Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/William Mauco

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/William Mauco}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.


William Mauco

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 09:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco shows editing behaviour extremely similar to that of William Mauco. His account was created during the final phase of the Transnistria Arbcom case, when Mauco was formally banned and several related sockpuppets (including Pernambuco and Britlawyer) had recently been blocked. He started out editing articles about Abkhazia (a related conflict but nominally outside the scope of the Arbcom case), but recently has begun editing Transnistria again.

Please note that Mauco is an extremely skilled sockpuppeteer, who has previously slipped through several checkusers with false negatives. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, I just started editing Wikipedia in June, never made a single edit before that. I got accused of being user:Buffadren after posting my first question in Talk:Abkhazia then I got accused of being user:William Mauco after posting my first question in Talk:Transnistria. I've had my user page vandalized twice probably by this Bonaparte sock. Wikipedia ain't a friendly place. In all, the edits I've made to Transnistria you can probably count on one hand and Transnistria only ranks about 5th or 6th amongst the topics that I am interested in. Anyhow, I fully support this checkuser request and you might as well run it against Buffadren as well so that we can put that to rest. Pocopocopocopoco 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to seem paranoid, but Poco's arbitrary edits on the biochemistry articles (e.g., [1], [2], [3]) bears striking similarity with Pernambuco's numerous edits of Brazilian choreography-related topics in an attempt to diffuse suspicions of sockpuppetry. My apologies if I'm being oversuspicious.--KoberTalk 04:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is funny, not only do you get accused of being Mauco for making a few edits to an article that Mauco had a hard-on about, you get accused of being Mauco for making edits to completely unrelated articles. I happen to have an interest in Alternative Medicine, Body Building supplements, Health Supplement, and Orthomolecular medicine amongst other things. user:Kober just doesn't like my edits in Abkhazia related articles and he assumes bad faith. I've also made edits to Glutamine and Vitamin C megadosage. Pocopocopocopoco 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Stale. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but in what sense is this stale? Mauco is topic-banned by Arbcom, and Pocopoco has been making edits to Transnistria as late as yesterday ([4]). The edit-war on that article which was sparked, among other things, by Pocopoco's renewed involvement is still in full swing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP data is not stored indefinitely. Voice-of-All 13:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I guess I was sort of hoping somebody might have saved some of the earlier checkuser results, given the dimensions this whole affair had. Thanks anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


William Mauco

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: F

Could someone please check for the following:

  • Are Britlawyer and Buffadren sockpuppets of William Mauco who is currently blocked for sockpuppetry and was strongly cautioned against evading the block.
  • Are Britlawyer and Buffadren sockpuppets of each other.

In the past, Mauco used to push to include various separatist regimes as "sovereign states" making unsourced interpretations of purportedly "customary international law" and the Montevideo Convention (e.g. [5]), something which is very very weird considering they are very different things. No real sources confirming his interpretations were ever produced. On the 31 March this year Mauco is blocked for two months for sockpuppetry [6] and then lo and behold Britlawyer springs into existence on the very same day [7], albeit a few hours before the block - this may be irrelevant though, considering Mauco's history with supposedly "international" (Romanian, Brazilian etc) sockpuppets to push his views (see below); a British-Polish sock like Britlawyer fits in perfectly even if he wasn't anticipating a block (he may have been though, as when he slipped up, he may have been aware of it) and he makes the exact same arguments of Mauco [8]. He also is very familiar with Wikipedia and signs his posts from day one [9], so he is clearly a sock of someone. What further indicates it may be Mauco is the fact that they both sign their names in the form dash-space-four tildes (- ~~~~), see the diffs I mentioned above or any talkpage edit of theirs. Regarding Buffadren, he's a lot older, however, like Britlawyer, he claims expertise and cites the same old sources [10]. Don't let the fact that he signs with just the four tildes put you off - Pernambuco, a confirmed sock of Mauco signed in that was as well [11]. Mauco is a confirmed open proxy user [12] and extremely skilled sockpuppeteer (he got away with Pernambuco abusive sockpuppetry for almost six months). I'm asking for extra care from you in this. If those users are indeed Mauco's socks, it would be great to know so that I and all the other editors of the List of sovereign states article didn't have to go over the same arguments again ad nauseam with him. It would make the wiki-experience of a large number of editors from extremely diverse backgrounds a lot easier. Thanks.--Ploutarchos 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is unrelated to the arbitration mentioned below; it's to do with a different article.--Ploutarchos 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated. Three different continents, actually. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk assistance requested: -- This doesn't belong in "declined" requests. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: done. The previous case was declined, in fact. -- lucasbfr talk 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


William Mauco

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 10:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For Catarcostica I am relisting former rejected request, after people who expressed opposition on it support it now Wooyi's comment, Alaexis comment about legitimacy of checkuser. Please note that request is definetelly code F, previous comments that this code is not aplying are misleading. Meantime Catarcostica was blocked for one month, but if he is a sock he should be banned and we should know who the sockpuppeteer is and if the sockpuppeteer is not evading a block.

Britlawyer is a newbie who used edit summaries from his first edit and who shows the same desire to defend the "sovereign state" status of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in List of sovereign states [14] [15], exactly like Mauco and his sockpuppet Pernambuco did before.

Please check old contributions of suspected socks and possible usage of open proxies. I suspect that, if Mauco want to evade the block, he will take care to use a different IP. Especially after previous request regarding Catarcostica (16 April), knowing that he is suspected he can take action, we should check suspected socks contributions before 16 April, or even better, before Mauco's ban in 31 March. I've submitted this case now in order to have still evidence about old IPs used, losing time mean losing possible evidence.--MariusM 10:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said I support this checkuser - I wrote that asking for a checkuser is legitimate. That's not too subtle difference imho. Alaexis 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this RCU; Catarcostica is just another Romanian editor who recognises the Romanian view is wrong[16], the last one was Ştefan44.
Arbiter Alex Bakharev expressed concernes that Mauco might still use sockpuppets :"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".[17] If confirmed, this RCU might save arbiter's time.Dl.goe 18:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Please see above: if there's a "Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case", you are instructed to "Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages.". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]



William Mauco

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Catarcostica is as an one-month old newbie interested mainly in Transnistria-related articles, exactly like blocked sockpuppeteer Mauco. Contrary with Mauco, Catarcostica showed a strong pro-Romanian attitudes, he even gave me a barnstar and after the discovery of Mauco's sockpuppetry he made statements like "It time to remove all references from the TT. Im sick of all Mauco puppets and lies. Buffarden, other puppet of Mauco!!" [19]. Looking with attention at his edits I can see that his "pro-Romanian" attitudes are shown in unimportant things like changing Russian name "Pridnestrovie" with Romanian name "Stînga Nistrului", while in important issues is not as pro-Romanian as he claims. Despite his claim that he want to remove refferences to TT (Tiraspol Times), he didn't [20]. My twisted mind is suspecting that he is a straw man sockpuppet. Please check also the usage of open proxies, as sockpuppeteer Mauco is known for using open proxies. I recuse User:Dmcdevit for this check, as I have a personal conflict with him, please somebody else from checkuser desk do this check.--MariusM 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed — please provide a diff of the discussion that resulted in the ban or block, per Code Letter F; don't hesitate to ask for help from a Clerk if you require it. anthony[cfc] 17:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just check the block log of William Mauco, he was blocked in 1 April for 2 months [21]. See also Dmcdevit's message about the block, where is mentioned also the usage of open proxies [22]. For further understanding the behaviour of sockpuppeteer, see this case study.--MariusM 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: added diff provided by user, above. anthony[cfc] 17:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

observation by uninvolved editor It appears to me that the is no community based ban or block so a categorisation of "F" is incorrect. Category "G" may be more appropriate. The user who submitted the request may wish to make corrections and correctly categorise the request. (The above concern has been raised by me in another RFCU case where I was not an involved party; I do not know any of the parties subject to this request or initiating this request)VK35 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment This user is an involved party of an ArbCom, and I am the initiator of the ArbCom case. I just want to comment here that straw man sock is very very rare, and the evidences provided aren't really sufficient to suggest a sockpuppetry case. Also I have went over the sock analysis provided by MariusM, there is no prior instances of "straw man" socks being used, either. I suggest we'd wait until the committee makes its decision. WooyiTalk, Editor review 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: my statement above is not saying we should checkuser after the ArbCom close the case, but rather decide to check. Also I believe codename F is correct, no contest there. I take neither side in this affair, my opinion to wait stems from what just happened several hour ago: when I requested the full protection of the disputed article Transnistria, an administrator told me to wait until ArbCom says to protect the page, so I believe if page protection is to be waited, checkuser should be as well. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of surprised MariusM didn't try to check whether Catarcostica is User:Buffadren or me. So far MariusM checkuser'ed just about everyone who happens to disagree with him (see also this). Alaexis 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fish CheckUser is not for fishing --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


William Mauco (2)

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: F (for Sephia karta G)

User:William Mauco was blocked for 2 months after being discovered that he is the sockpupeteer of User:Ştefan44, User:Pernambuco and User:Kertu3 [23]. It was an elaborate case of sockpuppetry [24]. After his block in discussions about Transnistria article (the preffered subject of Mauco) appeared User:Alaexis who shared similar views. A checkuser is necesary to clarify that Alaexis is indeed a different person. In the case of Sephia karta s/he promoted the inclusion of Transnistria in the List of sovereign states, exactly what William Mauco and his sockpuppet Pernambuco did, and in the same way, using same arguments. In order to have clean debates in Wikipedia, I believe we need to clarify the complete list of User:William Mauco sockpuppets, even if Sephia karta was not active recently.--MariusM 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Stale. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider. I added also Dikarka at the list of suspected sockpuppets - he is a newbie with interest only in Transnistria who appeared after Mauco's block.--MariusM 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really do much about requests when the data is stale -- it's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact. (Checkuser only works about 30 days back; Sephia karta's most recent edit is older than that.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about Sephia Karta, but Dikarka contributed in 5 april and Alaexis today. In their cases at least a checkuser can be done.--MariusM 21:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He-he, what a surprise! My full support to Marius' request :) Alaexis 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check also posible usage of open proxies, as in previous case he used them and he tried to hide it [25]--MariusM 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red X Unrelated. Different continents and/or different countries. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Mauco

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet of William Mauco. Can I be checked out to satisfy the accuser please. If it's of relevance, I'm not at my usual IP this week. Mutt Lunker 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Delisted Per WP:RFCU, "Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask.". -- lucasbfr talk 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Mauco

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: C (it will qualify also for code E)

Disruptive behaviour and edit warring in Transnistria article, they all made similar edits and are the reason of continued edit-warring in Transnistria article. Kertu3 was discovered as sockpuppet of Pernambuco [26] but I believe the main sockpuppeteer is User:William Mauco, who is the reason why all Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia are a place for edit-warring. Some examples of DIFFs (many others can be founded in the history of Transnistria article): Buffadren, Buffadren, Buffadren,Pernambuco, Kertu3, Kertu3,William Mauco, William Mauco, Ştefan44, Ştefan44, Ştefan44, MariusM 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed except for Buffadren, who is totally IP-unrelated. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


William Mauco (2)

  • Code letter: F

These users and IPs have all appeared recently and claimed themselves to be the blocked William Mauco. They have then proceeded to massively disrupt William's work [27], list numerous other users as his sockpuppets [28], spouting obscenities [29] and vandalising articles [30]. William himself had emailed me expressing surprise with the activity of the above users and IPs and claiming they are impostors of himself.

Several hours later, another anonymous IP, (203.185.44.56) posing as user:Cryptic, demanded a community ban of William Mauco [31]. As the two months block of Mauco has been extended to an indefinite one, presumably due to actions of the above users and IPs, I request a Checkuser to identify their affiliation with William. --Illythr 15:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated. There's neither an IP nor a geographic relationship between any of these. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


William Mauco (3)

  • Code letter: F

There's a nasty conflict on Transnistria-related issues, with half the users being confirmed sockpuppets of User:William Mauco (see the two entries below). I have been myself checked upon request from William Mauco himself.

My checkuser request is due to fallacious arguments by User:Jamason in support of User:William Mauco, after his massive sockpuppetry was confirmed. See them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock appeal. This is my first checkuser request, but I feel it needed under the circumstances, if only to clear User:Jamason. Dpotop 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/William_Mauco&oldid=1138659920"