User talk:MarkBA~enwiki

Disputes

I have created a centralized discussion page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If you have concerns about the behavior of editors or the way that certain articles are being edited, please post them there (or at least add it to your watchlist). Thanks, Elonka 06:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusive sockpuppetry per this CheckUser case.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Elonka 08:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Sorry, but I consider it the height of someone's aggressive campaign. There's absolutely no evidence, no supporting facts, nothing, just a false accusation of abusive sockpuppetry, slapped block and that's all. If you would read carefully, the style of the IPs is bit to quite different of mine; I have nothing to do with them. Similarly, someone might have seen me doing something and decided to adopt such style; note that learning to revert on WP is as easy as ABC. In addition, I don't see the point of blocking of a "dead" user and adding him/her into the blacklist. In a nutshell, I consider this block as highly unjustified and biased and I think I have the right to contest this block. I know my chance right now is maybe 1:25; I still think I have stayed within the limits; no one has also proof that all IPs are mine, so you're on a wrong trail, caused by some red herring. Do you consider my contributions disruptive? For the God's sake, take a better look once again and you'll see that this is just another hogwash; I have always contributed productively and I still consider myself productive and I'm not willing losing time dealing with users who can only break the things down and always stopped if things were going too crazy or similar. I also don't like that without my permission you're editing my own page; although I know it doesn't belong to me, unless you have a good reason I don't want to have my page edited; I mean, although message might be a bit provocative, it stays perfectly within the policies, as: 1. it doesn't attack anyone in particular and 2. it's just my personal opinion. Please, reconsider your actions and either lift the block and apologize for a mistake or at least cut it into 24 hours maximum, due to the real-world circumstances. In return, I promise that if I'll be ever editing Wikipedia sometime, it will be for most of the time a productive side. If it's declined without proper reason then I'll seriously reconsider my return to Wikipedia. I have nothing else to say. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is a substaintial technical evidence of sockpuppetry, and differences in editing patterns could be easily explained as good hand/bad hand types of sockery. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:17, 19 April 2008 (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.

(edit conflict) I was also about to decline your unblock. Despite your claims that there's no evidence or supporting facts of sockpuppetry, this is not actually the case. A checkuser was run which confirmed via log information that you have indeed been using those IP addresses. That is specific evidence and more than enough to block you under WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Defending oneself against false accusations is rewarded with decline. A really nice example where this world is heading to. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I dismiss both claims. You're talking about "technical evidence", "supporting facts", blah blah blah., but you have given no link or anything to prove it, so accusations of sockpuppetry are still false and unsupported. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 14:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not the case that the accusations of sockpuppetry are unsupported. See WP:CHECK. This information is not made public. Nevertheless, it was confirmed that you have been using those IP addresses. --Yamla (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it is the case, now. The fact the data aren't made public is of no interest to me, I want to know the evidence, otherwise I consider it false. Quoting from "Grounds for checking":

1.1 Grounds for checking

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any Wikimedia project.

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position). (emphasis mine)

So what is this? A mix of emphasized "events"... 1. political control - to disable opponents, 2. pressure - to try to kick out those opponents, that also means me and finally 3. threats - to "warn" them for "uncomfortable" statements etc... Therefore, I think Checkuser was used against the rules, in an evident attempt to play me out. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I consider this null and void. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 16:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are free to do so. Wikipedia takes checkuser results very seriously, however. --Yamla (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And the above is disregarded... Frankly, this is armwaving with the difference that it is used by admins/CUs/whoever elected, I have requested evidence but so far all admins visiting this page have failed to explain what's the basis, and now I am an innocent victim, gamed out by some jerks. I also doubt if you know why I consider this null: 1. rules were broken, as explained above and 2. this was done following some POV-pushing agenda I believe. So far, no one has offered any contra-arguments, that's why I consider mine still valid, even though request has been declined. I'll wait to see if anyone can prove me wrong. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you've missed it, the CheckUser case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/78.99.something_&_84.47.something --Elonka 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Can you explain this? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I am referring to. Although WHOIS shows that all are from Slovakia, I can declare that neither of them are mine. Please note that IPs use more aggressive edit summaries and revert more furiously than I do, so tagging these as mine is a clear red herring that should be removed. For me, it's a straw man. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 13:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it very intriguing, MarkBA (talk · contribs), that you were "retired" from Wikipedia since March 29,[1] hadn't even done much of anything since then, and had been gone since your last edit to touch up your userpage on April 12.[2] But then a few hours after I blocked your account and all the anons, you are suddenly "unretired" and demanding that the block be lifted. --Elonka 13:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I've retired into such level I don't check my pages? Yes, I'm not blind, and I again repeat that with a clear mind neither of IPs are mine. Please don't use personal attacks, Elonka (talk · contribs), that will add no trust in you. By the way, my concerns haven't been even replied to or otherwise proved to be wrong, so as long as it is here it's still valid and I consider it a big mistake to block me for a groundless and quite false suspicion. Blocks like this enrage innocent editors and turn them into angry monsters and now you have a chance to prevent such case. Do you want a productive editor or not? MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA, no one blocked you just on Rembaoud's say-so. Rembaoud made the report, but it was checked and confirmed by a highly-experienced and completely uninvolved admin with CheckUser privileges, Thatcher.[3] I'm curious though, when you said "real-world circumstances" in your above request, what were you referring to? --Elonka 14:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, you wanted it, I'll do. Do you even understand my concerns? Now I think these lyrics can at least somehow my feeling: "...I'm on a 1000 downers now, I'm drowsy and all I wanted was a lousy letter or a call..." + "...You ruined it now, I hope you can't sleep and you dream about it..." (Stan by Eminem) You have given me no chance to defend myself, personal opinions were implemented as strict facts, false accusations weren't dismissed at all, don't then complain about consequences it might have. For your question about circumstances, that's because I'm travelling. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you say A, you must then say B. You are only dealing with us (A), now you must ought to deal with the other side and their deeds (B). MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

--Elonka 20:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)