User talk:-jkb-/Archive1

That he edits his own bio with sockuppet accounts? Nothing unusual here. I'd given up dealing with such people as they can get very aggressive and it consumes way too much of time.

I saw that on Czech Wiki RH's contribution are limited to low quality micro-stubs and flamewars. The first won't make much difference here - it will be lost within the other million of stubs. Flamewars are also unlikely as number of Czechs here is small and they do not use WP as discussion forum.

My guess is that RH will get soon bored and will concentrate on Czech Wiki. Pavel Vozenilek 18:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pavel Vozenilek 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!

• Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks Strom 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. "I just came off a hot RfC where this policy was used as a weapon to almost block (and precipitate a collapse or a war) by aggressive majority parties to squelch an unpopular editor. I was fortunate to reason from the admins (new to all disputes, I had no prior issues with any editors) a brief stay to finish the RfC to a better resolution. I see suppression of legitimate commentary vs public attack as a very important area of analysis and resolution. Legitimate commentary on the internet is at risk, what kind of "attack" is of significance to involve Wiki; and distinguishing controversy and needed commentary on/about editors (a safety valve?) from true attack might not always be easy.--66.58.130.26 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)"Reply

   Is the listing of more than one dozen of wikipedians in a "list of fascists" a legitimate commentary??? -jkb- 15:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

For fairness I have noted, linked, and moved a potential debate to a more appropriate talk location, here. Votes summaries aren't the place for back and forth argument, if you disagree you are welcome to vote and summarize your view separately.

This was a hag ridden situation that involved evolving Wiki policies, an unpopular individual that had pushed original policies hard, been monitored/tracked/stalked (choose pov), had an asymmetric application of policies, seriously outgunned on volume, legal argumentation, and content, who with a personal view (walk a mile in his shoes) of being badgered, had become more than disenchanted. A long festering, dirty edit and policy war was getting ready to become a serious internet war (IMHO - really) where I felt *serious* informal intervention and mediation would actually resolve the internet NPA questions and problem *in everybody's favor*. The small disputant trusted my comments where imposed views were viewed as provocations, ultimately accepted the consensus, recognized the new policies. I think the majority learned/reconsidered a few important things too. So far, peace is holding, everyone is getting more work done. It has long been recognized that "hard cases make bad law", I didn't want more imperfect laws either.--66.58.132.43 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Next time you come across an impostor of yours or someone elses, please report the impostor account(s) to WP:AIV, where you'll get a quicker response than WP:ANI. 20:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just made a Checkuser request (against the vandals harassing you and other Czech users) here, feel free to comment if you have something more to add. - Mike Rosoft 09:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I do not watch all you activities. But now it turns out it makes a huge list, probably incomplete:

1. m:User:-jkb-/CsWiki (7 February 2006)
2. m:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2006/01#Check user action across domains (24 September 2006)
3. m:User talk:Snowdog#check on cs.source and cs.wiki (3 October 2006)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#pls block an impostor (7 October 2006)
5. m:Requests for CheckUser information#Several users again (8 October 2006)
6. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nácek Ignácek (5 November 2006)
7. User:-jkb-/Vandalism and impostors (19 November 2006)

If don't delete all you lies about me or you don't stop harassing me and stalking me, I will seek a protection against you. -- Zacheus 21:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• It has to be said in Zacheus's (etc.) favour that he is apparently not related to the vandal harassing you and other contributors. (At least, the checkuser request has found no evidence of it.) - Mike Rosoft 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is my last warning. If don't stop violating Right to Vanish policy: "Change references to your former username to be references to your replacement username (you can do this yourself)," I'll ask to block you. -- Zacheus 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I'd like to recommend the two of you to settle your differences using mediation. (I have already made this recommendation on Zacheus' talk page.) - Mike Rosoft 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't think I can help you. I don't want to be directly involved in this case any more. (If I took any more action, he would see it as more evidence of Wikipedia community being biased against him.) Please seek opinion of other Wikipedia administrators (see WP:AN/I), or start an arbitration request (WP:RFArb) - he seems to have rejected mediation. (If an arbitration case is started, I want to know about it; the Czech arbitrators likely will as well.) - Mike Rosoft 12:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You did not stop revealing of my identity despite the fact I had asked you and warned you many times, I asked for your blocking in order to stop you doing that. -- Zacheus 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you had asked me to tolerate your afforts to hide your yccounts and harrasing edits, because you have problems with it, i guess i had made so and I had tolerated it. See e.g. my patience with your vandalising my page made by you on November 29th. But: only if you had leaved the Wikisource. But today you publshed here a very harrasing and attacking pamphlet - see User:Zacheus#Prohlášení, so you are back and you have no right to vanish. Sorry for you, but it is your problem. -jkb- 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

First, there is no reason you need to continually bring up V. Z.'s former name. All his edits are reattributed to User:V. Z., and the harassment policy specifically mentions not bringing up user's real names after a name change. You may certainly point out that User:V. Z. now uses the account User:Zacheus, and you may have a case to make that V. Z./Zacheus are disruptive and harassing you. But please do it without using his real name.

Second, please translate User:Zacheus#Prohlášení, or at least the opening paragraph. Who or what is it an attack on? Thatcher131 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Correct translation is as follows: Whereas Beren defamed me on cs:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I consider as necessary to react. It is sad to acknowledge that after -jkb- retreated, Beren became the head of my enemies. And this person shall have taken all the pros and contras in the process with me? If he was not biased then nobody would be ever biased. -- Zacheus 12:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, first: somebody else translated what ou wanted as I can see. Secondly, yes, he states there some accuses like I decided to liquidate him and I did (???), he states that the users Beren and Egg have no right to judge about hin (both werde members of the arbcom) because they are biased and hate VZ, and they are trolls and hypocrytes, not members of the community; several times he accuses Beren and other of lies, etc. Third, he did so after the Czech community stated that it would be readdy to fullfill VZ’s wish to change the name if he could only ask for it in normal way, not to require it as his right and not to attack the community again. VZ demands not to use his name, which he used here by himself, but he published the full names (partially with the place they live) of other users without a permission. Fourth, if VZ has problems with his activity here so I am sorry for him but he has problems with his own doing. I wonder only, that other people in the contrary should defend themwelves. He accused me here and in the whole internet I were a confident of the old communist oilice, and you can imagine, that such accuses can have very serious consequences for my family members living in the Czech Republic of today. This man cannot distinguish and to divide between a virtual internet and the reality – he is playing with it. So I am not like to defend myself, in any case, I do not see any reason any more – I spent too much time with this up to now. If the English Wikipedia thinks to solve the problems this way, then do. 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You have liquidated me twice: First, you let me desysop against the will of the community. You at first denied to do that: "Obvinění, vznesené jedním wikipedistou, že jsem údajně nerespektoval vůli komunity, postrádá jekéhokoliv opodstatnění. Prohlašuji, že jsem se skutečně se stewardy metawiki spojil, že jsem je však pouze informoval o stavu věci a žádal o radu či pomoc. Oba stewardové se sami přesvědčili o uvedených argumentech a skutečnostech a dospěli ke svému rozhodnutí bez mého dalšího namáhání. Obvinění se tedy vztahuje více méně i proti nim, budu o tom informovat. Omluvu jsem prozatím nikde neviděl. -jkb- ✉ 12:46, 22. 8. 2005 (UTC)", but some time later you plead guilty: "Už tenkrát jsem musel své rozhodnutí, obrátit se na metu a požádat o jeho desysopizaci (ke které pak obratem došlo), provézt sám, a dělal jsem si přitom do kalhot, aby to bylo jasné. -jkb- ✉ 23:31, 8. 1. 2006 (UTC)"

he states that the users Beren and Egg have no right to judge about him (both werde members of the arbcom) because they are biased Actually, Egg acknowledged his bias and resigned as the arbitrator. That's why I never criticised Egg's action in the process as -jkb- intentionally misinterprets my statement. I criticised Beren only, not Egg.

In my statement I never wrote that Egg hates me. jkb- intentionally again misinterprets my statement.

I never wrote that Beren is a troll. -jkb- lied again.

In my statement I never wrote that Egg is a hypocrit. jkb- intentionally again misinterprets my statement.

and they are trolls and hypocrytes, not members of the community Traditional -jkb-'s distortion of reality: I did not write that Beren (and did not even mention Egg) is a not member of the community. He certainly is and even on its high esteem. But he often behaves without consent of the community, or even against its will. That's why I wrote Beren <> the community.

I would like to point out that it used to be a Communist practice to mix political and ordinary criminals in one big process. -jkb- has repeatedly tried to mix me with a known vandal, now he tries to mix my criticism of Beren and of Egg, which is completely different. Beren is on cs: on high esteem, although he often misused his powers. Egg is generally taken as a troll, although I don't know any case where he misused his powers. Egg's problem is he behaves as a bigot.

if he could only ask for it in normal way, not to require it as his right and not to attack the community again. Thanks for translation of before unknown prerequsites of cs: What is the "normal way"? I asked via sysop Vrba. I cannot asked directly since I am banned and blocked there and such people cannot write even on their own talk pages as in here. Please, change it.

I did not require it, but I asked only.

I am sorry, but I don't waive my right to critise cs:. It is my fundamental freedom and situation on cs: is terrific.

but he published the full names (partially with the place they live) of other users without a permission. Of who?

He accused me here and in the whole internet I were a confident of the old communist oilice Plain lie. Please, stop to repeat you lies, it is tiresome.

that such accuses can have very serious consequences for my family members living in the Czech Republic of today Your family is not responsible for your actions. Everyone's guit is individual only. -- Zacheus 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dmcdevit recommended banning you (Zacheus) as a troll, and I am inclined to agree unless you will stop importing the drama from the cs wiki here. Until now, V.Z. has not done anything wrong on the english language wikipedia, so there is no point in publishing his full name here. I would like to ask that -jkb- not refer to you by your full name. He may make notes, or file complaints for bad behavior if needed, but not use your real name. I would like to ask V.Z./Zacheus to delete his czech language user page and to stop using the english wikipedia to continue fighting battles left over from cs. Hopefully this solution would be agreeable to both of you. If Zacheus does not stop using en wiki to fight his battles from cs, and I had to choose between losing -jkb- as a productive editor or banning Zacheus, I would choose to ban Zacheus. This is a difficult situation, but maybe you can leave each other alone on this wikipedia. Thatcher131 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I inform you that I seek mediation with you. Please, sign the petition. -- V. Z. 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please, can you explain strange edit a fake edit summary? —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I would like to express you my support in your conflict with Zacheus, no matter what the result of the arbitration will be. I doubt that en.wiki admins, who, naturally, cannot speak Czech, will be able to understand the problem of Zacheus with its roots deep in cs.wiki history and so I expect some pseudo-wise judgment punishing both of you, but I hope it won't discourage you too much. Jan.Kamenicek 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank a lot. Your estimation of the situation beeing seems to be a perfect one. Some more people said me the same. But however it is not a reason to be discouraged. Anyway, my advantage is that I do not primarily work here but on another domain - see my signature. This domain stopped for me to exitst, not only because of this case. Thx once again for your support, -jkb- (cs.source) 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. -jkb- and Zacheus are admonished for their behaviour, and directed to refrain from importing outside disputes into the English Wikipedia, disclosing real names or other identifying personal information on-wiki, and from making personal attacks and uncivil remarks. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jkb, I didn't quite follow your note about Kipling. Do you need me to undelete something, or add more about the source? I'll be happy to help however I can. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I continue here, -jkb- (cs.source) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply