Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * "So far MariusM checkuser'ed just about everyone who happens to disagree with him" (nice confirmation that Alaexis is wikistalking me), which is a plain fallacy, as I never ever had a disagreement with User:Catarcostica. Marius, my statement is 100% true. I didn't say 'MariusM checkuser'ed ONLY those who happens to disagree with him'. There's clear difference imho.
 * ps. Checking one's contribs is perfectly legitimate. That's why it's possible for everyone. Alaexis 11:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice to see that you agree that checkusering is perfectly legitimate. However is not true that I checkusered just about everyone who disagreed with me. There are a lot of people with whom I had disagreement in Wikipedia and I didn't checkusered them. Illythr, for example, wondered why I didn't ask checkuser for him, I think he feels insulted that I don't take him seriously. Actually, I checkusered: Markstreet (confirmed), Mark us street (confirmed), Pernambuco (confirmed), Alaexis (unconfirmed). I have also some declined requests.--MariusM 21:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Asking for a checkuser is of course legitimate.
 * Btw you've somehow forgotten about checkuser'ing Buffadren, Helen28, Dikarka and Sephia Karta Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alaexis, Requests_for_checkuser/Case/William_Mauco. That's what I call 'just about everyone' )). Alaexis 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Illythr's concerns

 * Well, asking for a checkuser is indeed legitimate, but fishing is not.
 * It appears that Catarcostica had simply made a wholesale revert in an attempt to "clear the article of TT lies", there. I don't think he had deliberately deleted the movie and other things, they probably were just a "roadkill".
 * Hm, Marius, what made you think that I feel insulted? --Illythr 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Catarcostica didn't clear the article of any TT lies, he kept TT links and sentences like "No opposition parties or publications are banned. Political candidates in favor of unification with Moldova are allowed to stand in elections", and also, he made a subtle change at a link, instead of http://www.conflict.md/comentarii.php?ID=2288 which supported an afirmation about recent arrest of political opponents, he changed with http://www.conflict.md/comentarii.php?ID=2303, after the change the link didn't support anymore the sentence in the article.--MariusM 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting more amusing with your every post. You had inserted the wrong link yourself, Marius! :-D I had later noticed your error and corrected it. As Catarcostica reverted to an early version of the article, my correction was lost and your erroneous edit was restored.
 * Hey, I've actually discovered to whose version Catarcostica did revert! It was user:Dl.goe! . So, Marius, unless you're suggesting that Dl .goe is also a sockpuppet of Mauco, I suggest you withdraw your accusations against Catarcostica. It might be wise to apologise to dl.goe as well. --Illythr 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote Alaexis (see this page): "Asking for a checkuser is of course legitimate". Why I should apologise for doing a legitimate thing? Anyhow, as checkuser was not done, I don't know if I am wrong. It seems that for you, asking a checkuser is something worse than using sockpuppets. Why are you asking me to apologise to other persons, are you in charge with public relations of those persons? If they have to ask something from me, they can do themselves, unless they nominated you as their representative.--MariusM 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming bad faith about a person is, well, bad. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is very serious. The Checkuser procedure violates that person's privacy to verify your claim. If the claim proves you incorrect, that means that the person was wrongly accused and scrutinized for nothing. In real world, you'd be facing numerous libel charges for this. In Wikipedia, I think that at least an apology should be in order (unless the checkuser is used to clear someone's name, which I don't think was your intention). --Illythr 01:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to read your comment that "assuming bad faith is bad". What about your accusation of "Very Bad Faith" against me ? Are you going to apologise me? Not to mention your other accusation about ID fishing, you were not sure about.--MariusM 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreeing to release the guy so that "Maybe he will start confessing the complete list of his sockpuppets." is Very Bad Faith indeed. And a bit silly, too. :-) As for ID fishing, I still think it was an attempt to disclose his persona. If you're concerned about this, perhaps we can ask a third opinion. If someone like JMabel, Future Perfect or one of the arbitrators here will tell me that this whole section was a genuine good faith attempt at improving the article, then I guess I'll have to apologise. --Illythr 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In good faith I consider possible that a person who was discovered to use 3 sockpuppets to have used some more. This is why I requested new checkuser for Mauco. Recognizing what other sockpuppets were used, without being caught, can be proof that Mauco's apologetic e-mail to Irpen is sincere. If you don't believe I acted in good faith than God bless you! Apology should come from heart, not enforced by admins or arbcoms. Regarding your other comments, I already answered at the WP:CSN discussion. I demand arbcom to conditionally unblock Mauco (only for participating at this arbitration), I want to discuss with Mauco at this case, not with his proxies. I asked this even in my first statement in the arbitration case .--MariusM 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. I think I have said more than enough in this section. --Illythr 03:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, MariusM found out Mauco's sockpuppets. We shall all thank him! But what do I find here? Editors are accusing him... is someone angry he unmasked Mauco? Dl.goe 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be mistaken. I've never accused MariusM of checkuser'ing most of his opponents. Alaexis 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I found Kertu3 and suspected Ştefan44, but Pernambuco was first revealed by Dmcdevit, afterwards I made an RCU to have correctly listed Kertu3 as Mauco's sock (not as Pernambuco's) and to check also Ştefan44 (I was not aware that he was already discovered, as Mauco deleted part of Dmcdevit's message from his talk page). Anyhow, unmasking sockpuppets is a way to attract hate, as I told in 30 March .--MariusM 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose that users Buffadren, Alaexis, Dikarka, Helen28 etc might've been mildly annoyed by your repeated checkusering them at every opportunity, but hate? Don't think so. --Illythr 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts
Eh, where did Mauco "self-profess" being a professional propagandist and an editor of "Tiraspol Times"? I recall him writing a column for TT once, but where does the rest come from? --Illythr 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, seems I mixed up Mauco and Mark Stree there. Thanks for the correction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusing admin Jmabel of being Romanian
Marius, where did Mauco state that being Romanian is bad? In that particular edit, he pointed out that you tend to ask for opinion only those people (admins), whose opinion is likely to coincide with yours, and that you also tend to invite Romanian editors. He mistook Jmabel for a Romanian, yes, but thinking that being Romanian is something bad? Source please. --Illythr 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Illythr, I will not answer to your questions. If the arbitrators have some questions I will answer to them. If Mauco will have some questions, I will also answer. He was already requested in 23 April to send evidence for this case through e-mail . I don't accept that in this case Mauco should be allowed to run his defence through proxies.--MariusM 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Presenting your opinion that is not backed by a source as fact will not lend to your credibility, Marius. I think it would be best for you to find something to support your statement before someone involved in the proceedings will ask you about it, to spare both your time and theirs. --Illythr 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Request: Illythr and Alaexis being listed as involved parts in this arbitration
Considering their involvement in this case I believe they should be included as "involved parts" in this arbitration. Illythr, for example, without presenting any evidence at apropiate page, is asking me a lot of questions related with arbitration and is accusing me of "Very Bad Faith" (see above - this talk page). I consider unnecessary to answer him until he is an "involved part" in this arbitration. I am wondering why the only opponent actually listed as "involved part" is not submitting his evidence, while he was asked several days ago to submit it through e-mail. This is making more difficult for me to prepare my defence.--MariusM 13:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are edits from 2005 relevant?
I see Alaexis added at his evidence section an edit of EvilAlex from 2005, as "uncivil behaviour". I wonder if in 2007, edits from 2005 are still relevant, especially as nobody involved in this arbitration participated at 2005 discussion with EvilAlex. Anyhow, we should appreciate the thoroughfull research done by Alaexis, in the situation that the main involved part User:William Mauco is so lazy.--MariusM 13:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)