Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nmate (talk | contribs) at 08:54, 2 May 2008 (Carpathian Germans). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Block

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. I have nothing else to say. MarkBA 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 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)

Note: There was considerable extra discussion here which was removed by MarkBA when he blanked his page. I have restored the block notice and review, but the other comments can be seen here.

Mark, I am willing to discuss reducing your block, if you are willing to provide some information and make some promises. For example, which other accounts or IPs have been controlled by you; would you be willing to promise to use only one named account from this point forward (you can choose another one if you prefer); and, would you be willing to promise to abide by policies in the future? --Elonka 03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The points 2 and 3 are acceptable, but point 1 is not. It may happen that sometimes the computer logs me out and I edit under IPs, but I still deny the sock accusations, because no truthful evidence from both sides has been provided. If you want to discuss block reduction, sorry, but it won't help me either, because I'll be away in England, and as such I'll have no or limited connection; that means, if you want to let me prove that I don't lie, you would have to lift it instantly, but after experience I had I know this chance comes once in a blue moon. Another option is to wait some time. MarkBA 08:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand what is provocative in this banner:

I apologize to all decent editors, but I've decided to leave the English Misplaced Pages for indefinite. There's little room to do constructive edits and to realize one's potential when the whole project can be hijacked by a couple of mobs pushing their crazy political propaganda, combined with an unwillingness of moderate majority. And almost no one is willing to help, when one is being chased or harassed by a couple of jerks. This project could work if everyone would mainly work only within the areas of their knowledge, and only within the limits. But that's not the case. Recently, I tried to watch over certain articles to prevent from compromising the quality, yet, no one was willing to help. I'm not going to work under the mob rule. I finally see that the concept of "absolutely" free encyclopaedia doesn't work in reality, at least not under conditions as we have now, especially. If this project has ever some chance for success, it's openness will require sometimes radical reforms, sorry, that means not just looking how the bank account fattens, but looking into editors and their problems. If anybody wants to have my message in more detail, see User:Tankred, who also decided to suspend his activities for the exact reasons. I'm just too tired to continue when I got to fight extreme nationalist and chauvinistic edits and to remove personal attacks and false accusations, with community just standing, not having any courage to do something. I will consider my return only in case something can be done to stop the "raging machine(s)", as shown by examples at the linked page.

IMHO it stays perfectly within policies as it doesn't name anyone in particular, except that link, and is only my personal opinion, not any policy or something. If you remove my banner you gotta then remove their provocations as well. MarkBA 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As far as the banner is concerned, it was felt that it was uncivil. Though you didn't name names, you did link to Tankred's userpage (where he did name names, and that banner has been removed as well). Also, terms such as "mobs pushing their crazy political propaganda" and "couple of jerks" were not helpful. Though I find it intriguing that you were asking for "radical reforms", and then when I stepped in to offer such reforms, you did not accept them. I think if you'll look at the range of articles involved, you will find that the edit wars have stopped over the last few days, and that some very constructive discussions are ongoing. If you would be willing to address my three points, you could rejoin those discussions. It would be helpful if you could put in your own words, your promise about not using other accounts or anonymous IPs, and a promise to abide by Misplaced Pages policies in the future. I have to admit that I was concerned in your unblock request where you said that your future editing would be "for most of the time" productive. I would rather get something a bit more concrete.

I would also still be interested to know which other accounts that you used. If you are not comfortable listing them on-wiki, you may wish to send me an email off-wiki. I can be reached at elonka@aol.com, or via several of the instant message services. Thanks, Elonka 11:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Where the hell I said I didn't accept your proposal? Can you point me to it, because as far as I'm concerned I said nothing about this. I still think the banner is within the limits, maybe I could remove that sentence with link; I think if sb wants to know the situation I'm in, then this is one of the only ways to go. Or have I missed something? Concerning accounts, I'll say something off-wiki, I don't want to have it in an open sight. In any case, I don't like that "puppet" template put on my page, when I dispute the results. MarkBA 12:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your above reply is uncivil, so it is difficult to trust your sincerity that you would be willing to abide by Misplaced Pages policies (including the civility policy). One of my jobs as administrator is to reduce disruption to the project. And so far most of your comments on this page have indicated that you see nothing wrong with your previous disruption, and that you intend to continue in the same vein in the future. For me to lift your block early, you would need to convince me that you understand the previous problems, and that you are willing to improve your behavior in the future. You would have to convince me that you were genuinely interested in participating on Misplaced Pages in a cooperative and collegial manner with other editors. As for "Sb", if you want to leave a message for them, why not just put a message on their talkpage?

In short, as long as you keep denying that there were any problems, and especially when you make the denials in an uncivil way, there is no reason to lift the block. Indeed, each time you respond with incivility, that would be a good reason to extend it. --Elonka 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, what exactly is uncivil? I fail to see it, I think I said only pure facts. Just to avoid ambiguity, sb = somebody. I don't deny that there were problems, however, I deny that I caused the problems; I think I said that clearly. If you want to continue this conversation, I suggest we go off-wiki. MarkBA 12:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA, is it right that you are nearly 16 years old? Maybe you should watch your language and learn to have just a bit of respect towards someone who for some reason has her own page on Misplaced Pages (even if you fail to do so towards others who are simply older than you). Squash Racket (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

False. I don't ask about your age either, and I don't want to. MarkBA 12:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA, your block has now expired, and you are welcome to resume editing. You can also remove the above messages on your talkpage if you would like to do so.

You are not under any other specific editing restrictions at this time, aside from the general Digwuren restrictions on civility, no personal attacks, and assuming good faith. To avoid any escalation of restrictions, I recommend:

• Avoid making simple reverts of controversial articles. Instead, try adding to those articles to further improve them.
• If you do engage in a revert, you must explain the reasoning for your revert at the article's talkpage. Do not put lengthy explanations in edit summaries, though you may wish to put something like "see talk", or link to the thread on the talkpage where you have more detailed comments
• Avoid edit wars. If you revert, and someone else reverts you, don't immediately revert them back. Instead, explain the situation at the talkpage, and get the opinions of other editors. If you are clearly backed by consensus, you can revert, with a link to the consensus on the talkpage.
• Please participate at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. As long as your comments remain civil, your participation is welcome.

Welcome back, and if you have any questions, let me know!  :) --Elonka 09:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I'm going to offend someone, but if you thought I am going to be quiet after this, IMHO controversial block, then you're wrong. To end this once and for all, I don't consider myself a sockpuppeteer. Period. I am not willing to edit an encyclopaedia which allows disruptive editors to insert their fringe theories, while normal ones who are pursuing the original goal are ridiculed and sillied by those. In my opinion, the experiment you started has both good and bad sides; the good thing is that edit wars ceased or at least were reduced, but on the other hand allowed a greater scope of various biased and factually wrong statements, for various reasons which all know very well. I hope you want more B-articles or better yet, at least GAs or more with neutral content instead of articles which only present some group's opinion. Now I'll be waiting for a response, just note I'm still away and I can edit only for a short time. But in general I'm unhappy with the way all have treated me, so I hope you understand my frustration. MarkBA 08:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, glad to see you back.  :) To answer your questions, if you see factually wrong statements, tag them with a {{fact}} tag, which requires someone to add a source to verify the statement. If they can't provide a source in a few days, remove the statement. If you see something that you feel is biased, but is sourced, then the simplest thing is usually to add information with an opposing view (also sourced). Or if someone has added a bad source, or misinterpreted a good source, either fix it, or bring it up at the talkpage. Lastly, to my knowledge everyone's being pretty civil at this point, though if you see anyone who's being uncivil (especially if they are making ethnic attacks), feel free to bring it up and I'll take a look. And yes, I'd love to see more articles brought to a state of neutrality, improved up to GA status, or maybe even FA!  :) --Elonka 08:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nice you are providing a guide how to do that and that, but in practice this often doesn't work. Some will do this persistently, not even following one of these points. Just to return to my previous statement of being "ridiculed", that's what's happening right now and no one has stopped that so far. A nice example of this are the accusations of made-up history and bringing sometimes very hot political issues into Misplaced Pages, which should stay out. I could list even more like this, but I think you already know what I mean. If I am going to return to writing articles, what is needed is protection from fringe theories and POV, so less time is spent watching how everything is spilled. MarkBA 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement about protecting Misplaced Pages from POV and fringe theories. What kind of protections would you like to see in place? --Elonka 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nice as well. A normal kind of protection like semi will help only against an army of anons. However, we have a small, but very active group of editors, which does insert their own POV all the time, so only a full protection could stop them, but that's not a solution either. The most efficient would be a topic ban, however, as far as I can remember, it can be issued only by ArbCom and must be justified as well, as goes with blocks. So the best option we have is continuous admin intervention, unless you have a better choice. Apart from that, ethnic slurs and similar behaviour must be stopped as well. So far, it hasn't happened and they are allowed to continue. I think this doesn't need much more words to explain my attitude and reasons why I think the community has betrayed me. MarkBA 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify this statement, do you admit using all the sockpuppets described in Cat:sockpuppets of MarkBA or not? Hobartimus (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. MarkBA 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark, actually, ArbCom intervention is not required on this one. That's the whole purpose of my experiment. Or in other words, I do have the authority to make topic bans. The way I'm working though is to implement lesser restrictions first, and only escalate as necessary. If someone proves incapable of editing a certain subject in a neutral way, I would have no trouble of escalating to a topic ban, but before that point I want to try education and lesser restrictions. If you do feel a topic ban is necessary, feel free to say so. You can name names, name topics, name articles. I will listen to all recommendations. But to be fair, I'm also going to give those editors every opportunity to moderate their own behavior. I'm sure that if the situation were reversed, and someone said that you should be topic-banned, you would want the same courtesy, correct? --Elonka 08:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The catch is, they don't have a reason to have me topic-banned, as always. I could give you a handful of tips, but I don't feel comfortable listing them here, I'm just afraid to do so on-wiki because of harassment. But what I'm objecting to is the discussion of current politics and multiple possible violations of WP:BLP, ethnic slurs etc. For the rest, see your experiment page. MarkBA 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Carpathian Germans

Dear MarkBA! (I do not know that you remember me yet because we argued long ago) You restored this article' earlier version immediately but you did not give your reasons at this article' talk page. Otherwise I would be curious that you picked up me or the Carpathian Germans or both to your watchlist.Nmate (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)