User talk:Zacheus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] An apology by Mike Rosoft

I would like to apologize if I accused you falsely. I wasn't actually misled by -jkb-; I was looking for accounts that might be related to Vít Zvánovec, and was probably too suspicious. - Mike Rosoft 08:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a probably a misunderstanding. The problem was not false accusation of sockpuppeting. Sock puppets are legal and everybody has a right to use them. Problem was that you accused me without any proof that I am a vandal and you speculated about my identity. But you have apologized and I accept it. -- Zacheus 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The Checkuser has discovered that you don't seem to be connected to the vandal harassing various Wikipedia users, so I would like to apologize for my suspicion. - Mike Rosoft 09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your responsibility to your actions. What a pity that others don't behave like you. -- Zacheus 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Changing username

You made a request on Wikipedia:Changing username to have another user's name changed; this is not permitted, usernames are only changed by request of the user, and the request must be made from the account that is being renamed. If you are the user in question, you are welcome to sign in with the account that is to be renamed and make the request (you may do so on your talk page if that account is blocked, and then post a diff of it to Wikipedia:Changing username with another account); if you are not the user in question, please do not make requests to rename other users. Essjay (Talk) 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, fulfilled. -- Zacheus 13:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endless discussion with Mike Rosoft

  • I have reverted your edits of the checkuser requests. They are archived for further reference, and shouldn't be moved or refactored without a permission (I have asked about it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser). I am afraid I won't re-add your barnstar, either; you have obviously added it to your user page yourself. - Mike Rosoft 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And one more thing: you keep demanding protection of your privacy by removal of references to your real name (which you have voluntarily published on Wikipedia by registering an acount of that name), but at the same time violate privacy of other Wikipedia editors on your blog. Remove the references to real names of the Czech Wikipedians (published there without their permission), and you'll have a case. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You find my reply at Try to behave as a proper sysop. -- Zacheus 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to debate with -jkb-, please do it either on his or on your talk page. Additionally, I'd like to recommend you to seek mediation to settle your differences. I can't comment on most of the charges you bring on each other; however, there is at least one case where -jkb- is right, not you. You claim to have never published -jkb-'s real name on Wikipedia - did you forget about this? - Mike Rosoft 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will respect it.
He is not right. I wrote about Jan Koukal who is a public figure and deserves a NPOV article. I never connected at Wikimedia projects this trockyist to any Wikipedian. -- Zacheus 14:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, right. Who cares that I have never heard of him. And please note that an article about a living person which is negative in tone and cites no sources is essentially an attack page and subject to speedy deletion. (The now existing article Jan Koukal is about somebody else.) - Mike Rosoft 13:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not my problem that you are not oriented in Czech exile. And I did not create an article about a living person, but rather about a problem which postcommunists don't like to hear. And, obviously, my article was properly sourced. -- Zacheus 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
No, your article (reconcilee) didn't contain ANY sources corroborating that claim. (For that matter, neither did the article Jan Koukal.) Please don't say that it did, because I can easily check. - Mike Rosoft 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I find very hard to discuss with you. You wrote I had made an article about a living person. I replied I had not done. You replied, of course, but you made an article with no sources. I replied I had not done. You replied, of course, but you made a statement with no sources. I reply, of course, but this statement was quickly deleted by Beren. Could you be please next time much more precise in your statements in order to avoid this useless discussion? -- Zacheus 15:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Beren never edited the article reconcilee, nor did he delete the article Jan Koukal. Please tell me what you mean by that statement. (Beren did edit the Czech article cs:upravenec - now moved - but you can't mean that, either; his only two edits are addition of a category and removal of a deletion notice.) The article reconcilee is obviously not a candidate for speedy deletion, and it was never deleted; however, the part about Jan Koukal was rightfully removed from it; the reason is the same as why articles containing only attacks or unsourced negative claims about a person can be speedily deleted. This is why I had brought the criterion to your attention. - Mike Rosoft 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not my problem that you don't know all Beren's sockpuppets.
however, the part about Jan Koukal was rightfully removed from it It was not. WP:BLP was just a guideline when I wrote it. -- Zacheus 15:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the sockpuppets, I am going to be blunt, so sorry in advance: put up or shut up. Either provide evidence that he uses sockpuppets (User:Beren has no edits), or stop making the claim. And the your claim was indeed rightfully removed from the article; WP:V has always been policy. (And just because WP:BLP was a guideline at the time, and WP:CITE is even now, it doesn't mean that you can wilfully violate it and not be called on it. Just like in your arbitration case, you are confusing Wikipedia with a legal system.) - Mike Rosoft 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He used the sockpuppets on cs:. But I am a little bit tired with this endless discussion: you always doubt my statement even everybody on cs: knows them. Please, let take a look about Beren–RuM controversy on cs: I am not here to educate you.

My statement was very well verifiable before -jkb- has deleted his own pages. It is not my problem that now it is not. I did not violate any guideline as you suggest. Writing about living persons is not prohibitted.

I reject your "expertise" about the Wikipedia. Wikipedia certainly is not a place for terror and of kangaroo courts. -- Zacheus 16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to edit pages of sock puppets, but in this case: my dear friend, you really do not know what you claim: My statement was very well verifiable before -jkb- has deleted his own pages (see above). Both my user page and my talk page on the cs.wiki are full intact, with the full history reaching deep to may 2004, my logging there. Please if you want to lie so lie in points, where it is not so easy for me to show that you lie. Thx for your next contribs. Now i will concentrate myself on my work here again. -jkb- 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Zacheus is not sockpuppet, it is my primary account. I left my account V. Z. altogether, since you stalked me and continue with stalking me even after my request. You lie — for the first time.
  2. I am not your friend, since the stalkers are not my friends. You lie — for the second time.
  3. You deleted your own pages: "17:26, 27. 1. 2006 -jkb- (Diskuse | příspěvky) maže "Wikipedista:-jkb-" (smazat)" You lie — for the third time.
  4. Your pages were undeleted only in March 2006 ("15:49, 15. 3. 2006 Beren (Diskuse | příspěvky) obnovuje „Wikipedista:-jkb-“"), long after my disputed edit in the article was deleted by Beren. -- Zacheus 07:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
We have strayed from the original topic, so let's get back. I maintain that you had posted -jkb-'s real name on Wikipedia. You claim that it's not the case, and that you were writing about a public figure of Jan Koukal. I find it difficult to believe, because I have never heard of him (I might ask on Czech Wikipedia), and because it doesn't seem to be a coincidence that the vandal I have started two checkuser requests against has repeatedly added the same claim to -jkb-'s user page. (And even if you were telling the truth, the claim - as you added it to the article - has no place on Wikipedia anyway.) - Mike Rosoft 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a luck you are not my judge. I am tired to repeat you all the time that I never made a statement on Wikipedia that -jkb- = Jan Koukal. If you find the opposite, please bring any proof, but untill that stop repeating that lie which I find harassing me.

I repeat again that is not my problem that you never heard about Infomat. Please, educate yourself (not at the Czech part of Wikipedia, obviously), then return and we can continue in discussing of Czech exile. Until then I see no profit about discussing with you the things you know nothing about.

It is not my problem that -jkb- is universally liked.

My statement was true and perfectly verifiable, if -jkb-'s pages would be undeleted. So stop accusing me that I lie. -- Zacheus 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, see my edit from today 16:30 above, this sock puppet lies although everything can be prooved, and this is also a point: it is not a fluke, but an intention, as he was a admin-bureaucrat for just about two years (before beeing desysoped), -jkb- 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

-jkb-'s harassment was refuted above. -- Zacheus 07:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Several points:

  1. I didn't realize that until now: you seem to admit that you have used -jkb-'s user page as a source. In that case, the question of whether or not you have explicitly stated that he is Jan Koukal becomes moot; exactly how was he supposed to take your article, except as harassment? Especially since you were involved in a conflict with him at the time?
  2. And no, the article didn't contain any references for the claim, and a Wikipedia user page wouldn't have constituted a reference anyway - anybody can post anything on a user page (blog, personal website, etc.). See WP:RS.
  3. Okay, RuM is a Beren's alternate account; but he never edited the Czech article. So once again: exactly what do you refer to? (Perhaps to the deletion of -jkb-'s user page? It was once deleted by -jkb- himself, once on his request, twice because it only contained nonsense/attacks posted by a different user than -jkb-, and then its entire history was undeleted. In general a user has a right to have his user page deleted. And Beren did once delete the personal attack, and then did the restoration. Is this supposed to be the deleted reference? You must be kidding.)
  4. Finally, you are overstating a difference between a policy and a guideline. From WP:PAG: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ... A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions." One one hand, common sense is to be exercised when applying policies and guidelines; on the other hand it is not an excuse that one has technically followed a policy or a guideline if he has violated its purpose and spirit. As I previously told you, Wikipedia is not a legal system (or Nomic). - Mike Rosoft 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. It is just plain logic. Jan Koukal is a public figure. You can use any source when you write about him. I used his wiki pages since he became the first known reconcilee who publicly confessed he or she was one. Others kept this fact in hidden.

ad 2. Yes, as I wrote I admitted that. Please, read my words more carefully. "This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." But in this case it was not true: "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material".

ad 3. Okay, RuM is a Beren's alternate account Not only, but he even misused his sockpuppets.

ad 3b. In general a user has a right to have his user page deleted. I agree, but -jkb- prevented to delete my own user page.

ad 3c. Is this supposed to be the deleted reference? No. -jkb- deleted information about his behaviour during the Communism.

ad 4 Finally, you are overstating a difference between a policy and a guideline. It is a question of the subjective view. In my view you disdain the difference. It there is none, why we have separate policies and guidelines, and moreover why some guidelines became policies? Is a policy only a guideline without exceptions? Why to difer then? If you a look at the meaning of the word "guideline" you see that it is something which guides you somewhere. It would be very strange if a mere guideline would be enforcable. I would say only, I used common sense in WP:IAR. Beren has reverted that and I did not object it. The end of the story. -- Zacheus 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puellanivis' petition

You both are constantly engaging in personal attacks, I would suggest that you both let this matter die, or it may be suggested as a resolution to block both of you for a period of time to let you cool down. @Zacheus: -jkb- is not universally liked. I find much of his activity here no better than yours. Unfortunately, you seem to choose the point of view that you are getting all of the criticism, and -jkb- is escaping criticism, this is not at all the case. Neither of you are in the right here, and what we are attempting to tell you is that so long as both of you are in the wrong, we cannot really help either of you. If one of you would take the opportunity to be civil, respectful, and proper, then we will address your concerns and desires. This applies just as much to -jkb- as it does to you Zacheus On that note, -jkb- in his latest posts has used your initials V.Z. and not your full name. He is finally respecting your wishes, why are you now assaulting him more? --Puellanivis 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I replied to you at User talk:Puellanivis#My apology. -- Zacheus 13:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egg's trolling

Jan Koukal je známá osoba, byl senátorem za ODS a pražským primátorem. Nikde jsem nenašel zmínku o tom, že by emigroval, nemohl tedy ani "upravovat" svůj vztah s ČSSR. Ergo Zacheus zase lže. --Egg ✉ 09:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Egg, please troll in English. Otherwise the people may think you are a good sysop. And if you don't know something, it doesn't mean that somebody else is lying. It is not my problem that you are not able to distinguish between far-left Koukal and right-wing Koukal. -- Zacheus 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Zacheus, please, the same warning you gave to Egg applies to you as well. We are wholy incapable of evaluating the worth and quality of your statements and your arguments if they are in Czech, this applies even on your user page. If you wish for the moderators of the English Wikipedia to help you out, we will need your case to be made in English, or at the very least Czech with a side-by-side translation to English. At this time, we cannot see you as really doing anything but actively trolling the English boards in response to a ban from the Czech Wikipedia. With all good faith, please prove me wrong. --Puellanivis 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, see my reply at your talk page. -- Zacheus 13:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not carry the drama from cs here to en

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 have asked 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. The applies to anyone else from czech wikipedia who feels he must come here to continue to harrass Zacheus. Cut it out. Keep the cs problems on cs. Since almost no one here can read czech, we can't tell who is trolling and who is being trolled, so everyone stop it. Thatcher131 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've already stopped.
I fulfilled your request.
Have you received my e-mail? -- Zacheus 15:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Thatcher131 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Sockpuppet (Internet)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Zacheus! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \burbandictionary\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 14:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/a/c/User_talk%7EZacheus_b610.html"