Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria

message: === Statement by Alex Bakharev ===
I would suggest to wait until the 2 month block on William Mauco will expire. While he is blocked he can not represent his part of the story and the investigation will be bound to be one sided. Furthermore, according to my experience most of the tendentious editors fall for sockpuppeting if blocked for more than one month. If he will go the same path he would be caught and permabanned - no arbcom is necessary. If he will honestly wait until the end of the block without attempt to circumvent, then there are chances that his feud with MariusM would not restart - two months is almost an infinity on wiki. If the feud would start then Arbcom might be a solution Alex Bakharev 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred and Jpgordon are acting in an unaccountable and inconsistent way. I expected that much from the former, but not from the latter. El_C 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Mackensen has also discredited himself, effectively permitting the disruption to continue from one side. I expected more from him as well. El_C 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-party statements before the case was accepted

message: I would suggest to wait until the 2 month block on William Mauco will expire. While he is blocked he can not represent his part of the story and the investigation will be bound to be one sided. Furthermore, according to my experience most of the tendentious editors fall for sockpuppeting if blocked for more than one month. If he will go the same path he would be caught and permabanned - no arbcom is necessary. If he will honestly wait until the end of the block without attempt to circumvent, then there are chances that his feud with MariusM would not restart - two months is almost an infinity on wiki. If the feud would start then Arbcom might be a solution Alex Bakharev 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]] 

message: I urge the committee to heed to Alex Bakahrev's proposal to which I would like to add the following. I emailed Mauco when he was banned for socking advising him to sit out a well-deserved two months-block and once he is allowed to edit to alter his ways, that is to cut on edit warring and to not use socking ever again. Realistically, I don't think he will be able to not ever edit war (the fault in this is not just his but some of his opponents too, who are quite vicious POV pushers) but I am optimistic about socking. He emailed back to me and he sounded quite apologetic and forthcoming. He admitted his wrongdoing, swore to never resort to socks again and agreed to some sort of probation (immediate permaban if he is ever caught socking which he swears not to do.) I elaborated more on this in my posts to WP:CSN: , ., and specifically about the possibility of arbcom: . So, the case may not be needed. Let the community handle it and wait to see whether Mauco will fulfill his promise of change. --Irpen 06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 

message: As William Mauco's blocking admin, I largely agree with Irpen here (who is not an involved party, despite Marius' attempts to add him) regarding William Mauco. He was discovered, with CheckUser, to have been running multiple very complex personas more than one having more than a thousand edits, for many months, each in support of the other. For this, I blocked Mauco for 2 months, and I see no reason, especially considering his repentance, to change the current block to a ban for no new misbehavior. Of course, he can be easily unblocked and restricted to editing the case pages, if a case is accepted, so that isn't a problem. 
However, if there is any lack of resolve on the matter from the community, I would urge the ArbCom to accept a case for . MariusM is a long term edit warrior who has carried on a feud wih William Mauco. He has five individual blocks for edit warring . Furthermore, , currently reprotected after almost a hundred edits and rapidfire revers in less than two days since I unprotected it, has one of the longest protection logs I've seen, due to persistant edit warring by a small core of devoted editors, including  (with five blocks for edit warring himself ), , , and . A glance at the troubled history of Transnistria shows that this is a dispute that has developed into a raging edit war with no end in sight due to the conduct of a few editors (and it has continued unabated after William Mauco's block). I would ask the Arbitration Committee to open a case related to Transnistria to look into potential bans for MariusM and EvilAlex, and to consider William Mauco's block, as well as to consider parole-like remedies for Domitius and Alaexis. Dmcdevit·t 08:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Dmcdevit 

message: After a fairly lengthy discussion at WP:CSN, the - entirely reasonable - conclusion was arrived at that this was overly complicated for community sanctions and that the arbitrators had best have a look at this. I would urge that this case be accepted in  order that this miserable mess can be sorted out. This kind of conduct should not be tolerated on-wiki: we just don't need the disruption. People are meant to work together, not war. Especially not with extensive puppet shows and attempts to out the real-life identities of fellow editors. If the case is accepted, William Mauco should, naturally, be unblocked for him to participate in it. Moreschi  Want some help? Ask! 09:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Moreschi 

message: Dmcdevit just informed me that soon after I unprtoected the page, revert warring continued. At this point, I am inclined to seek an immediate injunction (as well as undertaking additional steps) against certain parties involved in this. The last revert is dated 8:38, 17 April 2007 and if others are to follow, I will note it here. I am also provisionally of the opinion that Ploutarchos (aka Domitius) be added as a party to the case. El_C 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred and Jpgordon are acting in an unaccountable and inconsistent way. I expected that much from the former, but not from the latter. El_C 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Mackensen has also discredited himself, effectively permitting the disruption to continue from one side. I expected more from him as well. El_C 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Injunctional statement by ElC

message: The community sanctions process is not well suited to resolve a case of this complexity.  I urge the Committee to accept it and suggest that William Mauco could submit evidence to a clerk via e-mail or perhaps be unblocked for the sole purpose of contributing to this case. DurovaCharge! 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved [[User:Durova|Durova]]