimes hard to classify in a classical political sense since their overriding concerns are not a leftist or rightist political agenda, but the welfare of the group where ideology is less important than pragmatism, strength of character and problem solving skills. Igor Smirnov and the other founding fathers of the republic have declared on many occasions, from the earliest day of the independence struggle, that what they wanted to create was a society free of "isms." A khozyain politician can easily be seen as authoritarian in a Western political context, and, true to form, Igor Smirnov has been called both a "strongman" and, by the more radical Smirnov-haters in Moldova, a "dictator". A more accurate description, for those who understand the true meaning of the word khozyain, would be to classify him as a father figure.

While many newspapers copied from Wikipedia, such word by word plagiarism, and from such an obscure article as Khozyain (see talk page of article, where A. Bakharev told that this is not notable) is unusual.--MariusM 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
An other example is at Mauco's work at Wikipedia, copied again in Tiraspol Times--MariusM 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Expanded to include reference to ICDISS conference, showing more long-term association of Mauco with the organisation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MariusM

4) MariusM (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account promoting a pro-Moldovan POV and engaged in a long-standing conflict with MarkStreet and other pro-Transnistrian editors. He has a history of disruptive and tendentious editing, involving revert warring, creation of abusive POV forks, using Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, and abusing his user space for political soapboxing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I am expecting evidence for this finding of facts, based on my actions, not on other persons actions. For example: "Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked MariusM for edit-warring in 17 April" is not an evidence against me. As I explained in Evidence page - see Block of 17 April, I had in 17 April only one edit in Transnistria article, while 11 edits in talkpage. In previous days I kept also a low number of edits. What is strange in this case is that the involved part User:William Mauco didn't present evidence, my guess is that he don't care about this arbitration case as he will start a new wikilife with an other name (if he didn't already) and he will never present evidence. Only Future Perfect at Sunrise and Alaexis presented evidence against me.
  2. The only evidence of "tendentious editing" presented by Future was the article created by me when I was a newbie - (it should be discarded based on don't bite newcomers) and the fact that I saved parts of this article in my userspace. Future made a tremendous effort to obtain the deletion of my sandbox, after the first deletion debate initiated by Mauco which failed, Future nominated again my sandbox for deletion, it failed again (forcing Future to ate his hat), but as he insisted he obtained relisting and finally User:El_C deleted it despite the fact that the majority of people who participated in the debate were against deletion. At least one admin, User:Ronline, told that the sandbox is legitimate: [17]. Anyhow everything was in my userspace, I doubt that a precedent exist when somebody was banned only because of a sandbox. User:El C who deleted my sandbox, can be also accused of abusing userspace for political (communist) propaganda [18].
  3. As there is no official policy and not even a guideline regarding youtube links, attempts to include youtube documentary is not "tendentious editing", it is a good faith attempt to improve the article.
  4. I made always efforts to add corect data in the articles and to quote reliable sources. Maybe I made mistakes, but I didn't see in this arbitration case DIFFs proving my misbehaviour (while I presented a lot of DIFFs regarding the misbehaviour of my opponents).
  5. Future's usage of the word "antitransnistrian" is inappropiate see "Antitransnistrian label" section. Same is with "pro-transnistrian". People like MarkStret or Mauco are not "pro-transnistrian". They can be described "pro-separatists" or "Tiraspol Times team" but not "pro-transnistrians", as IMHO, actual political regime in Transnistria is not representative for transnistrian people.
  6. WP:SPA: "A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles". I edited not only a small range of article, check my contributions. I made many contributions in other areas. Usually, when I edit a non-Transnistrian article, everybody agree with my edits, I don't need to come again at that article, while in Transnistria-related topics I needed to defend my edits. This is why I have more edits in Transnistria-related articles.
  7. I tried to solve the conflict with Mauco following the steps of dispute resolution (2 mediations and one arbitration), he was the person who treated DR with bad faith, accusing me of wikilawyering. This should be included in the "finding of facts".
  8. For whatever edit-warring I was guilty, I already received blocks and I didn't try to evade them, contrary to my opponent.--MariusM 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EvilAlex

5) EvilAlex (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account promoting a pro-Moldovan POV and engaged in a long-standing conflict with MarkStreet and other pro-Transnistrian editors. He has a history of disruptive and tendentious editing, involving revert warring, creation of abusive POV forks, using Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, and abusing his user space for political soapboxing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Considering that EvilAlex is born in Transnistria and his family is still living there, is not surprisingly that he is active in Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia (but not only). He expressed his opinions about the political regime in Transnistria in his userspace, but expressing political opinions in userspaces is usually allowed. There are a lot of political userboxes used by thousands of Wikipedians. In his mainspace edits he followed NPOV rules. Tendentious and disruptive edits should be proved with DIFFS, not with general statements. I didn't see any bad faith in the activity of EvilAlex, contrary with Mauco's and MarkStreet activity.--MariusM 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catarcostica

6) Catarcostica (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account aggressively promoting a pro-Moldovan POV. He has a history of disruptive revert-warring ([19], [20]) and soapboxing ([21]) on Transnistria.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. We've so far forgotten to deal with the "minor players". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't found the time for evidence, but Alaexis and Ploutarchos are at least as involved, and certainly as disruptive, if we are to include more than the main four already proposed. Dmcdevit·t 08:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about Alaexis, he seems to be a productive contributor with reasonably constructive talkpage behaviour, just happens to be very active on post-Soviet Union statehood related topics. Can't blame him for the reverts he did; nobody could participate in this sock-infested debate without making reverts occasionally. Unless he can be shown to be another sock or ICSDSS agent, I don't see much disruptive behaviour here. Domitius/Ploutarchos had only a fleeting involvement with the Transnistria article between mid-March and mid-April, for all I can see. I'd concentrate on the single-purpose accounts first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: Uggh, looking at Alaexis' behaviour on some other pages, List of independent states and Abkhazia, I must partly retract my statement above. Will look into it later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dikarka

6) Dikarka (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account promoting a pro-Transnistrian POV on the article talkpage. Her appearance on Wikipedia (account creation 2 April, renewed activity 18 May) coincides suspiciously with the dates major pro-Transnistrian accounts were blocked for sockpuppetry (31 March, 18 May). Some of her edits to the Transnistria article ([22]) have been similar to those of User:Buffadren ([23], [24]). She has joined in some ongoing revert wars.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. There are obvious sockpuppet suspicions regarding this account too, but I'm not sure how to deal with this case yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaexis

7) Alaexis (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account promoting a Russian expansionism POV in Caucasus and Transnistria. He engaged in edit-warring and tendentious editing and attempted to mislead the arbitration comitee through fake accusations against MariusM [25]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
proposed.--MariusM 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Anyone can look at my contribs made before Marius accused me of being single-purpose account and see whether it's true or not. Alæxis¿question? 06:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article probation

2) All articles relating to Transnistria are placed under Article probation. Administrators are encouraged to deal strictly with edit warring on these articles, and to be watchful of renewed sockpuppeting attempts.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed: General article probation, as with Kosovo case. Future sockpuppetry attacks are likely. Arbcom might want to give us more concrete guidelines on how to deal with them (note that checkuser has proved not terribly efficient, as the sockpuppeters are apprently tech-savvy enough to conceal identities for much of the time.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] MarkStreet and sockpuppets

1) As an abusive and tendentious single-purpose account trying to professionally abuse Wikipedia for externally motivated political propaganda purposes, MarkStreet (talk · contribs) and all his alternate accounts, including Buffadren (talk · contribs), are banned from Wikipedia indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Mauco

2a) As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, William Mauco (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This ban applies to all namespaces including talk and user talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Accepted Fred Bauder 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I brought around 200 DIFFs on the evidence page, Mauco brought nothing against me (until now, at least). I worked very hard to prepare my case and, for what? To see a similar decision about Mauco as about me? No mention about bad faith (proved in my evidence section), no mention about previous blocks evasions through sockpuppets, no mention about personal attacks which went far beyond a simple "vandal" label, no mention about fake accusations against opponents and even against an admin who took my side in a dispute, no mention about the habit of misquoting sources (intelectual dishonesty). I wonder if is worth to lose my time with preparing evidence for this case. Arbcom can do better than just look in the previous block log of involved parts to take a decision.--MariusM 12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
(Answer to Marius' comment above) Although there were several proposals of unbanning William Mauco for the single purpose of letting him present his evidence he's still banned from editing Wikipedia. Alæxis¿question? 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
amended, see below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

2b) William Mauco is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed, amendment from 2a above. Since we have evidence that Mauco had definitely more than a fleeting association with TT/ICDISS, and given the severity of the sockpuppeting, he should be banned completely. Also, it's not enough to keep him off Transnistria, it should at least be extended to the related conflict topics (Abkhazia etc.). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

2c) Britlawyer (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of William Mauco. His indefinite block is upheld.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed, in case the committee sees a need to officially endorse this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MariusM

3a) As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, MariusM (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This ban applies to all namespaces including talk and user talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Above at "finding of facts" section, I commented my opposition at "single purpose account" characterisation and at "tendentious editing" characterisation. Still waiting to see DIFFs from mainspace which support my "tendentious editing".--MariusM 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: See alternative proposal below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

3b) MariusM is banned from making contributions to Transnistria for a period of six months. He is also placed on standard revert parole and standard probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Submitted for consideration as lighter alternative to 3a above. There are definitely problems with soapboxing and revert-warring, but it should be considered that Marius saw himself faced with the overwhelming task of countering the massive deception of Mauco and Mark Street's astroturfing campaign, and that he has made a useful contribution (though often in an unsuitable manner) by exposing this attack on Wikipedia. We should try and see if the article can be pacified in the absence of the worst revert warrior sockpuppets in the course of the next months, and then give Marius another chance of contributing in a hopefully better environment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EvilAlex

4) As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, EvilAlex (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This ban applies to all namespaces including talk and user talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others: