Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jonathanpops (talk | contribs) at 10:12, 12 May 2007 (→Google searches). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/archive 1 27 august - 17 november 2006

/archive 2 22 november 2006 - 1 april 2007

Best of Mauco's sockpuppetries

Moto: "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 Misplaced Pages in 9 March 2006
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 Misplaced Pages in 21 September 2006

   Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary, words from Misplaced Pages slang (“redlink”) and Misplaced Pages abreviations ("rv" instead of "revert") from his first edit.

3. User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Misplaced Pages in 4 February 2007

   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.

4. User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Misplaced Pages in 18 February 2007

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

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. 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": . According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Misplaced Pages editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet" .
3. 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"?
4. 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"
5. 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”
6. 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"
7. 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"
8. 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"
9. 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"
10. 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
11. 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 Misplaced Pages than "neutrality".
12. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:,
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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!!!"
17. 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"
18. 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"
19. 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"
20. 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"
21. 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"
22. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"
23. 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"
24. 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)
25. 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"
26. 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"
27. 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"
28. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"
29. 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"
30. 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"
31. 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"
32. Sockpuppet claiming in a discussion where opponent was part, lack of knowledge about a language the opponent was aware that sockpuppeteer has knowledge: ,
33. 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)
34. Sockpuppet teaching Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories"
35. 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
36. 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"
37. 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"
38. 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"
39. Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation"
40. 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"
41. 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
42. 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"

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:

Other issues, unrelated with sockpuppetry

1. Intimidating 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"
2. Asking 3 different admins for blocking opponent who expressed political beliefs in own userpage: "Please block him now" , , (the request was not succesfull)

Say...

Are you limited to editing of your talk page only, or all of your userspace? If the latter is true, then now may be a good time to resume working on your pet project instead of being childish. You claimed to intend to work on it, when you have the time, but your last edit to it was more than two months ago... --Illythr 17:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am limited only on my talk page. Even my main user page is forbidden for me. Don't worry about my projects and try not to became obsessed about what I am doing, there are better ways of spending your wikitime.--MariusM 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's interesting and can be useful. Other prospective sockpuppeteers can copy Mauco's tactics and learn from his mistakes. BTW shouldn't someone be adding {{sockpuppeteerproven}} to Mauco's userpage?--Domitius 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful for suckpuppeteers? Awww...

You are right about wikitime there, of course. Too bad about userspace, though. --Illythr 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chestia cu rusul ala

Recunosc ca pentru a fi din Banat, esti tare, dar te sfatuiesc sa te calmezi in cazul cu rusul ala. Nu este cazul sa postezi materialul tau pe pagina lui de utilizator. Tu esti in avantaj acuma: ai dovedit ca acel om nu are credibilitate mare, dar nu strica totul prin a te comporta in acest fel. Faci ca vaca care da lapte, iar dupa aceia da cu piciorul in galeata. Iar Transnistria nu este cel mai interesant subiect de pe Wiki. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

William Mauco

I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. All the socks you listed of Mauco's were already identified by checkuser and blocked. As to your own edit warring, yes, edit warring is edit warring. Generally, if you find yourself reverting (or being reverted) even once, it's time to stop and talk. Reverting the second time isn't going to get you any farther than the first, reverting the third time is pushing it, and reverting the fourth time will definitely get you blocked. That doesn't mean any fewer won't get you blocked, though. 3RR is there to remind you that it's never acceptable to revert more than three times, not to assure you that it is acceptable to revert three or fewer. As to another user's socks, yes, he got caught and blocked for those, but the fact that someone else is misbehaving doesn't mean you should. Seraphimblade 15:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, and my comments are in no way intended to belittle anything you've done well. Basically, just stop edit warring, with Mauco or anyone, bring disruptive or inappropriate behavior to the attention of the community, and utilize the dispute resolution processes we have for the purpose of resolving disputes. Mauco's sockpuppetry has been dealt with, and hopefully he will take that lesson and stop. If he does not, and you have reason to believe he's using socks again, report them at WP:SSP, or request another checkuser. The community will back you up if you're right, don't be afraid to ask for involvement rather than trying to go it alone! Seraphimblade 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon already explained that to you. The data is stale, so it is impossible to run checkuser. Server logs are only kept for a limited period of time. If the suspected socks have stopped editing or signing in that long ago anyway, it's not too big a deal unless they start editing again. Seraphimblade 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Marius, it seems that your "detective work" consists mainly of a shotgun approach to your opposition. I kinda wonder, why am I not up in the suspect list as well, considering that I significantly contributed to pulling Mauco out of his permablock, among many other things... --Illythr 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw, as Alaexis said, this is not even funny. I suppose, you will now politely apologize to all involved for violation of their privacy? Or reshuffle the stack and shoot again? ;-) --Illythr 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As you see, Alaexis gave full support on my request. I have no reason for appology. You started to teach me good behaviour, who are you, are you my mother? Mom, when did you learn working with computers?--MariusM 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis did, the others did not. No, and I don't think I'm your Dad either. --Illythr 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the contents of your last barnstar by Alex is a direct personal attack against Mauco. As I am reluctant to edit other users' userpages, I would ask you to reword it first. --Illythr 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you should not edit my userpage. I am the only one who will decide what remains and what not on my userpage. The only wrong thing in Evil's wording is the time - Mauco was not active 2 years but less. You should ask Evil to rephrase his text, I don't like to apply censorship.--MariusM 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is irrelevant. Truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant as well. This is a direct violation of the WP:NPA policy. Well, at least you finally realize who is entitled to editing userpages and who isn't. --Illythr 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

War of Transnistria

I provided the reason within the very tag AND in a rather extensive talk page section. Did you fail to read it before deleting? Oh, look, Alex has reverted me without a single comment. If this is not meatpuppetry, what is? --Illythr 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Russian nationalist"? Hehehe, check this out. I guess you've never met a real one before... Thanks for another label, though. As of now, I'm a Stalinist Russophobic Russian nationalist and probably a pro-Putin "mini dictator" as well (disregarding the uninteresting ones like "vandal", "edit warrior" etc awarded to me by Bonny). Cool. :-D
• Defending the truth (which tends to be in the eye of the beholder anyway) is one thing, removing POV and "incomplete" tags from an article that is obviously POV and "incomplete" (with all the reasons and proof provided on the talk page) is another. And Alex did not "defend the truth" either - he simply reverted to you without a single comment. As for the rest - I think it may have something to do with you actually breaking those rules. I am generally annoyed with people who start flinging vandalism (etc) accusations at each other (like you and Mauco did in the past), so I take extra care in not using these words unless such behavior becomes painfully obvious.
• You know, I realize now, that the admins who had blocked you both for equal periods of time were indeed very wise. I see that once one of you is absent, the other tends to destabilize the POV of the related articles. A neat demonstration of an advantage of a bipolar versus a monopolar system. :) --Illythr 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Eh, "bad guy", "opponent" - sure, no prob. "Black sheep" - not really. Unless you're implying that a whole flock of black sheep is currently grazing on the green and sunny Transnistrian pastures. ;-) --Illythr 00:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Marius, if you feel someone has violated WP:3RR, the best way to deal with it is to report it on WP:AN3. To be effective, be sure to fill out the report correctly, carefully following the example at the bottom. If you do the work correctly, and the violation in fact occurred, odds are the user will be blocked. If it is a repeat offense, the block will be progressively longer. Thanks, Crum375 12:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Marius, if you want a 3RR report to have an effect, you must follow the rules carefully. It is very important to show a record of a 3RR warning being issued to the user - I don't see any in your case. It is also very useful to show some actual words being reverted (not strictly needed in your case, but for future cases). If another admin reviewed the case and decided that it does not merit a block due to no warning being issued, I would be reluctant to overrule him/her. Please be extra careful in the future when filing 3RR reports, and you will see that well presented reports virtually always result in a block (though each circumstance is different, so no guarantees). Another point to bear in mind: our goal is not block users - it is to gently prod them to edit and collaborate constructively. So when an editor reverts you, try your best, from the beginning, to explain to him/her that collaboration is needed, and when s/he gets near the 3RR limit, warn him/her on the Talk page about the impending violation. Your goal should be not to 'trap' that editor but to change his/her behavior. The block should be the last resort if other efforts fail. Thanks, Crum375 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding warnings, my own rule is that it should be given to anyone who was not blocked previously, and has no warnings in his/her Talk page history. I suspect you are right that this user most likely was aware of the policy, but I think giving the user a warning before a block is not just a technicality - it shows the other editors are actually trying to prevent the block and not just 'trap' the user. If the user has a history of being blocked, or has a warning in his/her Talk page, another 3RR warning is not crucial, although at least an edit summary warning would be nice as a reminder (e.g.: "Rvt - you are about to violate WP:3RR"). In your previous block, I mentioned a 'pattern' because I saw this in your block history, which showed four previous blocks within the last few months for edit-warring. Crum375 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, edit warring and 3RR breaches are considered manifestations of the same type of behavior - it indicates an aggressive pattern of reversion, as opposed to the recommended collaboration and discussion. Certainly there are cases where the 'other side' ignores you, but there are many ways of dealing with that, including getting more users to back up your own edits, and dispute resolution procedures if that doesn't help. Marius, I think you are still missing the big picture, despite your block history: you should not edit aggressively, you should not force your edits with reversions, you should try to gain consensus and convince your opponents by discussion, and failing all of these options you should follow dispute resolution procedures. If you are fighting sockpuppets, there are ways to handle that situation too. Edit warring and 3RR violation are never the way to go. I hope you understand and accept these vital points, and realize that in the long run they are the most effective ways to move forward. Cheers, Crum375 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you initiated dispute resolution, e.g. mediation, and the other party "wasn't interested", the proper procedure is not to lapse back into edit warring, but to proceed forward, eventually into arbitration. Crum375 11:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your RfArb was rejected because it was done improperly. ArbCom will not, in general, consider content disputes - they rule essentially on behavior issues. Your case, as you presented it, immediately delved into content (i.e. specific article related issues) which is an instant 'turn off' to ArbCom, and they therefore rejected it. What you should do to succeed is to stand your ground, try the dispute resolution steps, and remain cool, civil, and refrain from edit-warring. If you yourself lose your cool, and/or engage in edit-warring, you will get nowhere. The way to win is to show that you did all the right moves, and your opponent refused to engage, and/or used tendentious editing, incivility, personal attacks, sockpuppetry, etc. to force his way. I suggest you give this another shot - this time try to behave properly, stay out of trouble (e.g. stick to 2RR and get other editors on your side), try to engage and convince the opposition to find a middle ground, and you will have a better chance of moving forward. This is not theory - I have been there myself. Crum375 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moving declined RCU

Whoops, forgot to reply to this one. But I did see it, before, and apparently didn't leave the reply I had in mind -- specifically, if the whole point of /Pending is to attract CU attention for cases that need it, and a particular CU (in this case, Jpg) has indicated they'll review a particular decision, it seems at first glance that the case is already getting attention, and the move is somewhat moot. But, if problems persist or you need anything else, feel free to let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

MariusM, please make your complaint to the Checkuser ombudsman if you feel you must. There is a log of checkuser requests showing the date and time that users were checked and the person making the check. The ombudsman will be able to determine with complete precision whether Dmcdevit used the checkuser tool on your account. Thatcher131 23:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have procedurally opened the arbitration case for the dispute you are involved in, on Misplaced Pages:Requests for Arbitration#Transnistria, Please follow up the case and make your statement there. Thank you! Wooyi 02:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing covert references to real musicians (2nd nomination), since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shit. I linked the wrong thing. It's under deletion review. - Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The review is at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15. And I did this on the, like, 40 user talk pages of people who had participated. - Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

Please don't add comments to others' statements in requests for arbitration. I've moved them into your section. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel 09:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In your own section, yes. David Mestel 11:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Ombudsman Commission

Hi, I am more than happy to look into this issue for you. It would be useful if you could provide all relevant information via email to cartmanau-at-gmail.com - Cartman02au 07:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your email. Have you received it? - Cartman02au 03:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked for continuous edit warring on Transnistria. Although you didn't technically reach the 3RR level, you were continuing a disruptive long-term edit war. There had been previous warnings that continuing edit-warring on this page would not be further tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am again victim of unjustice of admins. I did in 17 April only 1 (one) edit in Transnistria, but 11 edits in Talk:Transnistria. In 16 April I did 2 (two) consecutive edits in Transnistria and 5 in Talk:Transnistria. In 14 and 15 April I had not 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. Is this block related with the Request for Arbitration where I am part and where I should not be able to defend myself, but for which is needed to prepare a longer block log for me, in order to impress the arbitration comitee? I am not allowed not even at an average of one edit/day in Transnistria article? Is one edit/day a behaviour of an edit warrior? At least, tell me in advance which are the articles where I am not allowed to edit.--MariusM 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry

I made a comment on your RFCU about category F and G. I don't mean to say that your request is needed or make any other judgement. Sorry!

I also never heard of straw man sockpuppets. A new term for me!VK35 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Probabily this is an attempt to obtain the rejection of the RCU which I asked. I don't understand why Mauco has so many fans in Misplaced Pages who want to cover his behaviour. Regarding straw man sockpuppets, at WP:SOCK there is a paragraph about it at which I linked at my RCU, let's put again the link for those interested: . Unfortunately, being abusively blocked (see above) I can not answer at the RCU page, if you are really sorry you should delete your unnecessary comment at RCU.--MariusM 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also made a comment on RFCU, I suggest that we'd better to wait until the ArbCom acts, because the instances of straw man sockpuppetry is very very rare, even among the worst sockpuppeteers existed on Wiki before very few, if any, has used straw man socks. Wooyi 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this desire to avoid the checking. Mauco did already used a "Romanian" sockpuppet - User:Ştefan44. If Mauco is proved evading the ban it will be an useful information for Arbitration Comitee, it will make their judgement easier. Do you agree that code F was correct? If yes, please state this at RCU. I can not defend my point of view as I am blocked - abusively in my opinion (see above), as I made only one edit at Transnistria in 17 April and in the last period I have an average less than one edit/day at mentioned article, this is not edit-warring (especially as I did explained in Talk my moves). I stated in 15 April: "At Transnistria there is actually a staged edit-war to prove that even without User:William Mauco there are edit-wars on that article" . Believe me, I know Mauco better than you.--MariusM 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand Wooyi's comment at RCU: "I suggest we'd wait until the committee makes its decision" . It can take more than one month until Arbitration comitee will take a decision, then will be too late for a RCU. Mauco is possible aware about new sockpuppetry suspicions (I believe my page is in his watchlist), he can now create alibi for his sock. The suspected sock edited in 17 April, after RCU was filled. Is necesarry to check also suspected sock contribution before RCU was filled. Losing time can mean losing evidence.--MariusM 02:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for making the confusion, my comment there is being misunderstood, I have made a clarification there. You can take a look if you'd like to. Regards. Wooyi 03:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an opinion: Straw man sockpuppets are not as rare as some can think, but they often are uncaught. You need to spend a lot of time studying such a sockpuppeteer to suspicion it (I studied Mauco for 8 months). 95% of sockpuppetry in Misplaced Pages is simple. Those involved in anti-vandal fighting will rather spend time finding easy to catch sockpuppeteers. In the time needed to catch one case of intelligent and elaborated sockpuppetry (as is Mauco's case) an admin can find 50 easy cases of sockpuppetry, and will prefer to spend his time in this way. For latest days of Transnistria's edit war there is confirmed the aparition of Bonaparte's sockpuppets User:M-renewal, User:Kanuni_Sultan_Suleyman, User:Mr. Sure Entry, also anon IP 200.238.102.170 look like a sock. And I have some other sockpuppetry suspicions but I need support from checkusers to verify. What is so big deal asking a verification, is even better if is not confirmed and we can clean a wikipedian name. Why Arbcom should agree with my RCU, they are busy persons, they have other more important things to do. If result of RCU is relevant the info will be brought for Arbcom, if not why to bother the arbitrators? They better should concentrate studying the relevant details of the cases.--MariusM 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

MariusM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked unfairly on fake pretext that I edit warred on Transnistria. In fact, in 17 April I did only 1 (one) edit in Transnistria, but 11 edits in Talk:Transnistria. In 16 April I did 2 (two) consecutive edits in Transnistria and 5 in Talk:Transnistria. In 14 and 15 April I had not 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. This block is probabily related with the Request for Arbitration where I am part and where I should not be able to defend myself, but for which is needed to prepare a longer block log for me, in order to impress the arbitration comitee. Is one edit/day a behaviour of an edit warrior? At least, tell me in advance which are the articles where I am not allowed to edit. I believe also that some people are afraid of an RCU I made , they started to put unusual coments at RCU page.

Decline reason:

Whether or not you broke the letter of the law on 3RR, you were participating in an edit war. You have been blocked before for edit warring on that very same page so you should not expect leniency now. — Kafziel 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Your conspiracy theories about the arbitration committee and checkuser make me less likely to unblock you. Kafziel 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrare

Salut. În general pe Misplaced Pages, originea etnică nu prea contează şi nu poate fi folosită ca un motiv pentru a respinge un arbitrar. După contribuţiile lui Kirill Lokshin, se vede a scris nişte articole "featured" care nu se leagă de subiectul Rusiei. Deci, nu văd o istorie de edit warring, de partizanat sau aşa ceva. Cred că toţi arbitrarii sunt profesionişti şi încearcă să fie cât de neutrii, deşi au existat exemple în trecut unde ArbCom-ul nu a fost în totalitate neutru. Eu personal cred că arbitrarea este destul de punitivă şi în general nu are rezultate bune pentru nicio parte involvată. Totuşi, dacă deja a început cazul, cred că cea mai bună decizie este să îl accepţi şi să vedem ce se va întâmpla. Dacă cumva se dă o decizie care crezi că este necinstită, atunci se poate apela. Am să monitorizez cazul să văd ce se întâmplă. Toate cele bune, Ronline ✉ 23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nu :) În ultimele săptămâni nici nu am mai vorbit limba prea mult, fiind în Taiwan. Ronline ✉ 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

I'll make comments on the talk page. In my opinion, either all unrecognized should be kept or removed, individual countries shouldn't be removed because it seems illogical. As for the last bit you said, I'm not sure about the theory that "if Russians created the state, it cannot be sovereign" works well with WP:V and WP:NOR. Do you have any sources? Khoikhoi 21:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference between dependent and being ruled by. If Transnistria is mostly ruled by people not native to the region, I'm sure that there are some Transnistrians who have power there. We should wait to get consensus first before making drastic changes, IMO. The current version of the article is long-standing. Khoikhoi 22:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hey Marius, I've just came back from a school trip and missed how the arbitration case was opened. For the checkuser, now I do support a checkuser on Mauco, but I guess the delay might be inevitable (myself has been requested a checkuser on someone else before and it took a month to be done, alas). But I think arbitrators would also know the situation regarding the terrible backlog of checkuser, and sometimes they do have the power to assert sockpuppetry without conclusive checkuser evidence (like Jefferson Anderson case). If you need more help feel free to ask. Cheers!

By the way, it has been a few days I had no access to internet, can you remind me where the new straw man checkuser is? Thanks. -Wooyi 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Marius, I'm very very sorry for my unfriendly comment on the RFCU before. Please accept my apology. Maybe we should get a new checkuser on the "straw man", or if that's not possible, Mauco's existing proven socks are enough for serious action by ArbCom. Happy editing. Wooyi 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Răspuns

Nu cred că am făcut până acum nicio afirmaţie despre tine care să fie negativă şi nici nu m-am ghidat după convingerile mele politice. Şi eu sunt la fel de preocupat cu imaginea României, doar că avem puncte de vedere diferite despre cum să îmbunătăţim această imagine. Eu personal nu cred că problema Transnistriei are ceva cu România - este o problemă esenţial moldovenească şi transnistreană. Din această cauză, orice implicare a României în problema Transnistriei cu partizanat pro-moldovenesc nu cred că aduce un beneficiu imaginii acestei ţări. Eu susţin independenţa Transnistriei tocmai ca un act pro-românesc... aşa putem să arătăm că suntem o ţară modernă europeană care nu este prinsă într-un naţionalism iraţional. Deci, sincer, nu văd cum cazul Transnistria ajută imaginea României. Dacă România ar vrea să îşi creeze imagine bună în acest caz, ar trebui să fie doar un mediator neutru care să susţină în egală măsura partea moldovenească şi partea transnistreană, ambele fiind părţi străine. Atunci România ar da dovadă de profesionalism. Nu ştiu, dar pentru mine conceptul de "doua Românii, una peste prut" nu ţine. În orice caz, eu sunt împotriva cenzurii, dar în egală măsură cred totuşi ca există o dezinformare din ambele părţi cu privere la situaţia din Transnistria. Ori că în Transnistria toţi moldovenii sunt total pro-Transnitria şi nu simt de loc moldoveneşte/româneşte, ori că Transnistria este un stat criminal... ambele sunt poziţii problematice. Eliminarea acestei dezinformări nu se cheamă cenzură. Ronline ✉ 00:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry

This edit was not helpful. Please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point about your arbitration case. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Former wikilink I changed was red.--MariusM 12:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the wikilink that you added, to a page that you started (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sock puppetry cases) to make a point about your opponent in an arbitration case? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

Marius, N-ai vrea sa facem o harta ca lumea a Transnistriei? Eu propun sa pornim de la harta aceasta, pentru a face contururile exacte ale Nistrului si rausoarelor, frontiera cu Ucraina, si sa marcam localitatile cu cerculete. (Eu nu am editor bun de imagini pentru a face asta, nu stiu cum sa ma apuc) Apoi folosim hartile raioanelor Dubasari si Causeni pentru a arata localitatile sub controlul autoritatilor centrale si cele din zona de securitate (eu pot face asta, este practic elementar). Apoi adaugam numele localitatilor din lista care exista bine mersi. Daca te intereseaza si daca stii cum putem face primul lucru...:Dc76 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Am mai gasit inca una pentru punct de plecare. Problema mea este - eu nu pot desena. Adica chiar nu pot, sunt complet handicapat la desen. Oricum, eu singur n-o sa fiu in stare sa fac. Insa acolo unde apar intrebari cu diverse detalii de pe harti - cunosc destul de bine harta.:Dc76 15:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Te-as ruga, daca ai timp in zilele/saptamanile urmatoare sa citesti articolul si sa prezinti o lista de chestii care crezi ca lipsesc sau sunt prezentate incomplet sau inexact, am in vedere lucrurile mai importante dupa parerea ta. Daca ai ciorne ale posibilelor texte de inclus, te rog. Ma gandesc poate sa fac cumva un template pentru Transnistria, care sa contina articolele de pe wikipedia. E timpul ca pagina principala sa ajunga la un "compromis", si sa se dezvolte detalii in subpagini, unde e cazul. :Dc76 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to group the existing articles in Transnistria category into templates. What do you think about them?:Dc76 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Transnistria/Conflict

Template:Transnistria/History Template:Transnistria/People‎Template:Transnistria/Politics Template:Transnistria/Economy Template:Transnistria/Press‎

Daca ai chef sa mai treci prin articolele din Categoria Transnistria sa le incluzi pe toate pe care la mai gasesti pe-aici (cu timpul)... eu m-am cam saturat.:Dc76 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You said:

We had a category "People from Transnistria" and you created an other category "Transnistria/People". I don't believe is a good idea.--MariusM 15:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, that was a bad move. I am sorry, I did not realize it... Somehow I was doing 4 things at a time, and forgot the most evident. I will work to rectify what needs rectification.:Dc76 10:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Vot

Bună. Poate că Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc va interesează. Biruitorul 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arrrrrgh

.

Sorry I couldn't wait till I had a digital camera ready, the urge was just too strong. (But don't you think this is over yet.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I wonder if we can propose a hat-shaped chocolate design somewhere, "tailored" specifically for this purpose... :-) --Illythr 08:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

*burp*. Sorry. Now I'm suffering from indegestion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously now, man. Claims of "abuse of admin powers in content dispute" are a very serious accusation. You repeated that same accusation at least twice in the same words in different places, after I had given you a response the first time, to which you didn't react (). I resent this. Cease and desist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MFD

My relist was simply due to the lack of consensus and attempting to make the situation not turn in to another mfd via DRV. I have no personal opinion on this page, and will not be the closing admin when it comes up again. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you, — xaosflux 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Truth (tm)

Hey, Marius, would you consider the following statement inoffensive (to the former MPF) as well? "The main result of the Popular Front activity in the MSSR was the appearance of ethnic strife and separatism, that led to the War of Transnistria, and an economic collapse of one of the most prosperous and peaceful Soviet Republics." That statement is 100% true, too, in a way.

Actually, there IS a way to be totally neutral on a controversial issue: to know nothing about it! And, preferrably, not to care about it as well. That's why I think that Fut.Perf is currently fairly neutral - instead of familiarising himself with the content to understand your noble goal of adding and keeping as much of the The Truth (sic) in Misplaced Pages, he makes a judgement based on behavior and contribution style of the involved users.

By the way, thanks for you diligent work as my PR agent! It seems you are about the only one who quotes me on a more or less regular basis. Just so you know, I'm perfectly fine with that as long as you don't misquote me, or put your words in my mouth. --Illythr 11:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Errr, what is this supposed to mean: According same Illythr quoted by Alaexis "what the driver said, although qualifies as hearsay, was most likely correct, too, more or less"? --Illythr 11:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I appologize to intervene in your discussion. I could not abstain to make a small comment on the first paragraph. I hope you don't mind. The Popular Front in 1988-1992 was the organizational upfront for the national revival movement. To judge PF'a activity outside the context of national revival is like to judge Ronald Reagan's presidency outside the context of the Republican Party, IMO. The appearance of ethnic stife was the result of many factors, first of which was the suspition with which other ethnic groups viewed this movement, which in turn was vastly due to the Soviet anti-revival propaganda that found the easiest tool to appeal to be the exaggeration and vilification of national sentiments of ethnic Moldavians (Romanians). Ditto for separatism with even greater input from the communist autorities. Separatism and ethnical strife were the last things that could justify keeping the communists in power, so they played their cards till the end, even if that meant human blood. As an organization that stood for a movement that was supported by 3 million people, in the context of its organized villification by the autorities of MSSR and/or by the USSR's central press, it is only natural that the PR of the Popular Front outside its supporters was not without serious flows. Also, there were hundreds of voices inside, and it is very easy to hear first the most redical, extreme and non-sensical ones. Reasonable people did not always hold total sway over what PF said, but did hold sway over what PF did. The sollapse of the economy was due to the same reasons as the collapse of USSR - inherited structural incoherence of teh communist system. I am not trying to say that all 3 million were perfect, but the shouts and misbehavior at times by 1-2% should not lead to conclusion about a movement that was rooted in 50 years of persecutions and endurance. :Dc76 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for realizing something I had intended to demonstrate to Marius. That is, a statement may be technically true in the provided context, but made outside of the big picture - without taking all factors into consideration - it becomes misleading, offensive and eventually false.

As for the content of your post - I think you're being too idealistic. --Illythr 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

True. And partially true - in the sense that the majority of people who sympathised with PF in 1988-1992, and that was the absolute majority of population, were driven mostly by idealistic thoughts. However, this is a thing of the past already, so we can judge it more cooler. Look for example, the French revulution - it was at least 100 times more bloody (even considering Transnistria) and had serious social and economic effects on big portions of the population (I would doubt if even half of those could be (fully or partially) justified). And yet, people think about it in positive terms, because overall it led to serious improvements in the society. Also, don't disregard the fact that within PF sympathisers where some who simply enjoyed threatening other people on ethnic grounds - just for the sake of feeling important. Like Starbucks - people who have no power of decision whatsoever can for 2.50 or whatever is the price have a right to make 3 or 4 choices. Although I was relatively young at the time to get involved too much, I remember people speaking about how certain people actually do threats, and whether that is too much, but the conclusion everyone was drawing was - those people who threat are by themselves cowards, they will never dare becomeing physically violent, so there is no need to worry, just be aware and watch. As you see, the last thing people would be thinking was consideration for the personall feelings of communist leaders' families, etc. And of course they also did not care much about those that were cought in the middle and were associated with communists on no ground whatsoever except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, as we all know those threats never materialized. My point is, IMO, the nature of the national revival movement would have never permitted those threats to materialize. It was something like USA after 9/11, no more. :Dc76 12:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems Illythr that you don't understand: (i)the difference between a sandbox and a Misplaced Pages article; (ii) the difference between a sourced statement and an unsourced statement. The main result of the Popular Front activity was the independence of Moldova. Regarding economic collapse, we already had a discussion, MPF was not in power when it occured. However, I wouldn't mind if you will create a sandbox in your userpage where you will write your thoughts about the guilt of MPF. If somebody will try to delete your sandbox, you can count on my support, without neutral comments like "this is against a lot of Misplaced Pages policies... had it been a biography article... probabily get Illythr blocked for libel" or messages for those who want deletion like "didn't you forget to vote?" . You can rely on me for accurate quotes of your words. In the same time I believe I don't need your aproval for accurately quoting you. You are not the first one for whom I did a lot of advertising, I think you still remember me advertising Mauco's excellent contributions at "Tiraspol Times". Like Mauco is a model wikipedian for you, you are a model for me, I appreciate especially your unique ability to smell NPOV from a mile away.--MariusM 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) WP:USER (the applicable policies were cited by Fut. Perf.) (ii) "The main result of the OSTK activity was the independence of Transnistria". Meh. The point was/is the neutrality (or lack thereof, in this case). (iii) I certainly won't create such a subpage - sourced&neutral material will be proposed for inclusion in mainspace, the rest - either kept offline for reworking or simply discarded.

Of course you don't need my approval to quote me - when you do it properly. Problems arise when your interpretation of my posts deviates from their original meaning, sometimes leading to pretty ugly things like this one. So, just to clarify, what is that particular quote (about hearsay) is supporting in your statement?

I don't think that a "model Wikipedian" actually exists for me. user:Knowledge Seeker comes pretty close (his patience seems pretty much infinite), but "thou shalt not make thee an idol..." and all that. ;-) --Illythr 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think Fut. Perf. is so upset with your page because it's probably the first time he sees the (pretty flexible) rules of Misplaced Pages bent so as to be contrary to their spirit. I sympathize with him (it's an unpleasant experience), but my own opinion is that the "...a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working" part outweighs the offensive (etc... etc...) nature of that page. --Illythr 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider my interpretation of your posts in the edit you quoted as accurate. I understand that you don't like it, however this is not making it less accurate. Much of your activity in Misplaced Pages after Mauco's block was "in support of sockpuppetry". Defending sockpuppetry is not only making statements like "sockpuppetry is a good thing". Defending sockpuppetry is also accusing of Very Bad Faith people who fought against sockpuppetry, pretending that asking checkuser is something bad (while accepting other sockpuppetry accusations which were not proved by checkuser) and other such actions.--MariusM 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark Street

To be honest, I recall Mark Street making claims, but I don't recall him proving them. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. Jayjg 04:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Google searches

Hey, Marius, the links provided by Alaexis do indeed point to your userspace page for me (first hits, both, dc76's sandbox comes second). Are the results different for you? --Illythr 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My first google hits are , which is not my sandbox.--MariusM 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. google.ro does indeed seem to give different results. Google on all other languages I tried (en,de,ru,magyar) give your page first. Google.ro probably give greater priority to ronet links...

Hey, this is actually funny! :-)

You know, I've just tried using several other search engines (lycos,yahoo,altavista,rambler.ru, msn) and most don't even have your page in the first result page. This is pretty weird. Google bombing comes to mind... It could be that Google just gives preference to Misplaced Pages, ignoring the difference between mainspace and everything else, though. --Illythr 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hee, that Yahoo search is very funny, the sites that talk about propaganda the most are the ones most filled with propaganda themselves, lies beget lies sort of thing. Such is life. Jonathanpops 10:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)