User:MariusM/sandbox

Best of Mauco's sockpuppetries

 * Motto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)

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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 contributions summary

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) 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".
 * 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"?
 * 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"
 * 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: . At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead

Poll fraud in Article for deletion

 * 1) Sockpuppet voting for deletion in a debate where sockpuppeteer proposed deletion: (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" . "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"
 * 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”
 * 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"
 * 4) Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":. 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"
 * 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"
 * 6) Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement". 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"
 * 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
 * 8) Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names. 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:,
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 . "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" . Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"
 * 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"
 * 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"
 * 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"
 * 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"
 * 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"
 * 19) Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"
 * 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)
 * 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"
 * 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". "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia". "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary), "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"
 * 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"
 * 24) Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"
 * 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"
 * 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"
 * 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"
 * 28) Sockpuppet claiming in a discussion where opponent was part, lack of knowledge about a language the opponent was aware that sockpuppeteer has knowledge: ,
 * 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)
 * 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: Fringe theories"
 * 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"
 * 32) Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?", "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened", "I see. That's bad news"
 * 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". Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"
 * 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"
 * 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"
 * 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
 * 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" . 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"
 * 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"

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:

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", "DI.goe needs to watch his/her steps carefully"

Mauco asked 3 different admins to block opponent who expressed political beliefs in own userpage
"Please block him now", , (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?:, , , , , (under the name Mauco) and  (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)?", 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". 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.
 * Later adition: I founded an other edit about my real-life name: (see edit summary)

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". I answered immediatelly: "Mauco, if you claim that I violated 3RR more than once, please prove it" (6 November 2006). 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?".
 * 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, is the second known sockpuppeteer in Transnistria-related pages at Wikipedia , , 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.
 * 1) 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" (the accusation itself was raised through a sockpuppet!)
 * 2) 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 ".
 * 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)" . 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." . 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.
 * 1) 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"
 * Comment: it was the same mediation reffered above at usage of sockpuppet section, where Mauco participated together with his sockpuppet.
 * 1) Accusing opponent of accusing him being KGB propagandist: "Being labelled a KGB propagandist is particularly hurtful" . I imediatelly answered: "Tipic straw man argument. Mauco, if you claim I labelled you as KGB propagandist, please provide proofs. There are other users who arrived at this conclusion". I am still waiting to see when I labeled Mauco as "KGB propagandist", maybe in this arbitration he will provide the DIFF.
 * Coment: there are other users, not me, who expressed such opinions. For example in this edit, Illythr is taking seriously the possibility of Mauco being a "KGB agent".

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".
 * 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".
 * 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". 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", who is a living person.
 * 1) Removing information about arrests or harassment of antiseparatist political activists, opinion of antiseparatist organisations, and doubts about corectness of electoral processes in Transnistria:, , , , , , , , (not agreed in Talk, despite claims), , , , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
 * Comment: Those are only few examples, giving a complete list of such edits seems unnecesary for me.
 * 1) Promoting propaganda sites of separatist regime, pretending that those are reliable sources for Wikipedia. I think this is the main issue regarding Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia: There are few websites which appeared in 2006 which are supporting Transnistrian separatist regime, are those sites reliable sources or not? Based on those sites was Mauco promoting the image of a democratic Transnistria, where people are overhelmingly in favour of separatist regime, and political repression, if existed, is a question of the past. He could claim he added sourced information, as those sites are providing articles with such informations. The sites we are talking about are: http://pridnestrovie.net, http://visitpmr.com and http://tiraspoltimes.com. On this issue should arbcom take a decision in order to stop editing disputes in Transnistria-related articles. Further, I will give my thought about those sites:

Tiraspol Times
We had already long discussions about this website archived in Talk:Transnistria:
 * 1) Astroturfing,
 * 2) Congratulations for Tiraspol Times columnist William Mauco,
 * 3) Censorship at Tiraspol Times,
 * 4) Controversy about Tiraspol Times,
 * 5) Not journalism,
 * 6) New censorship at Tiraspol Times,
 * 7) the neverending Tiraspol Times saga...,
 * 8) Mauco's work on wikipedia, copied again in Tiraspol Times.

But the most relevant info about Tiraspol Times is given by its editor, who registered at Wikipedia as MarkStreet confirmation of identity at request of Jayjg, later also as Mark us street. I had some 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". 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 so called 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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria&diff=prev&oldid=92006662 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 mention that I asked Mark to be more specific about who are the Romanian Secret Services guys here at Wikipedia but he didn't answered I have my sources in Romania and I have been informed and I can prove a lot more than I am committed to write for other security reasons. 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. We should add at the picture confirmed sockpuppetry MarkStreet - Henco, Mark us street-Truli-Esgert. In 14 December 2006 Mark anounced that I have left Wiki, however this was a fallacy, he returned under the names of sockpuppets Esgert and Truli, 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. I am convinced that Mark is still active in Wikipedia, and my main suspicion is Buffadren, I am asking arbcom to accept my request. If Buffadren is confirmed as sockpuppet of MarkStreet/Mark us street/Henco/Esgert/Truli, then Mark should be listed as "involved part" on this arbitration and I am asking a permanent ban for him as well.

Pridnestrovie.net
This site is an official site of the separatist regime in Transnistria. In their About us page (see "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". For those who don't know: PMR ("Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika") is the name used "officially" by 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".

While "Tiraspol Times" claimed being independent, we should notice that each single article published in Tiraspol Times is featured also at http://pridnestrovie.net (see the right column).

Mauco's first edits in Wikipedia was to propose the inclusion of pridnestrovie.net as an external link in Transnistria article (this is just to point a fact, I'm not saying that the proposal is ilegitimate).

Regarding Mauco's conections with ICDISS, he recognised in Wikipedia that he attended one of their conferences 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).

visitpmr.com
Other site registered by "Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika", having as registrant organisation "Spectrum Travel Company" and as Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact mentioned ICDISS

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.

Mauco used sources in a misleading (propagandistic) way

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

Mauco engaged in trolling

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

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

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

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.
 * 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.
 * 1) Block of 20 January 2007. This followed a 3RR report I made against Mauco and a 3RR report Mauco made against me . 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.
 * 2) 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 I made one more revert restore info. One more revert was against an other sock of Mauco (Pernambuco), 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 . One day before Pernambuco was guilty of 3RR . 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 ).
 * 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.
 * 1) 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) . In the same day I had 11 edits in Talk:Transnistria:, , , , , , , , , , . 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 , , , , . The second edit in 16 April was about removing a category , which afterwards was unanimously voted for deletion . 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 and Talk:Transnistria  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", Mauco answered: "Not removed be me. Please assume good faith" . After this answer I asked apologies: "Indeed, I saw that border issues section was removed by Pernambuco. Apologies for my mistake". 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: . 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).

Comments regarding Future Perfect at Sunrise's "evidence"

 * 1) Heaven of Transnistria sandbox. As a newbie, I (not EvilAlex, he is not so evil, I am the evilest person!) created the article "Heaven of Transnistria", which was deleted. Was it a mistake? Maybe, but don't bite newcomers! Veteran user EvilAlex supported me and contributed to the article. I still consider that parts of this article are good for Wikipedia, this is why, after deletion, I created a sandbox with the same name on my userpage, which is not a copy of deleted article, as I added some improvements. My sandbox was proposed for deletion by Mauco and, despite the fact that he cheated in the deletion discussion (his sockpuppet Pernambuco voted also - see above), the majority of users didn't agreed with deletion. Future Perfect at Sunrise participated at first discussion, however he made recently a second deletion proposal. Is relevant that in 5 days nobody supported Future Perfect at Sunrise's proposal. As I proved during discussions parts of this sandbox were already used in Wikipedia articles, this sandbox is keeping some sourced informations with their supporting links which are usefull in other Wikipedia articles (maybe even for this arbitration case, I'm still working at my evidence section). I consider those attempts to delete my sandbox as harassment. Yes, I defended my sandbox in both MFD discussions, what is wrong with this? Do we have a new policy or guideline in Wikipedia "don't contradict an admin"? If yes, indeed Wikipedia is not a place for me, as, result of my education, I usually show low respect for authorities (starting with Romanian authorities). What I consider unacceptable is Mr. Sunrise's dismissal of all people who supported my point of view in first deletion proposal as being "my political allies" . Those are real people, not sockpuppets, they deserve more respect. As Mr. Sunrise is an admin determined to use his blocking powers against any person he consider guilty of some wrong-doing related with Transnistria category, I think some wikipedians are actually afraid of supporting me, they don't want to be labeled as "political allies" of an often-blocked user like me. This is not an healty climate for debates in Wikipedia.
 * 2) Youtube link "Transnistria Trafficking Arms" - A French video documentary part1· part2· part3· part4· part5. I also supported the inclusion of this French documentary as a refference in Transnistria article, and I see my edits from the talk page are mentioned as "evidence" by Sunrise, , even if my name is not mentioned. I can add even more edits where I defended youtube links, including in Sunrise's own talkpage. Sunrise admited that his "memory of what the state of affairs is with youtube failed" as he "really thought we had an all-out prohibition. There was a huge debate over this, and it resulted in some kind of stalemate". As there is not any official policy or guideline regarding youtube links, discussing about this subject in articles talk page is legitimate, and is directly linked with articles improvement proposals. Yes, we had different opinions but why is this labeled as "tendentious editing"? Please assume good faith.
 * 3) Antitransnistrian label. The french documentarry discussed above was labeled by Sunrise as "anti-Transnistrian" and he is also speaking about an "anti-Transnistrian team" (without nominating who is part of this alleged team). Why is a french movie labeled as "anti-Transnistrian"? France is not involved in any way in Transnistrian conflict. I believe the documentarry is an accurate and neutral description of some realities in Transnistria and conspirational theories about the Moldovan government influencing the french journalist team are ridiculous. I also strongly object and find deeply offensive any insinuation that those who shared similar views with me are "anti-transnistrians". I am not an "anti-transnistrian", I am a "pro-transnistrian", I love people of Transnistria and I wish them all the best, while I don't have a good opinion about the political regime actually in power in that region. The "anti-Transnistrian" label used by Future Perfect at Sunrise is showing his prejudices and is raising doubts about his neutrality on this subject.
 * 4) My block of 17 April, already discussed above.

Alaexis spreading plain fallacies in an arbitration case

 * 1) Alaexis accused me of requesting checkusers I never requested . I didn't accuse User:Jamason or User:Helen28 as being sockpuppets of User:William Mauco.
 * 2) Alaexis making misleading comments regarding checkuser results: "In all these cases no relationship was found between any suspects" . In the cases of User:Sephia karta and User:Catarcostica the checkuser was declined, those can not be considered as cases when I made wrong requests.
 * 3) Alaexis accused me of backing a vandal, while I wanted to stop him. In 30 March 2007 I wrote to User:Mr. Sure Entry's talk page: "If you are a sockpuppet please let Transnistria article in peace, I don't believe you are helping" . The small edit made by me at which Alaexis was reffering (changing Romanian name "Stânga Nistrului" with Russian name "Pridnestrovie" used by separatist authorities) was to bring NPOV after an unbalanced edit of Sure Entry. To note that Sure Entry is, as of today, only a "suspected sock", and I founded in my block of 31 March that reverting a sock is not an excuse. Wih my reputation of edit-warrior I couldn't afford to revert Mr. Sure Entry, but I tried to stop him with my message in his talk page.

Alaexis engaged in hypocrisy

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

Wikistalking

 * General comments about wikistalking: It is normal that people interesed in Transnistria to have Transnistria-related articles in their watchlist and, as result, following each other on those pages. However, I saw my edits followed even when I discussed with other editors in their usertalkpages, or when I edit pages not related with Transnistria. I think this is a proof of wikistalking. I am wikistalked for long time not only by Mauco, but also by Illythr and in the last time by Alaexis (who had few edits in Transnistria-related articles before the end of March, he was like a single-purpose account for Caucasus-related articles until then; especially after Mauco's block he became active in Transnistria - political situation in Transnistria and Abkhazia or South Ossetia is somehow related, same Russian expansionist policy is done in those regions).
 * Mauco declared he is monitoring my contributions: I am monitoring his contributions - not wikistalking - in order to gather the necessary information for an RfC on his behavior.
 * Comment: I don't understand what is the difference between monitoring my contributions and wikistalking, especially when monitoring came together with reverting me in Wikipedia articles, commenting against my proposals in article talk pages and commenting my interventions in other users' talk pages, even if the discussions are unrelated with him - see for example this edit in User's DC76 talk page where Mauco complained against my usage of Romanian language in some usertalk pages with misleading comments like "MariusM, your own policy of using Romanian has already been discussed on the Admin's noticeboard" (the only one who commented negatively on an admin noticeboard about my usage of Romanian was Mauco himself; claim that a Romanian admin criticised my usage of Romanian language is simply not true). Regarding my behaviour, I think this arbitration is an excellent place for Mauco to present the evidence he found after months of "monitoring" my contributions. I'm waiting.