User talk:The Autobahn

Bratislava

Hi!

Why did you remove my last edition? For example I think the Slovak National Movement is an unimportant information there.Nmate (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for you, but for others doesn't. I'll ask a counter-question: why do you think a language mention in the 12th century and a precise date of forming is more important than anything else in the lead? I don't think so - however, for first the Hungarian language and for second the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 articles are better for such cases. Besides, 1. it is incomprehensible - example - Pray codex is liked to the city - maybe linked? 2. this is an encyclopaedia, not an ordinary (lifestyle) magazine which researches history once per time. The Autobahn (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you. I recommend this talk page to you: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment Nmate (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you haven't responded to my queries, so simple "I do not agree with you" isn't a persuading argument. I'll take a look later. The Autobahn (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a talk page to You but You do not want to participate there. Otherwise I guess You are a Slovak. Maybe are You MarkBA from an online cafeteria or a library?Nmate (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't I said I'll take a look later? Wait a while, please. Also, please do not assume what I would and wouldn't do. Sorry, but I don't know the user you named. By the way, my queries remain open. The Autobahn (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Slovak National Movement was not so important event because this city' population were German and Hungarian in that time moreover Stúr and his friends were not aknowledged leaders of the whole Slovak nation in their life. Your other questions were provocations simply.Nmate (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your behavior. Please do not use so statements that "blah blah blah"! Is it impossoble to learn good manners in the Tatra' villages?Nmate (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil next time. I have asked you a normal question, you responded in a bad-faith manner. Do you think you will earn a respect by incivility? In any case, to your response, I still ask: why do you think it's less important than those mentions? To the ethnicity, first, it was mostly a German city at that time as far as my knowledge goes and second, in principle the same could be said about Prague, for example. Talking about incivility, you seem to have a lot of problems with non-Hungarian editors, dismissing their views, and with good manners as well. I haven't asked you to be uncivil, remember that. The Autobahn (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello The Autobahn. I would say "Welcome to Wikipedia", but it is fairly obvious that you already have experience with the interface. :) You seem quite skilled with MediaWiki! Sorry for the immediate suspicion above. We have unfortunately been having some trouble with sockpuppet accounts lately, which is why there are questions. May I ask which accounts that you have used in the past? Also, as Nmate mentioned above, we do have a centralized discussion page for discussing Hungarian-Slovakian disputes. I encourage you to join, as more voices are always welcome: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Best wishes, El on ka 05:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't been contributing much in the past, just observing :-), and that's how I learned these things. No, I hadn't a registered account. Although I see you have a page for mediation, looks like I'm too late :-(; and as such I don't think I could change anything. The Autobahn (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you using anons? It can be helpful to mention the addresses on your new userpage, but that's of course up to you. As for being "too late", what are you most concerned about? --El on ka 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't remember, but I had mostly only minor edits anyway. Just before I set up this account, I saw there was a poll running, however I hadn't courage and something to say and it's closed now. However, from the range and style of comments it must've been quite a hot issue. I have taken a look at the accepted form and saw a few things which, at first sight might seem okay, but, when thinking about it, it isn't quite so. One thing: what is the background of your experiment? From what I can see I guess it's an attempt to cool down tensions between Slovaks and Hungarians, right? The Autobahn (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, if you'll take a look at the top couple of sections, they'll give you more background. As for the current poll, you are definitely welcome to speak up. We are especially interested in new opinions, to see if anyone can come up with a compromise position that might be acceptable to both sides. Creative solutions are encouraged. :) --El on ka 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I won't come up with anything revolutionary :-(; in some cases a compromise solution isn't very possible (of course it's still possible). The Autobahn (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started a new poll, asking people if they think that we have a consensus yet or not. If you would like to participate, please do. :)

Also, as an aside, would you be willing to create a userpage, at User:The Autobahn? I find that it's something that can help increase trust in confrontational situations. Or is there a reason that you would prefer not to create one? --El on ka 20:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

If you would like to get involved with the decisions on which names should be included in an article's lead,[1] I strongly recommend that you get involved in those discussions at the Experiment page. We are particularly looking for more Slovak input, so your comments would be given very serious consideration. I hope you will consider participating. --El on ka 19:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but after seeing a mess there and a unilateral rule enforcement, I don't want to get involved. I don't need to be ignored, let alone spanked. There's only one thing: some forgot this is an encyclopaedia and such rules masquerading as "guidelines" won't help harmonious editing either. The Autobahn (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are probably a secondary account of User:MarkBA. Since that account is on an editing restriction for six months, this restriction would apply to this new account as well. The MarkBA account is currently blocked for three months, so I could probably block this account for the same. However, I am giving you one last chance: If you would like to continue participating on Wikipedia, please do so, but if you make one more controversial edit to an article related to Hungary or Slovakian issues, you are risking a block. --El on ka 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? - I do not quite understand the purpose of this comment. I am slowly feeling like in that Kafka's novel - what wrong I have done? Otherwise I am surprised where this has gone. The Autobahn (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#The Autobahn. It is believed that your account is being used by User:MarkBA, another account that is currently blocked for 3 months. If you feel that this is not true, you are welcome to speak up and defend yourself. --El on ka 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but... I do not want to be exposed at all or in a minimal range, so I will just stay here. I do not know why I should be identified with someone else; however, persuading until the last detail is mostly a loss of time and often brings no effect. But the most surprising is: why I should be labelled as controversial? The Autobahn (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons, but some of the more obvious ones are:

Your account was created on the same day that MarkBA's was blocked
You clearly have prior experience with using Wikipedia, but have been reluctant to identify where this experience was from.
You immediately started editing in the Hungarian/Slovakian topic areas
You are unwilling to participate in discussion about controversial edits
You are unwilling to create a userpage
You have engaged in a few controversial edits, specifically involving the deletion of Hungarian names from articles
When removing one Hungarian name, you used an edit summary of "POV edit", with no further discussion at the talkpage.
Some of your comments (such as the above about "unilateral rule enforcement") are similar to MarkBA's speaking style and general negativity.

In short, if you could avoid any kind of reversions or controversial edits about Hungarian-related matters, you can probably steer clear of problems. Or, as I have mentioned above, I would actively encourage you to participate in discussions about naming conventions, since we are listening very carefully to the Slovakian viewpoint, to try and find a compromise position. You would really have nothing to lose, as long as you could present your opinions in a civil manner. --El on ka 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have mixed up two different edits. The last revert was done because of inserted personal opinion. By the way, does it matter the day the account was created, the topics it edits in or if that editor is willing to create a userpage or not (FYI, I do not have anything to write about on my userpage)? I am not aware I have done anything controversial. What is wrong, when I literally said: "thank you, but I don't want to participate"? And I have said I really cannot think of any good compromise solution right now, so why should I blab about it? The Autobahn (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

A CheckUser request involving your account has been filed at [2]. You are welcome to speak up at the CheckUser page in your own defense. Hobartimus (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of MarkBA (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to this Checkuser request for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

But why? Really, some of you must have Orwell or Kafka syndrome, if I can call it that way. Do you give away blocks for every known or unknown transgression against someone's rules, regardless how trivial it is? What wrong have I done? Can anyone tell me... or should I search for that answer myself? Why should I pay taxes when there are none to pay? I don't understand neither anyone's conduct, nor the rationale for it. The Autobahn (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When an account has its access blocked, the accountholder is expected to honor that block. Trying to get around the block by simply logging on anonymously or creating other accounts is not acceptable. The MarkBA account was blocked for good reasons, including disruption and incivility. Initially these were short blocks, but because you kept trying to get around them, they were extended for months. You also never actually acknowledged people's concerns and promised to do better. Neither were you willing to engage in good faith discussion. If you ever are willing to give your word to abide by policy, to engage in civil discussion, and to treat other editors with respect, let us know. --El on ka 17:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this one got me literally rolling on the floor, laughing. What promises are you talking about? No idea. Elonka, sorry, but I got disappointed; then I don't see any reason continuing here if I will get chased around (like by this block), yet not knowing where the heck I made a mistake. However, I also don't see a reason why I should be excluded, because of a single, if ever single, fault, most likely being that I politely said that I do not wish to take part; now you request me to honour that block, well, "thank you" for such service... that's the part which wiki fails to deal with properly. Not speaking about... no, I won't say right now. The last thing I'm "curious for" is your reply. The Autobahn (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any misrepresentation, I have interest in improving this encyclopaedia, nothing more, nothing less; but I can't as I'm prevented to do so. What are you offering is a deal with the Devil. The Autobahn (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which aspects of the requested conditions do you feel are inappropriate? You are welcome to make a counter-proposal. --El on ka 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense at all: "You also never actually acknowledged people's concerns and promised to do better." - no evidence to get started. This as well - "Neither were you willing to engage in good faith discussion.". To abide strictly by policy is in present quite impossible. I don't know why I should make a counter-proposal when I know: you will not unblock me anyway and consequently nothing will change. One is always sure: it remains a deal with the Devil. Therefore, I fail to see where I damaged the integrity of Wikipedia or where vandalized it in any way. Now be prepared if I'm going to offend you, but I feel you have been very rude to me so far, failing to see any reason for that. Or have I been? The Autobahn (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's start with something simple: How many Wikipedia accounts have you used, including IP addresses, besides this "The Autobahn" account? --El on ka 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh: did you know... that I'm not MarkBA at all? → A: 0 or N/A. Otherwise, this question has nothing to do with the previous comment, which is dealing with something else. Please continue on topic. The Autobahn (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I dishonor this block, because it's INVALID (based on disputable grounds + without reason) and I have NOT violated any policy as far as I'm aware. I think no more words are needed. The Autobahn (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a CheckUser clerk (Wikipedia editors who have access to IP information), the link between this account and that of MarkBA is confirmed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MarkBA. --El on ka 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a mismatch; there are many IPs with 78.99.xxx.xx number and for the God's sake I'm NOT MarkBA, therefore I can't be a sockpuppet. I thought using a Checkuser without proper reason is a violation of policies and this was the case. But I'm asking again: which policy have I violated to such a level that it is an indefinite block? This hasn't been replied to so far. The Autobahn (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I can't post anywhere else... seeing you're not very interested anymore, I have only last thing to say: I don't want nothing more than a simple unblock. I believe I haven't been acting inappropriately. The Autobahn (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained above, there are multiple other reasons that it is believed that you are the same user as behind the MarkBA account. However, if you would like another opinion, you may use the {{unblock}} template to request a review. Just add it below, in the following format: {{unblock| (your reason here)}} --El on ka 22:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See? The community is too unpersuasive. If you want to get from me the promise that if I ever will be unblocked, I will abide by policy &c., all you can get is this: I will try to. I have no more words for this Absurdistan. The Autobahn (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way: some of your points are easily refutable: you accused me of not participating in discussion after making more or less controversial edits: well, actually I did; just take a look in my contributions. I'm not commenting on the other because they don't tell the real truth. The Autobahn (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be very clear: The MarkBA engaged in multiple controversial edits, including being uncivil to other editors. When his account access was blocked, he simply went around it and used other accounts. This resulted in a bit of a game of "Whack a Mole" as we would watch to see where he had popped up, and block the new accounts as necessary. The policy that he was violating, was called "Block Evasion". The way he would usually get caught, is that he kept going back to the same areas of Wikipedia, specifically articles related to Hungary and Slovakia, and he would engage in the same behaviors, such as deleting Hungarian names, accusing other editors of biased editing, and refusing to actually engage in good faith discussions towards finding a compromise. Sometimes his new accounts and IPs would be blocked on sight, and sometimes we would file CheckUser requests. After this behavior had gone on for long enough, MarkBA was given a lengthy (3-month) block, and told that even after he returned, that he was not to edit in the topic area of Eastern Europe until 6 months had elapsed.

The day that MarkBA was most recently blocked, was the day that your account (The Autobahn) was created. Your behavior was very similar to his other sockpuppets. You didn't act like a new account, as you had a clear prior understanding of Wikipedia rules and procedures. You immediately gravitated to articles about Hungary and Slovakia. You didn't want to make a userpage. You made an accusation of biased editing. You refused to participate in good faith discussions towards the possibility of finding a compromise. When enough editors were suspicious about your behavior, one of them went to the CheckUser clerks to ask, "Is The Autobahn just another MarkBA clone, trying to get around his block again?" The answer that came back was a clear "Yes". So your account access was blocked, since MarkBA is blocked, and it is believed that you are the same user. So it's not so much that you (The Autobahn) did anything wrong, it's just that the Wikipedia community is convinced that your account was being used by MarkBA to get around his block. If you want to say that we're wrong, well, it's tough to argue with a CheckUser finding. I have offered to release your block if you promise to behave, but you have been unwilling to do that. I'll repeat the offer for a final time though: If you are willing to promise to be civil, to edit in a good faith manner, to only edit while logged in, to not use any Wikipedia accounts except this one, and to avoid any edits to articles related to Central or Eastern Europe for the next six months, we might be able to lift the block. You would then be allowed to participate in a civil manner at talkpages and other discussions related to Eastern Europe, but no actual article-editing. And you would still be free to edit articles in other topic areas, as long as you abided by policies. If this would be acceptable to you, please put such an agreement into your own words. Thanks, El on ka 23:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two flaws: first, I can't promise; I can only try to and second, I can't avoid edits to C & E. Otherwise it would be acceptable. The Autobahn (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to repeat myself again, I don't understand why these points matter? (that means, does it matter when one doesn't want to create a userpage?) Another: where I made an accusation of biased editing? I can't find it; rather, Hungarian users accused me of rewriting history; and that was left unnoticed. Last one: what's the bad thing when I said: sorry, but I don't want to participate right now? Is there some policy which requires this? I don't know about any. But I can't understand: why I should be banned from C & E articles for half a year? This isn't fair at all. If that helps, take a look at his former contributions and I think you should change your mind, if not quickly, then gradually. I think he's written some useful stuff too. However, the goal remains unchanged: to get an unblock without any additional restrictions, including this one (that doesn't affect adhering to policies). The Autobahn (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, this is my last attempt to get you on again. Might I propose a different variant of your deal? All other points remain as they are, however, editing C & E Europe articles is my primary scope; so, I propose not a ban, but something like this: I will be able to continue editing at these, but under condition that if I ignore three placed warnings to stop "hot editing", you may place a topic ban, for, let's say, 3 days, and for repeated offences (after failed warnings) longer bans. I can't think of a better compromise than this, because: you want me to have topic banned, I want to resume unrestricted editing; therefore, I see my proposal as something between. The Autobahn (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I realize that some people say "This is my last offer. Okay, well, this is my next final offer. Okay, for the last time, I'm offering. Okay, this time I really mean it, this is the final time..." (etc). But no, when I said my above message was my "final" offer, I meant it. No more negotiating, take it or leave it. --El on ka 16:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Why I can't negotiate? But that's not the point, rather, the only good unblock for me at this time is this: with the conditions as you said, except the ban on C & E topics, nothing more or less. That said, without the topic ban, the offer would be fine. So this is not about negotiating, but about a compromise. Do you see the point? By the way, why I had to wait three days for your reply? (and above comments went unchallenged, but it looks like I can't rely on anything) The Autobahn (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone. Although our scopes and IP ranges are same or similar, our communication and editing styles are not. Therefore, I don't see any reason of being blocked. The Autobahn (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but a Request for Checkuser case proves otherwise. — Tiptoety ^talk 06:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Because I'm limited here...

Elonka, if you have a chance, please read this; I am offering a compromise in this sense: you will unblock me without the topic ban, and I'll abide (or at least will try to) within the policies and try to be a useful person for this project. Deal? (...or No Deal?) The Autobahn (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, the time for compromises is past. --El on ka 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said this? Gee, I didn't notice at all. Please tell me, why do you pretend that the discussion is over while in fact it is not, i.e., you turn a deaf ear on this one? Why I shouldn't have the right to be unblocked? I still don't see any explanation. But okay, as you wish, but don't complain if conscience will bite you someday. Meanwhile, some worse things are happening just behind your back... you should review them. The Autobahn (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? --El on ka 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some experiment contributors have (had?) gone wild or semi-wild! I think it's pretty obvious who I mean. I think it's time to set some barrier for both sides, not just one. That's for the one part; my own part this time: in what way am I dangerous to such an extent that I should be blocked indefinitely? I fail to see that, too. I'll just guess if some supernatural forces don't act soon, we'll be even greater antagonists than we are now. I think it's of no use; just curious, you said you want more Slovak input; why you then play a shoot-em-up game against them, including me? All contributors know that Wikipedia is no Shangri-La by any means; but why then to complicate matters? The Autobahn (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty vague. --El on ka 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I think, User:Nmate is the most common transgressor; I'm not okay with this user's style and communication. Something stinks; but I think everyone has transgressed (from both sides), some more, some less. The Autobahn (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you do not want to listen: fine, I'm leaving English wiki because of hostile environment and unhelpfulness, squared by your arrogance and unwillingness, without excuse. The comments here and at your experiment page shows you're boot-licking anyone who can do a favour, and as such you're blocking or scaring everyone who doesn't follow such "guidelines", regardless of their status. Now try to prove me wrong... if I ever see here a reply. The Autobahn (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong tack to take. I am now protecting the page to prevent any further incivility or personal attacks. Best wishes, wherever your web-surfing takes you. --El on ka 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]