Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * Charles Matthews
 * FloNight
 * Fred Bauder
 * Jdforrester
 * Jpgordon
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Mackensen
 * Morven
 * Paul August
 * SimonP
 * UninvitedCompany


 * Inactive
 * Blnguyen
 * Flcelloguy
 * Neutrality
 * Raul654

Limited scope may spell this case's downfall
Even as we speak, the article has become umanagable. Two of three of the involved parties continue to revert war and have already been blocked for short periods, but return to revert warring. More pressingly, even if those two were to be banned, there are other parties who are doing the same thing. The scope of this case needs to be expanded to include more parties. I'll submit evidence to that effect soon. Thanks. El_C 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * MariusM, in particular, has been exhibiting great hostility against myself, mostly channeled rather longwindedly (see this DRV as an example). I havn not looked at the evidence page yet, but I hope the Proposed decision accounts for his chronically disruptive conduct. El_C 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If I showed some hostility towards El_C, this is the result of him showing hostility against me. I am not the only one who considered the way El_C spoke as hostile, . El_C told above, in 24 April, that article became unmanagable as two of the three involved parts, despite already blocked for short periods, returned to edit-warring. He promised evidence. As Mauco is blocked, I guess I am one of edit-warriors. I was blocked in 17 April, El C wrote in 24 April, that mean he talked about edit-warring in the period 17-24 April. I've just checked my own actions in that period, article Transnistria (mainspace): 17 April - one edit, 18 April - I was blocked, 19 April - zero edits, 20 April - one edit, 21 April - 2 consecutive edits (3 minutes one after other), 22 April - zero edits, 23 April - 1 edit, 24 April - zero edits. Is this edit-warring or simple desinformation of arbcom, a kind of smear campaign I was subjected for months and I am already used with? May I ask El_C to present the evidence he promised or it will be considered again "hostility"? Advice for arbcom: don't believe somebody only because he is an admin, ask for evidence.--MariusM 02:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can barely follow that. MariusM has been uncivil and assumed bad faith against myself here. El_C 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Is not anymore edit-warring in 24 April, is assuming bad faith in 26 April. Can you please be accurate when you are talking in an arbcom case? You should make the effort to follow discussions, even if is difficult for you. I didn't used your name, I named "somebody with Lenin photo on his userpage" and the expression "trembling with indignation" I took from your usertalkpage. Not only that you deleted correct info about political repressions in the region (including repressions against communists, this is why I made appeal at your communist feelings), but you were acting agressively against other users who didn't share your opinions, threatening with blocks. You suffer a common disease here in Wikipedia, you consider that you're right only because you are an admin. Considering that, after arbitration started, you deleted my sandbox "Heaven of Transnistria" against the opinion of the majority of people who participated in the debate, and this sandbox is actually the ONLY "tendentious editing" brought as evidence against me in this case, I have reasons for my doubts regarding you. I don't understand your sensitiveness. In my wikilife I was subject of a lot of fake accusation and bad faith assumptions, already explained in "Evidence" page, , . Look at "proposed decision" - there is not the smallest mention about them. If expressions like "You disgust me" (with the variant "disgusted to my bones"), accusations like justifying the killings of hundreds of thousands of people or keeping Transnistrian economy in a quagmire because of my edits in Wikipedia are not worth a mention in arbcom final decision, why is my edit so bad?--MariusM 16:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages
I would like to urge arbitrators not to ban any users from talk and user talk pages. Talk pages are not encyclopedic, rather they are just comments and suggestions. Editors with tendentious POV may not produce good contribution to the articles, but they can make useful comments and suggestions in talk/user talk pages. Arbitrators please reconsider on the issue. Thanks! WooyiTalk to me? 15:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, don't ban editors more than a year from the project, IMO. WooyiTalk to me? 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me DIFFs
As in "proposed decision" one of the finding of facts about me is "tendentious editing", I am asking the arbitrators, if they are keeping this "finding of facts", to give in their decision some examples (DIFFs) of my tendentious editings. While I presented a lot of DIFFs about Mauco, he didn't present anything about me, while Future Perfect at Sunrise's only example of tendentious editing where is mentioned my name is about the sandbox "Heaven of Transnistria". If the decision is based on the edits made in my sandbox, please state this in the decision to avoid confusions and to establish an usefull precedent.--MariusM 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Abusing userspace for political propaganda
I was not aware on the fact that we are not allowed to express political opinions in own userspace. Now, this problem is clear for me and I made a report at Admin's noticeboard regarding this issue .--MariusM 22:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * MauriusM continues his harrassment of myself. As if his userbox flags are not similar point of vieew expressions. Luckily, it's almost over. El_C 01:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal by Dc76
I would like to bring to your attention, that while MarcStreet and William Mauco are accounts that pushed on the Transnistria article a pro-PMR POV, EvelAlex and MariusM did not engage in a pushing pro-Moldovan, but rather pushed an anti-MarctStreet and anti-William Mauco edits. I have recently found out that there exist such things as civility parole and revert parole. I suggest imposing them on EvelAlex and MariusM instead of banning them from Wikipedia altogether. Especially, I do not believe that they should be banned from non-Transnistria related subjects, where they edited very little until now, but unlike the other two accounts, they did edit. :Dc76 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One could also say that "William Mauco and Mark Street did not engage in a pushing pro-PMR, but rather pushed an anti-MariusM and anti-EvilAlex edits" ) Alæxis¿question? 14:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, one could say so, but that would be false. Mauco and Marc Street came to promote a pro-Transnistrian propaganda by copying info from Tiraspol Times. MariusM and EvilAlex did not try to bring some website info into WP, but were provoked by the other two. Also, MariusM and EvelAlex did edit outside Transnistria!!! :Dc76 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember Mark claiming he never used his newspaper as a source for Wikipedia. I haven't checked whether it's true or not though.
 * Marius and EvilAlex brought refs to Moldovan sites like conflict.md that are not much better than TT imho.
 * I seriously doubt it could be determined who provoked whom in the first place... Alæxis¿question? 15:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So, when MarcStreet and William Mauco were including citations to TT, what were they doing, NOT using his "newspaper" (it does not even appear on paper!) ? Conflict.md contains assesments that can be clearly attributed to support one side, but it is not Propaganda. You understand the difference between a site which bring rough info followed by POV comments from a site that never distinguished between comments and info? imho, I believe MariusM and EvelAlex should not be banned from Transnistria-non-related articles! Ditto for Willaim Mauco and Marc Street, if they will ever be able to edit anything outside Transnistria. :Dc76 15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Question concerning the comments by James F.
I noticed that in opposing several of the proposed remedies, James F. commented, "We cannot indefinitely ban from the entire wiki as a Committee. Welcome to ArbCom101." I am not sure exactly what James means here, and in any event it appears that he is citing a principle not familiar to the other arbitrators. I suspect I would not be alone in appreciating some clarification lest I become one of the many in danger of flunking ArbCom 101. (Not a comment on the merits of the case, just a rules/process question.) Newyorkbrad 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe James is referring to the fact that ArbCom has generally limited the bans it imposed to a year in length (hence the typical "banned for a year" wording). I'm not aware of this being anything more than a tradition, however, albeit a long-standing one. Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand that in ordinary circumstances, bans might be limited to a year. But see Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist (Dec. 2006) (Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher banned indefinitely); Requests for arbitration/MONGO (Oct. 2006) (PrivateEditor and Rootology banned indefinitely). Newyorkbrad 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that I was away from the wiki at the time that those two cases were passed. I was not aware of those two cases's violation of this until now.
 * James F. (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a "tradition", it's a fundamental underpinning of how we operate as a Committee - that we see that people change, and we should be willing to be flexible in compensation for this.
 * James F. (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the increased frequency (and success) of direct appeals, though, I'm not convinced that banning someone "only for a year" continues to be a useful approach to that. Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we have always saved ourselves the bother of needing the appeals - people under a year's ban who return either come back as obvious "repeat offenders" (and so dealt with in a few minutes of Committee time), or as useful contributers operating "under the radar" (a success). Anyway, this isn't really the right venue - want to take it to arbcom-l?
 * James F. (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question ArbCom decision
I've noticed 7 arbiters voted for banning User:MariusM and User:EvilAlex on the grounding:

"As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, MariusM (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned" (from the project or from making any contributions related to Transnistria.)

I don't think being a single-purpose account is wrong. If so, it means a variety of edits is required just to be in the project; and I think this opposes to the anyone can edit concept.

Regarding edit-warring, I think Mauco provoked them, either directly, or by his unfair edits, and I will add here only some of the examples in which I was involved:
 * 1)  my first edit on this subject was reverted by Mauco under the edit summary:rv rubbish
 * 2) Mauco removed the disputes-templates I've added under the edit summary: rv POV hijack
 * 3) Mauco and Pernambuco made changes depsite the oposal of the majority and asked us consensus before reverting them
 * 4) "they" also reverted the edits they said they agree with, to force us introduce them gradually".

I think it is relevat here to say Mauco refused mediation

I wonder would Wikipedia have ever solved Mauco problem if MariusM and EvilAlex had been afraid to get involved in disputes? (there was a request for checkuser on Pernambuco and Mauco in November 2006, but it was rejected. The first step in unmasking Mauco was made in a war-edit, in which "Pernambuco" used User:Kertu3 to revert MariusM.)

Dl.goe 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a long-time wikipedian, but only came recently to the Transnistria page. I've been to Moldova and I've lived six years in the former Soviet Union so I have some first hand familiarity.  I'm not of either Romanian or Russian decent and have no dog in this fight.  I suspect the Transnistria page is not the most POV page in the wikipedia, but it is the most POV page I've seen.  I tried to make it NPOV and correct some errors, but there appears to be a cabal of astro-turfing pro-Moldovan editors who drive off anyone who tries to set the record straight.  MariusM, in particular, engaged in unwarranted personal attacks.  In my opinion, he should be permanently banned. Mcarling 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. :) You tried to re-introduce as source TiraspolTimes. That is, the very propaganda tool of the Transnistria authorities where MarkStreet works. Dpotop 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you failed to mention me for countering you. Even Illythr, which is usually not on MariusM's side explained you are talking about an event no decent source cites. Dpotop 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, do you know what astroturfing means? I guess not. So, take a look here Dpotop 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Friendly advice for Mcarling, and for others involved in smear campaign against me: Give DIFFs to support your afirmations against me. Take my example - I gave a lot of DIFFs when I wanted to prove something in an arbcom case. I didn't make any personal attack against Mcarling. I believe arbcom should not be passive with those who are spreading fallacies in an arbcom case.--MariusM 01:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"We cannot indefinitely ban from the entire wiki as a Committee. Welcome to ArbCom101."
Please elaborate-101, JamesF. El_C 08:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See two threads up for some comments on this. Newyorkbrad 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Still, it appears JamesF is still experiencing difficulties in expressing himself through straight-forward, innunedo-free comments. El_C 09:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's minimalism
Remember your admitted error with Sam Spade, Fred. This appears potentially rather similar (in terms of your ideological affinities, too). Thx. El_C 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now joined by Jpgordon. What a farce. El_C 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm out. El_C 00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool! So there's no difference between agressor and agressed
So, on one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation (outside Wikipedia, per The Economist), and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides. Dpotop 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Transnistria page. Since Mauco and Mark Street left we have all (Russians, Moldovans, Romanians) reached constructive positions, and the article advances. Dpotop 07:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd modify the last sentence. Since Mauco, Mark Street and EvilAlex left and MariusM drastically limited his activity we have all reached constructive positions, and the article advances. Alæxis¿question? 10:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course they limited their activity. I did it, too. There's no POV-pusher to counter. Dpotop 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to protect the page again today to stop yet another stale revert war. But what do I know? El_C 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Bonaparte. So, no relation with EvilAlex and MariusM. Dpotop 14:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, this new user LionKing kind of did it to give you an argument, didn't he. I am tempted to check whether LionKing is not Mauco or MarkStreet. I have not seen MariusM or EvilAlex doing something so irrational. Instead, I have see Mauco and MarkStreet manipulating the oppinion. Dpotop 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, the position of LionKing (i.e. adding Stinga Nistrului) is nearer to User:Bonaparte's one. Alæxis¿question? 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. I have already seen socks of Mauco pretending to fight Mauco to gain acceptance among other editors. I can very well imagine him trying to ban EvilAlex or MariusM by pretending they are doing something bad. Don't you understand? Those guys (the TiraspolTimes bunch, i.e. Mauco and MarkStreet) are payed to do this. They are not wikipedia-like contributors that work for the fun of it. Dpotop 05:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, that's not proven (in case of Mauco, at least). Second, we've seen tons of Bonnie-socks so the easiest explanations is likely to be true this time also. Alæxis¿question? 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's proven. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. :) Dpotop 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How was this proven, then, specifically? El_C 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go: . Does the word "professional" ring a bell? Dpotop 12:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that. Thanks for the link. El_C 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant that the arbitrators found unanimously that existing proof shows that there exists a professional link between Mauco, MarkStreet, and TiraspolTimes. Dpotop 12:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I'm still wandering though why Alæxis has reservations about the former. El_C 12:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's relevant? Dpotop 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, you must be kidding. So, if you are confronted with a bunch of guys that write obviously and provably false things, you do nothing? Because the only thing EvilAlex and MariusM could do against Mauco, MarkStreet and their socks was to revert. Dpotop 12:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not following either question, sorry. El_C 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, ElC, you must be kidding. So, if you are confronted with a bunch of guys that write obviously and provably false things, you do nothing? Because the only thing EvilAlex and MariusM could do against Mauco, MarkStreet and their socks was to revert. Dpotop 12:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, in all law systems those that break the rules in malicious ways are more severy punished. Mauco and MarkStreet are the most vicious manipulators I saw on wikipedia. And you tell me that what can be seen, at most, as edit warring is of the same gravity. Moreover, Wikipedia has rules to deal with edit warring. It's simple, and EvilAlex has been punished when it happened. Now, you are punishing him twice for the same thing. And, in fact, you are punishing him for doing **your** job. **You** should have uncovered this, because **you** are the admin. These two guys (EvilAlex, MariusM), along with others did a huge job at countering and uncovering this media manipulation, and you punish them for doing this? Cool! Dpotop 12:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel I punished anyone here. Moreover, I am confident I helped to prevent disruption from both sides. El_C 12:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You did nothing. FutPerf did it. And now you're after the guys that made it possible. Dpotop 12:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you base that "nothing" on. I did plenty. I do plenty elsewhere, too. El_C 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody here cares what you do elsewhere. As to Transnistria, from my POV, you are a nuisance. Finding the sock farm of Mauco and MarkStreet was done by MariusM, EvilAlex, and the other editors of good faith (even those with oppinions opposed to those of MariusM and EvilAlex). Admin User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise took these findings into account, and introduced the first measures. These were the first effective measures in one year, because they uprooted the source of the conflict. You did nothing, and now you are after the guys that made it possible (I was really stunned by this). Dpotop 13:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do, actually, think that some of them care. At any rate, I blocked multiple abusive accounts; I protected the page when it was needed, I facilittated calm and civility on the talk page. How are all those things nothing? As for MariusM, he made unwarranted provocational attacks against me, and from what I understood (taking into account Future Perfect's evidence, explicitly) he's been editing as a single-purpose account, along with some abusive traits. El_C 13:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that Wikipedia does not ban single-purpose accounts. Just their abusive use. Also, given that you accused me of "inflamatory remarks", I wouldn't assign great weight to your oppinion on MariusM. Of course, the guy revert warred with Mauco and MarkStreet, but what else? Dpotop 13:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I take exception to your tone; I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness. El_C 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism. Can someone here do a checkuser? Update: It's User:Bonaparte
It would be interesting to compare the known IPs of: with the new account who started to vandalize in an irrational fashion the Transnistria page right after I claimed here there is no further conflict there. If you can, you could include in the comparison the IPs of User:MariusM and User:EvilAlex, just to rule them out. Dpotop 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User:William Mauco and its socks
 * User:MarkStreet and its socks
 * User:Bonaparte and its socks
 * User:LionKing
 * It's Bonaparte. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool! So, you see that MariusM and EvilAlex are not the bad guys! Dpotop 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't even look at them; it wasn't necessary. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing that other people try hard to block Bonaparte, and he still manages to sometimes circumvent and vandalize, I have tried on a couple occasions to ask him very kindly (in the talk pages of the IP addresses he used) to stop vandalizing and inflamating. I even tried to tell him something like "you damage the contribution of other editors with your edits! they are being blamed of defending Bonaparte!" but to no avail. On the contrary, he managed to find out my first name and the city I am contributing from, although I have not told this on WP. Of course, I don't mind at all if a civilized person or an admin that needs this info finds out complete information about me, but how on earth did a banned vandal manage to do this? Also, associating MariusM with Bonaparte is outrageous to say the least (to say more, it is malicious intent, IMHO).:Dc76 14:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)