![]() | 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/?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.
"Please block him now" [61], [62], [63] (the request was not succesfull)
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.
"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.
Discussions about this website archived in Talk:Transnistria:
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.
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].
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.
I was trying to achieve consensus in Talk pages and, with few exceptions, didn't breach the 3RR.
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)
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.
Some examples of tendentious editing include:
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:
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)
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)
(to be continued...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's what he wrote on my talk page:
Dl.goe
20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
[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).
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.
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)
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)
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)
I'm on the road, it will take me several days to go through all the appropriate examples.
Here [259] is a good microcosm of pushing POV sources, in this case olvia.net (in Russian, the press organ of the Transnistrian regime).
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)
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.
![]() | 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/?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.
"Please block him now" [61], [62], [63] (the request was not succesfull)
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.
"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.
Discussions about this website archived in Talk:Transnistria:
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.
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].
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.
I was trying to achieve consensus in Talk pages and, with few exceptions, didn't breach the 3RR.
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)
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.
Some examples of tendentious editing include:
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:
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)
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)
(to be continued...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's what he wrote on my talk page:
Dl.goe
20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
[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).
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.
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)
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)
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)
I'm on the road, it will take me several days to go through all the appropriate examples.
Here [259] is a good microcosm of pushing POV sources, in this case olvia.net (in Russian, the press organ of the Transnistrian regime).
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)
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.