Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence

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.

Evidence presented by MariusM

Mauco used sockpuppetry in a malicious way to push his POV in Transnistria-related subjects at Wikipedia and to create bad reputation for opponents

Personages of the show

1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006 contributions summary
2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006 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, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia 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, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 contributions summary

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

Using sockpuppets in formal dispute resolution process

1. Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni"[2].
2. Sockpuppet agreeing to mediation, while sockpupeteer still not convinced about the necesity of mediation: Pernambuco's agreement 12 October 2006, "However, I am mildly disagreeing to this particular mediation" Mauco's comment 18 October 2006
3. In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": (report creation), (entire 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 strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [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]

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

Other

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 with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[10]
2. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”[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 because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"[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. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise" [19]
7. Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past [20]
8. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names[21]. That's good, 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 other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.[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 and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.[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. I already replied to him.[26]
13. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [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 revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson" [30]
15. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"[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, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it" [33]
18. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"[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, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems"[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 inane 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, and then the whole compromise falls apart"[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, I dont think I will keep doing that 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, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"[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. Sockpuppet claiming in a discussion where opponent was part, lack of knowledge about a language the opponent was aware that sockpuppeteer has knowledge: [47], [48]
29. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[49]
30. Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories"[50]
31. 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" [51]
32. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[52], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[53], "I see. That's bad news"[54]
33. Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month"[55]. Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"[56]
34. 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" [57]
35. 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" [58]
36. Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[59]
37. 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" [60]. 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"[61]
38. Sockpuppeteer detesting sockpuppetry and accusing opponents for usage of sockpuppetry, which is a "lack of ethical balance": "I detest sockpuppetry. Unfortunately, this means that I am often in a minority all by my lonesome on a single topic because some of our less ethically balanced editors feel differently than I do and don't shy away from creating several user names" [62]

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: [63]

Mauco intimidated other editors who could be inclined to support opponent in editing disputes

"Be careful with the company you keep, DI.goe, because in the future, this will reflect badly on you" [64], "DI.goe needs to watch his/her steps carefully" [65]

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

"Please block him now" [66], [67], [68] (the request was not succesfull)

Comment: While asking a block of a wikipedian engaged in what somebody believe is incorrect behaviour is not inherently wrong, there are noticeboards for such reports. I reported several times Mauco at 3RR noticeboard for temporary blocks and once at community sanction noticeboard for permanent ban, but I consider 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 by a biger number of people and in a transparent way.

Mauco evaded previous blocks through sockpuppets

The 72 hours block imposed in 9 December 2006 by Freakofnurture evaded through sockpuppet Pernambuco, 10 days block imposed in 20 January 2007 by Robdurbar evaded through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 24 hours block imposed to sockpuppet Pernambuco in 9 February 2007 by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington through his main account William Mauco. For evidence, see block log of sockpuppeteer William Mauco and sockpuppet Pernambuco and also their contributions in the periods of blocks.

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

I already reported this situation at Admin noticeboard - see Wikipedia's double standards?: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] (under the name Mauco) and [75] (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.

Comment: The "Wikipedia's double standards" report I made was damaging also my reputation, as after this report all admins started to treat me and Mauco in a similar way, blocking both of us in the same day and for the same period, even without breaching the 3RR, while our behaviour was not similar. Before "Wikipedia's double standards" report I was never blocked, after it I received all my blocks (evidence: my block log).

Mauco attempted to disclose the real-life name of opponent

"What say you, (suspected real-life name of opponent)?"[76], 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: deletion of an article that I copied from conflict.md" [77]. 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.

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"[78]. I answered immediatelly: "Mauco, if you claim that I violated 3RR more than once, please prove it" (6 November 2006)[79]. 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?"[80].

   Comment: I never raised such accusations against User:Jonathanpops, but it was an other Romanian wikipedian, User:Greier, who raised such accusations. 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: "I'm particulary fond of the way Mark Street keeps coming back under different names and guises, but patently writes in the same style as always... starting off sounding fairly reasonable, as if he's trying to be one of us, then becoming madder by the day as more of his points of view are edited out of the article. A favourite phrase of their's to start a discussion is "MariusM wants to...(as if speaking to us all as equals)" (you can sometimes replace MariusM with EvilAlex), most amusing I assure you"comment in 19 April 2007. To note that User:MarkStreet, known also as User:Mark us street [81], is the second known sockpuppeteer in Transnistria-related pages at Wikipedia [82], [83], and is also editor of "Tiraspol Times", a webpage which Mauco often declared as one of the best sources of informations regarding Transnistria, which he pushed to include in Wikipedia.

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"[84] (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 [85]" [86].

   Comment: The idea of asking EvilAlex to help me in the dispute with Mauco came after I saw previously admin Robdurdar advicing Mauco to do a similar thing in disputes with me: "Remember that if users do not want to help on the talk page, 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)" [87]. My behavior can not be considered meatpuppetry, as, meatpuppetry is (quote from official Wikipedia policy): "A related issue occurs 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. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Wikipedia with one agenda." [88]. Obviously, User:EvilAlex is not a brand new account, a newly created account or a single-purpose account, he is a veteran wikipedian (older than both me and Mauco at Wikipedia), asking his intervention was legitimate. I mention that 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 first (...) Unacceptable, and should not be tolerated as this makes a mockery of the institution of mediation" [89]

   Comment: it was the same mediation reffered above at usage of sockpuppet section, where Mauco participated together with his sockpuppet.

Mauco combined fake accusations with uncivil behaviour (declared himself "disgusted through 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" [90].

   Comment: The editor who wanted to include a paragraph about Soviet genocide is me. 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.

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" [91].

• Comment: In Mauco's opinion, being Romanian seems to be something bad. However, 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"[92]. For Mauco, I am guilty even when I follow his advices!

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" (while in reality only after the begining of the war Socor wrote an article on this subject and can not be considered responsible for the desinformation regarding Irak's 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".

   Comment: A third part express the opinion that such edits "reads like a character assassination of Socor"[93], who is a living person.

Note: This section will received further evidence

MariusM was not an edit warrior and his blocks were undeserved

Despite the reputation of "edit-warrior" which was attached on me based on my block log 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%).
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 [94].
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). The admins who blocked me mentioned in general edit-warring without explaining exactly at which article, this is why I don't know exactly which were the edits which caused the blocks, 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.

   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. Not only that I was blocked without warning while at that time I hadn't entries in my block log, but I was not even breaching the 3RR.

4. Block of 20 January 2007. This followed a 3RR report I made against Mauco [95] and a 3RR report Mauco made against me [96]. While Mauco indeed broke the 3RR, I didn't. I was adding corect info long time discussed in Talk (as article was protected we had time to discuss). 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 (editing different sections of the article, as one other thing I was accused is that I make "en-masse" edits, to avoid this accusation I edited each section of the article separately, making more easy to follow changes; instead of one single edit I made several consecutive edits). Mauco's claim that I was unwilling to seriously discuss changes in the article's Talk page" is falacious, I discussed all changes extensively, 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 Rodburdar 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 of the poll confirmed that the majority of users agreed with my opinions. What I never agreed is to let Mauco to have veto rights on Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia, this will be against WP:OWN, this is why I inserted some changes without Mauco's aproval, but with the aproval of the majority of people participating in discussions.
5. Block of 31 March 2007. Indeed, 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 [97] I made one more revert restore info. One more revert was against an other sock of Mauco (Pernambuco) [98], while 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. Note also the hypocrisy of Mauco who made the 3RR report against me claiming that he was NOT part of the conflict [99]. One day before Pernambuco was guilty of 3RR [100]. I saw in other occasions that reverting socks is not punishable, like in Alaexis case (please note that Khoikhoi's comment that one revert was against a Bonaparte sock seems to be untrue [101]).

   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 when they start their wikilife. The only question is who's sock is he?

   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) [102]. In the same day I had 11 edits in Talk:Transnistria: [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]. Not only in 17 April, but 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 [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]. The second edit in 16 April was about removing a category [119], which afterwards was unanimously voted for deletion [120]. 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 [121] and Talk:Transnistria [122] 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 article can not be considered "edit warring on Transnistria" especially as there were many more edits in talk page. What is less than 1 edit/day? Zero edits? Without an arbcom decision forbiding me to edit Transnistria article, my block by Future Perfect of Sunrise, for only one edit/day, is abusive.

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"[123], Mauco answered: "Not removed be me. Please assume good faith" [124]. After this answer I asked apologies: "Indeed, I saw that border issues section was removed by Pernambuco. Apologies for my mistake"[125]. I didn't knew at that time that Pernambuco is Mauco's sockpuppet, it was a mistake to assume good faith and to ask apologies to Mauco. Pernambuco's edit to remove a long-part section of the article: [126]. 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).

New checkuser requests

1. I've asked a new RCU for Mauco [127] and was declined on the base that "if there's a question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case, you are instructed to Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages". This is what I do - see also discussions in talkpage of this project page. As I explained in the RCU request, we need to check not only recent contributions of suspected socks but also older contributions, before 16 April when Mauco already is aware that he is suspected, or even better, before 31 March when Mauco was blocked. Losing time mean losing evidence.--MariusM 11:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
2. I suspected also that Buffadren is a sockpuppet of Mark us street (also MarkStreet), editor of Tiraspol Times[128] confirmation of identity to Jayjg and known sockpupeteer [129], [130]. 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 [131].--MariusM 11:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Fut.Perf.

Tendentious editing

Some examples of tendentious editing include:

• 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 ([132], [133])
• EvilAlex and various anon IPs insisted on insertion of external links to an anti-Transnistrian alleged TV feature hosted as a copyvio on YouTube ([134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139])
• User:Catarcostica tried to insert a user sockpuppet tag into article space to express his conviction that Transnistria was a Russian "sockpuppet" regime ([140], [141])
• User:Buffadren openly admits being motivated by a desire to promote certain (pro-Transnistrian) political POVs through his Wikipedia editing [142]

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 [143]). Blocks handed out since then include:
  • MariusM, blocked for edit-warring by Fut.Perf. on 17 April ([144])
  • Buffadren, blocked by Fut.Perf. on 17 April ([145]), warned again 20 April ([146]), blocked again 24 April ([147]) and 27 April ([148])
  • EvilAlex, blocked by Fut.Perf. on 17 April ([149]) and by El C on 24 April ([150])
  • 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 ([151], [152], [153])
  • Jonathanpops, warned by El C on 24 April ([154]), blocked by Fut.Perf. on 27 April ([155])

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:

• William Mauco (talk · contribs) (self-professed professional propagandist, editor of "Tiraspol Times" pro-Transnistrian website)
• Dikarka (talk · contribs)
• MariusM (talk · contribs)
• EvilAlex (talk · contribs) (heavy involvement with anti-Transnistrian propaganda activities inside and outside Wikipedia; see external links on his userpage)
• Catarcostica (talk · contribs) (single-purpose troll account, likely sockpuppet)

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)

Other disruptive editing

• Someone from the anti-Transnistrian team editing through open proxy: 205.182.65.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 72.3.131.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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

Evidence presented by Dl.goe

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:[156][157]. 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[158]. Further more, he used his sockpuppet to revert and demand us to wait and translate his source [159].(finally we found someone to translate it[160] ) He could have translated his source himself, but he decided to make the discussion as difficult as possible.This is only one example; another: he had same behavior at Tiraspol: first removed content under edit summary rv.rubbish[161], than here is the discussion [162]; finally the information was included, according to a poll (in which Mauco and his sockpuppet voted differently)[163]

Also, Mauco refused mediation, but still wasted community time in an endless discussion whether mediation is necessary[164]

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)

Defending myself

At Talk:Transnistria we have yet 15 Archives of discussions and the article is worst than ever. Fut.Perf. observed edit wars, but refused to help us with a third opinion.[165]Dl.goe 17:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Alaexis

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

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.

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 ([166], [167]). By making a minute change MariusM "legitimised" Sure Entry's version ([168]), User:EvilAlex reverted the article to Sure Entry's version ([169]).

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.

{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.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{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.

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.