Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence

Necesity of allowing further checkusers for William Mauco

Alex Bakharev told in this case: "most of the tendentious editors fall for sockpuppeting if blocked for more than one month. If he will go the same path he would be caught and permabanned - no arbcom is necessary". However, we will never find if Mauco did or not new sockpuppeting as long as new requests for checkuser are denied. I made a request regarding User:Catarcostica which was denied on the ground that "Checkuser is not for fishing" [1]. Strange and misleading comments from "uninvolved" parts appeared at this RCU, like User:VK35's comment that code F is not correct and the RCU should be coded G, or User:Alaexis's comment "I'm kind of surprised MariusM didn't try to check whether Catarcostica is User:Buffadren or me. So far MariusM checkuser'ed just about everyone who happens to disagree with him" (nice confirmation that Alaexis is wikistalking me), which is a plain fallacy, as I never ever had a disagreement with User:Catarcostica, he even gave me a barnstar[2]! My assumption that Catarcostica is a straw man sockpuppet of Mauco is not based on disagreement I had with him (I never had) but on the inconsistency between his remarks on talk page and his edits in mainspace. For example, he told in talkpage "It time to remove all references from the TT. Im sick of all Mauco puppets and lies. Buffarden, other puppet of Mauco!!" [3], and I have to mention that my position was always that TT (Tiraspol Times) is only a propaganda website ful of lies, however I see that Catarcostica was not removing the links to "Tiraspol Times" from the article, but things like a french documentary about Transnistria which I supported to be included in the article: "A Tiraspol resident explained to a french journalist team: "There are no journalists who have freedom of speech. Nobody can speak out. I can't. If I said something they could come for me tommorow and take me where no one would find me. And no one would complain. No one has any rights here" French Chanel 4 documentary about Transnistria, and his "pro-Romanian attitude" is limited on silly things like changing Russian name "Pridnestrovie" with Romanian unused name "Stânga Nistrului" [4]. Yesterday Catarcostica made other very pro-Romanian but very silly edits, like adding a template "sockpuppet of Russian Federation" on Transnistria article [5].

I mention also that Mauco did already use a "Romanian" sockpuppet, he also knows Romanian language, what can stop him using two Romanian sockpuppets? In 15 April I told my opinion "At Transnistria there is actually a staged edit-war to prove that even without William Mauco there are edit-wars on that article" [6], and Catarcostica's edit in the evening of 14 April was instrumental in the restarting of edit-war in Transnistria article.

A saying is telling: "The cat with ringbells is not catching mouses" and I know I was wikistalked by Mauco. He is already aware on the fact that I suspect Catarcostica as being his sockpuppet and possible took care using a different IP for his edits. I am asking to arbcom to proceed a checkuser of William Mauco and Catarcostica, but not only based on Catarcostica's last edits, also based on the edits made by Catarcostica before Mauco was caught sockpuppeteering. Also should be checked the possible usage of open proxies. Is important not to lose time, as losing time mean losing evidence.

Of course, I may be wrong, but we don't have a policy in Wikipedia of not checkusering because the suspicions may be are not founded. Checkuser can be a tool to clean the reputation of inocent wikipedians also.

I know that some of my reasons may look strange, I have an Eastern European mind and my brain cells are working a little bit differently (not always correctly, but I am trying my best).--MariusM 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, a possible confirmation of block evasion by User:William Mauco can not be a reason for arbcom to close this case, as one of the subjects on which arbcom should give its opinion is my request for a statement confirming that that my previous blocks were undeserved.--MariusM 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"So far MariusM checkuser'ed just about everyone who happens to disagree with him" (nice confirmation that Alaexis is wikistalking me), which is a plain fallacy, as I never ever had a disagreement with User:Catarcostica. Marius, my statement is 100% true. I didn't say 'MariusM checkuser'ed ONLY those who happens to disagree with him'. There's clear difference imho.

ps. Checking one's contribs is perfectly legitimate. That's why it's possible for everyone. Alaexis 11:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that you agree that checkusering is perfectly legitimate. However is not true that I checkusered just about everyone who disagreed with me. There are a lot of people with whom I had disagreement in Wikipedia and I didn't checkusered them. Illythr, for example, wondered why I didn't ask checkuser for him [7], I think he feels insulted that I don't take him seriously. Actually, I checkusered: Markstreet (confirmed), Mark us street (confirmed), Pernambuco (confirmed), Alaexis (unconfirmed). I have also some declined requests.--MariusM 21:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Asking for a checkuser is of course legitimate.

Btw you've somehow forgotten about checkuser'ing Buffadren, Helen28, Dikarka and Sephia Karta Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alaexis, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/William_Mauco#William_Mauco_.282.29. That's what I call 'just about everyone' )). Alaexis 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In support of sockpuppetry

Well, asking for a checkuser is indeed legitimate, but fishing is not.

It appears that Catarcostica had simply made a wholesale revert in an attempt to "clear the article of TT lies", there. I don't think he had deliberately deleted the movie and other things, they probably were just a "roadkill".

Hm, Marius, what made you think that I feel insulted? --Illythr 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Catarcostica didn't clear the article of any TT lie, he kept TT links and sentences like "No opposition parties or publications are banned. Political candidates in favor of unification with Moldova are allowed to stand in elections", and also, he made a subtle change at a link at http://conflict.md which supported an afirmation about recent arrest of political opponents, after the change the link didn't support anymore the sentence in the article.--MariusM 10:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey, MariusM found out Mauco's sockpuppets. We shall all thank him! But what do I find here? Editors are accusing him... is someone angry he unmasked Mauco? Dl.goe 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be mistaken. I've never accused MariusM of checkuser'ing most of his opponents. Alaexis 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

Eh, where did Mauco "self-profess" being a professional propagandist and an editor of "Tiraspol Times"? I recall him writing a column for TT once [8], but where does the rest come from? --Illythr 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)