Trichome

thcscience_admin

Case Opened on 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by -jkb-[edit]

I request an arbitration decision against the User:V. Z. as well as User:Zacheus as well as other obscure accounts of this user. User:V. Z. is a account of a former user, who was renamed here and who is banned on the Czech Wikiopedia since May 2006 (reopened yesterday).

I do this because:

  • the user with several names published or enabled to publish my personal data on Wikimedia projects (and more over in several sites in internet as well)
  • although he was banned for it on Czech Wikipedia and although he denied this on his blog one year ago he continued to claim that I was collaborting with a communist secret police and thus he dangered my family members still living in a former East European country

Some remarks to the first point:

  • he published my real name and my domicile several times here and in internet
  • on April 4th 2007 he threatened me on the Slovak Wikipedia that he will publish in internet a photo of mine which he made for this purpose [1] (see OTRS Ticket#: 2007061010005551)
  • on April 12th 2007 was this photo published in internet [2] by his former blog colleague, here then User:Ross.Hedvicek (see also User talk:Ross.Hedvicek)
  • on May 15th could therefore User:Semenač (another banned user from Czech Wikipedia) could upload the photo to Commons ([3]) and to use this in several harrassing pages
  • further, he anounced legal threats against one of my colleague

All statements given here, all reasons, all articles etc. given here can be sourced on request.

I request to ban this user from Wikipedia at all. His trolling has been mentioned here several times, he destroys not only different projects but is trolling on meta (requesting there the removal of rights for stewards, check users etc., see also Cswiki issues as one example), has been warned several times ([4] by User:Thatcher131) not to import his problems in other domains, he describes on his blog stewards and the english wikipedia admins as fascists (some stewards will remember) etc.

Thanks for understanding and patience, -jkb- 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further statements by -jkb- on talk page

Statement by Zacheus[edit]

I am a former bureaucrat on cs: (from 9 March 2004 to 4 August 2005). I was desyssoped after -jkb-'s private request. (At first he denied it, then he had to admitted it.) On 10 September 2005 -jkb- blocked me there for the infinite time (not in May 2006 as he lied). Reason was: "I would appreciate if the community would shake off this element. " = speaking about me "I intentionally don't indicate examples of <my real name>'s bestiality, I don't have stomach to this." "Voting is not allowed to comment."

After that I transfered my activity on en:, but I soon began to be harassed by -jkb- again. He even established his own page where he tried to mix me up with vandals, although repeated user's checks proved I have nothing in common with them. That's why I dropped my long term account with my real name which I used since 23 December 2003. But -jkb- has spied my new account (Zacheus) and underage steward Datrio has confirmed to him that this is my new account.

That's why I asked for renaming and established 3rd account. I have no other account, although -jkb- frequently claims opposite even he knows pretty well he is lying. I succeeded in hiding of my 3rd account to -jkb- (I stopped editting most topics I liked and which -jkb- knew I liked.) Were it needy, I am ready to provide its name if it remains hidden to -jkb-. But -jkb- did not stop writing my real name under any possible occassion.

In that time (5 December 2006) I tried to reply to -jkb-'s cronies from cs: at my user page. Thatcher131 censured me for doing this and I have expressed my deep regret for doing that and never repeated that. After -jkb- continued to harass me with revealing of my real name I seeked a mediation. This was rejected since -jkb- refused to agree with it, although I notificated it to him. On contrary, -jkb- failed to place a notice on my talk page when he lodged this complaint.

Problem with -jkb- is, that he speaks non-understandable language, for instance: "Zacheus is something not to be defined". It is not only problem of his English, he is equally non-understandable in Czech. I don't know what -jkb- has meant by "User:V. Z. is a account of a former user". V. Z. is my account (he knows it) and I am not a former user.

Concerning -jkb-'s accusations:

  1. I never published -jkb-'s personal data on any Wikimedia project, nor his real name, nor his domicile.
  2. I never said -jkb- was a Communist secret police agent.
  3. I never threatened him on the Slovak part of the Wikipedia. The whole story there was quite different: I published there a list of nicks I met in real life, one of them being -jkb-. He denied he met me. I wrote that I had done and that I was able to prove it by a photo. Then -jkb- confirmed he knew me, but never explained why he had lied at first.
  4. I am not responsible for other people's actions (Mr Hedvíček or Semenáč), although -jkb- always tried to mix me up with vandals or other people – his favourite practice.
  5. I never made any legal threat.
  6. I never troll here or there. I admit I seek justice in cs: on Meta, but this has nothing in common with en: as Thatcher131 explained to me.
  7. I stopped importing the problems of other projects after Thatcher131 explained to me that this is a bad behaviour. On contrary, -jkb- continued that practice, as recently as on 11 June 2007. He does not acknowledge any authority and he told us he was even disappointed by Jimbo's behaviour. In my view he refuses to cohabitate here with me peacefully, that's why he should be punished.

—Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further statements by Zacheus on talk page

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Disclosure of personal information[edit]

1.1) Wikipedia is not a forum for disclosure of nonpublic personal information, whether in regard to an article subject, a Wikipedia editor, or an individual unrelated to the project. However, nonpublic personal information may be disclosed in specific circumstances detailed in the privacy policy.

Passed 8-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

2) Editors are expected to be reasonably civil and courteous to one another. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Passed 8-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere[edit]

3) The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. Importing disputes from other venues into the English Wikipedia, including from real life or from other Wikimedia projects, is extremely disruptive.

Passed 8-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal identifying information[edit]

4) Editors may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Wikipedia or to edit anonymously. For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians edit anonymously. It is believed the opportunity to edit anonymously increases participation.

Passed 8-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable persons who are Wikipedia editors[edit]

6) Where a person is notable in his or her own right, legitimate discussion of that person in appropriate articles is not restricted because that person happens to edit Wikipedia. In borderline situations, good judgment must be used in determining, for example, whether to refer to such a person as an example of a phenomenon rather than referring to a different individual.

Passed 8-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Who may edit[edit]

7) Editing of Wikipedia is open to anyone who conforms to our policies.

Passed 8-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Disputes between -jkb- and Zacheus in other forums[edit]

1) -jkb- (talk · contribs) and Zacheus (talk · contribs) (formerly V. Z. (talk · contribs)) have been involved in a complex series of disputes that originated on the Czech Wikipedia and have expanded to Meta Wiki. In the fall of 2006, the dispute spread to the English Wikipedia. Both editors behaved inappropriately by conduct such as importing external disputes into the English Wikipedia, making serious personal attacks on each other, and/or revealing personal identifying information about each other.

Passed 8-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Current behavior[edit]

2) Both -jkb- (talk · contribs) and Zacheus (talk · contribs) (formerly V. Z. (talk · contribs)) have discontinued their objectionable behavior.

Passed 8-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Parties admonished[edit]

1.1) -jkb- and Zacheus are admonished for their behavior in this matter.

Passed 7-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Parties restricted[edit]

2) -jkb- and Zacheus are directed to refrain from:

  1. importing outside disputes, including disputes from other Wikimedia projects, into the English Wikipedia;
  2. disclosing on-wiki the real names of or other personal identifying information about each other or about any other editor; and
  3. making personal attacks or uncivil remarks toward each other or toward any other editor.

Passed 7-0 at 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans[edit]

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zacheus-jkb

Leave a Reply