Case Opened on 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

William Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MariusM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
EvilAlex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requests for comment

Statement by Wooyi (initiator)

Although I am personally not involved in this case, but today I spotted it on WP:CN on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Proposed community ban for sockpupeteer William Mauco. It was stalled and ended in no consensus. The administrators on that page have made the recommendation to bring this here for arbitration. As of the time I am writing this statement, however, no action has been done since then. So I bring it here for procedural reasons.

Event links:

Statement by MariusM

While I would not fully agree with Wooyi's statement that no consensus existed at my request to permaban User:William Mauco (there were 15 persons who endorsed the ban, 4 who opposed and one who proposed a ban for both me and Mauco), I agreed imediatelly with the idea of letting him to defend himself [1] and a conditional unblock (only for editing this page, if he is caught editing other pages to be imediatelly permabanned) is a good idea. I consider Irpen an involved part and I added him at the list. Alex Bakharev was also involved a little bit in the "war" between me and Mauco, he forgived Mauco twice for 3RR breaching, in this way fueling the edit-war between us, and I reported this situation at Administrators Noticeboard Wikipedia double standards?, however I would let Bakharev to decide himself if he want to be listed as "involved part". What I expect from this arbitration is not only a permanent ban of vicious sockpuppeteer William Mauco, but also a cleaning of my wikipedia reputation, as I received a lot of entries in my block log as result of disputes with this bad faith hypocrite editor and I want a arbcom decision stating that my previous blocks were undeserved. I don't consider relevant the apologetic email submitted by Mauco to Irpen, as there were never disputes between Irpen and Mauco. I didn't receive an apologetic e-mail from Mauco, while I am the main person who should receive such an e-mail.--MariusM 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to Dmcdevit's statement: I wonder which is my NEW misbehaviour to merit a permaban? Maybe this report, where I protested against Dmcdevit's abuse of his checkuser privileges? Considering that in above debate Domitius expressed opinion that likely Dmcdevit abused his checkuser privileges, I am not wondering why Dmcdevit want a punishment for Domitius also. I would advice everybody involved in this case: Don't add personal feelings here because, to quote a famous NPOV sensor in Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia, this is leading to Dark Side and ulcers.--MariusM 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to the Comitee: I am herebly asking the comitee to keep User:Irpen status of involved part. I notified him [2]. I mention that the only prove that Mauco expressed regret for his behaviour (which Dmcdevit is taking at face value) is Irpen's claim. The initiator listed also the possibility of "other editors" to be involved in the dispute, I saw the clerk removed also the "other editors" line.--MariusM 12:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvilAlex

Hello. I would like to add some. I have been in Wkipedia since 2001. As far as I remember, Transnistrian article was nice tidy and quiet at that time. And then one day Mauco arrived. The black become white and the false become true. In the following few month article started to change from what I know the real Transnistria to the Mauco’s Transnistria. I came to wiki because I wanted to write about my country, I wanted to write the truth but it is impossible when Mauco is around: he uses socks to advance and push his POV, he uses socks for braking 3RR, and he uses socks for voting. All previous attempts to return article to NPOV have been failed. As a result of Mauro’s POV pushing activities article lost all of its reality (just compare what says Britannica and what says Wkipedia). As a result of Mauco behaviour I have been unjustly punished (3RR – I just tried to revert the vandalism, but with some many socks around it is impossible). I would support indefinite ban for Mauco. Mauco have done great wrong to Wkipedia, to co contributors. I consider the 2 month block is a slap on a face of Wikipedian community.
Re: User:Irpen said that Mauco apologized but he should apologize to me – I am the one who is deeply offended by his puppet show. He didn’t apologize to me. EvilAlex 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

My apologies for not having responded earlier to the community ban, I had responded on earlier motions.
    I came to Transnistria later than EvilAlex, when Mauco was already involved. My interest stemmed from following up on the Riga OMON forces (who shot freedom demonstrators). Their commander (Antyufeyev, the PMR security minister and power behind the throne) as well as most of the Baltic OMON force were transplanted into Transnistria. Mauco has been nothing short of a cottage industry working to paint the PMR regime as legitimate, its "ethnic" claims to the territory historically based, etc., etc. I wound up debating Mauco at many a turn over many topics. I purchased numerous sources he quoted (we're talking hundreds of dollars worth of books), only to find works quoted out of context or mentioning something in one sentence in the entire book as an aside which Mauco quoted as a definitive statement. His is the worst, most insidious type of "scholarship," not researching and relating facts for readers to draw their own conclusions, but putting words into the mouths of facts--words the facts clearly and unambiguously do not support.
    Mauco's most famous line: "Consider the words not the source." Pulling out all sorts of obscure references thinking that the rest of the editors won't be industrious enough to uncover his "objective" sources making "plausible" statements are politically and economically allied with the Transnistrian authorities. THEN... we find that we have been debating not only Mauco, but Pernambuco--his sock puppet--for months. (We won't even mention his writing for the Tiraspol Times, a blatant pro-PMR mouthpiece.)
    What makes Mauco's conduct particularly heinous is that Mauco has lectured and berated nearly every editor disagreeing with him, accusing them of intellectual dishonesty and worse. When a number of people rightly disagree with him, he accuses them of sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry. Some of his (given his proven dishonesty, knowingly) baseless accusations are still the #2 or #3 google search results on the names of reputable Wikipedia editors.
    Mauco has made editing a misery for anyone disputing him. And he has made a mockery of Wikipedia by constantly quoting and twisting Wikipedia "rules" to accuse honest editors of deception while he has been the greatest deceiver of all.
    Wikipedia has absolutely no place for someone who has demonstrated the abject lack of integrity which Mauco has--and which has been proven beyond any doubt.
    A permanent ban can be the only response to this long-term intentional dishonesty characterized by denigrating and vindictive behavior against all editors opposing him--all the while practicing the very dishonesty he accuses honest editors of. There is absolutely no argument Mauco can make in his "defense"--nor should he be given any further opportunities to twist the truth or accuse honest editors. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dc76

In my oppinion, a WP article should not discurage editors from improving it. Unfortunately this is exactly what endless discussions with Mauco and his socks, and constant portecttion of the page due to edit warring resulted in. As a result I do not see any of the former nice and helpful editors - Jmabel, Johnathanpops, sometimes Illythr and Khoikhoi would come - where are they now? Scared away! There was once a guy who knew economics well and just out of good intention tried editting the economic section. Mauco immediately told him everything is controversial, so the poor guy started appologizing that he only wanted to help. I was one of the people who asked him to disregard mauco and please edit that section, b/c help from people who knows well his detail is invaluable. There was once a doctoral student from a university in California specializing in former Soviet conflicts if I am not mistaken, who honestly tried to help - never heard of him again, also scared away by mauco blaming him, don't even remeber his name (who can read 20+ archive pages of non-sense discussions with Mauco to find a small bit of detail?) Such examples are abundant.

I am a relatively new WPian, and first arrived to the article Transnistria last November, becuase I was interested in geography and some aspects of middle age history. It happened at a time when there was a major discussion to improve the article, which otherwise was in constant edit war between Mauco, Pernambuco and EvelAlex, but only later I realized that the discussions were vacuous, that whatever one edits is reverted by Mauco just as the editor does not edit for 3-4 days. I proposed to include clearly in the article which localities are on which side, which are in the security zone, mentioned a middle age castle and 3 fairs, some boyar families, among other details. Noone opposed these in the talk page, but several days after I do whatever edit, everything is reveresed back by Mauco or Pernambuco. I understand that Soviet POV on the history of the region merits to be mentioned, but to automatically reject everything that is not Soviet historiography sources is hardly neutral by me. As for the map, it stayed for half a year (at least me witnessing) factually incorrect. After my repeated requests, constantly opposed by Mauco, Pernambuco offered to mediate between me and Mauco and offered to create a good map. So I thought, what a nice user, agrees to look through all the info I give him, and sort it out... and them it turns out that he was a Mauco sock. I felt for it like a child.

Other editors do not have the time and interest in Transnistria article to come there every day and check every edit. 99% believe in other people's good faith. But it is sufficient to have Mauco and his socks around, and noone can do anything with this page, not even edit a sentence for spelling. Everyone just stays a bit, and then says "whatever, i have beter things to do". If Mauco has 12 hours every day to spend on this WP article, I don't think anyone would ever match that, and the article would be permanently doomed. This is not something that would go away in 2-3 months. If you don't want to ban Mauco, then just erase the article Transnistria, and say that due to huge edit waring WP decided not to cover the topic. It would be a big drawback for WP, but the reality is that the topic was not encyclopedically covered anyway. I see improvements during the last month, but they will be reverted once Mauco comes back. Noone can match his time and logistic energy. :Dc76 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dpotop

I have just read the proposed decision, and I find it weird, to say the least. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk notes

I removed Irpen as an involved party; I really think that it should be up to the initiator or the Committee, which MariusM can appeal to for that. El_C 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept. It makes sense to me that the ArbCom should review at need some of the site's entrenched editing hot spots. Charles Matthews 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Paul August ☎ 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Single-purpose accounts

1) Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts.

Passed 10-0 at 17:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Astroturfing

2.1) Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for so-called "astroturfing," that is, creating a false impression of widespread, spontaneous, popular support for an issue, is disruptive. Relevant policies include WP:NPOV, Conflict of interest, WP:SOCK, and WP:SPAM.