The times I could not believe some things going on here are in the past, now it starts to be funny. I have over 16.000 edits total here in the wiki projects. Since May 2004 I have experience not only with editing, but with the work of admin on several projects. I alone started the Czech Wikisource in April 2006 with 30 pages, now there are some 2200 ones. I made a request for an arbitration - „Personal attacks / publishing of personal data by user Zacheus etc.“, which was changed by Thathcer131 to the case „Zacheus-jkb“ with the comment, both will be banned as both are guilty ( [1]) – long before the arbitration begun. Although Thatcher131 knows who Zacheus is from former incidents (see e.g. a recommendation to ban him as a troll - [2]).

After Zacheus promised to leave the project he was renamed, now he has at least three accounts here (some 20 or more blocked sockpuppets on cs.wiki – see [3]). He jumps around trolling and disturbing everywhere: on meta in Nov 2006 he asked to desysop admins and stewards like Datrio, Yann, Dmcdevit, Wikimol (check user on cs.wiki) - [4] approx. November 2006, see also pages on meta like [5], the Czech Wikipedia is (post)communistic (e.g. [6] and many more), the admins on en.wiki are fascists ( [7] or [8]). Trolling on Meta again in last weeks (beeing banned - [9]), trolling on en in articles about A. Halman (see e.g. [10]), claiming mostly "me and Jimbo – we know it and we manage it..", showing his true point of view by an abscure question ( [11]) after I have reverted ( [12]) a perversity ( [13] – category:Polish porn stars) in that article. Banned on cs.wiki for trolling, personal attacks and disturbing the project ( [14]) – the block has been prolonged several times after repeating the same behaviour Blocked on sk.wiki two times in a short time for personal attacks and threatening ( [15]) etc. etc.

He claims some stupid nonsenses in his statement here, which can be proved:

• No 1 – he published my data in the past, real name and domicile, see e.g. [16], after he threatende to do it, see e.g. [17])
• No 5 – after a admin on cs.source blocked a sockpuppet of him, he made legal threat against him in an email - etc. etc.

This is surely not the only case, which I had to think about last time. Sure, it is not bad but normal, that the anonymity of the internet forces trolls and psychopats etc. to troll here in the project. It is deeply iritating anyway to see their manipulative behaviour and disruptive actions and perverse attacks in different projects; but above all it is frustrating to see a great tollerance toward such individuals which forces and supports them here. Thus, I had to ask very often in the last time, if this project is to make an encyclopaedy, or if it is a place for a growing collective harassment, where authors who want to write have no place. And I saw a lot of good people who left in the past. And my time is not money but should be funny. -jkb- 15:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Questions to the arbitration committee

I do not mention that User:Zacheus is making him funny about my English ( [18]), but I am fully consterned that he could write here on the pages of the arbitration sentences like "... I didn't write about -jkb-, but rather about famous Jan Koukal ... In my philosophical conviction ... communist fascists are enemies of freedom of speech ..." [19], (more then 2 weeks ago) without having been cooled down by somebody. This is not only a provocation of mine but of the arbcom as well to see what is possible. Thank you for assistance. -jkb- (cs.source) 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Reaction by Zacheus to Thatcher

I wish to thank Thatcher131 for his excellent summary of the case. Since the whole case is very complicated I wish to bring some additional clarifications.

I was not blocked as late as in May 2006, but already in September 2005, being labelled as the "element" or the "beast".

Decision of the Czech ArbCom is useless. It was made by two (rarely by three) anonymous arbitrators only (both easily identifiable as RuM & Wikimol), both having harsh disputes with me before. I asked many times for their recuses, but to no avail. Their finding that I "published the names of Czech editors" was not based by any evidence.

Concerning accusation of -jkb- that he was a communist collaborator, situation is much more difficult. First of all, I never wrote that statement to any Wikimedia project. Second, -jkb- is in real life a rather famous person. I wrote about him on my blog (which concentrates on media, politics, and history), but only truth.

My petition to change my account to V. Z. was not rejected, but only suspended. User Cynik accused me to be an anti-Semite, although he knew very well that I was punished for pushing pro-Israeli POV. I was so deeply injured that I stopped any further negotiation until this shameful personal attack is removed. But all the Czech sysops refused to do that.

I don't think that I have engaged in fight on meta or have much ill will there. I asked only for renaming and -jkb- to stop using my real name.

As to the article Reconcilee, I established it on 30 January 2006, because it describes the important phenomenon of the Czech Communist past. I was inspired by the cs: article from 26 January 2006. The fact that -jkb- was the reconcilee has been already included there [20]. I deny that I established the article Jan Koukal.

I think that -jkb- at first unintentionally, but after my notice intentionally, mixed me with a vandal. I hoped that multiple user's checks would prevent him mix me with a vandal again. But to no avail.

I never posted -jkb-'s photograph to Commons. I agree that unintentional mentioning of my real name (for example in citing my earlier post to talk pages) is not is not a privacy violation per se. But I hold that both repeated and intentional doing this constitutes harassment.

I would like to add that the account V. Z. has 888 edits and my third account has 318 edits. To sum up I have totally 1440 useful edits on en: only, plus more than 6000 on cs:.

— Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Reaction by Zacheus to -jkb-

I would like to add that -jkb- blocked me in the Wikisource, because I notified blatant copyvios there he had refused to take care of, for instance s:cs:Dva tisíce slov (the famous text of the still living person). He removed my notification as "vandalism" [21] and intentionally falsely marked the text as "PD-manifesto" [22], although he knew pretty well that is not in the public domain.

-jkb-'s distortion of reality is obvious, for example he wrote: Thatcher131 ... recommended "to ban him as a troll". In fact he wrote: "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." I stopped, -jkb- did not, because he continued to reveal my personal data, although they have no connection with my behaviour in en:.

I never promised to leave the project when I would be renamed. In fact, I gave this reason: "Reason: Breaching of my privacy by Egg and -jkb-."

I never said "the admins on en.wiki are fascists".

I was blocked on Meta by -jkb-'s friend. In my view, underage people like Timichal or Datrio should not be sysops. "Therefore, it has been decided that constables must, of course, have all of the qualifications of Citizendium members, and, in addition, have attained the age of 25 years old and be a college graduate." [23]

I was never trolling in articles about A. H., but rather -jkb- intentionally breached WP:BLP by keeping her full name in the name of the article, although Jimbo Wales decided the opposite. [24]

My question was not obscure. I did not see any "rv of porno-vandlism" in the edit. [25] Does anybody see it?

I was not banned on cs.wiki for trolling, personal attacks and disturbing the project, although in cs: is everything possible. Cs: is ruled by the people like -jkb-.

The block has not been prolonged several times after repeating the same behaviour, but simply because I inserted some interwiki and this was considered as breach of the lynching made by -jkb-'s friends Rum and Wikimol (na mol means soused in English).

I never threatened anybody on sk:.

I never wrote about -jkb- on the wiki, but only about trockyist Jan Koukal.

30 January 2006 was before 5 April 2006.

I cannot remember that I made a legal threat against somebody (who?) even in an e-mail. I suppose, it is another -jkb-'s lie.

— Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Wait a minute... you're both accusing each other of stalking one another? Matthew 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Pretty bold of jkb to file a case against V.Z. for revealing personal information when jkb has done exactly the same thing as recently as today. I'll have to check my e-mail archives to refresh my memory of this incident, but as it seems that neither V.Z. nor jkb can leave this incident alone, some form of banning is required. I have half a mind to simply ban V.Z. outright since he is the one who brought this dispute from cs wikipedia to en in the first place, but jkb's conduct is not above examination. Additional response possibly to follow. Thatcher131 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Background

Zacheus (former account V.Z. which was renamed from V______ Z______ his real name) was banned from the Czech wikipedia after an arbitration case there [26]. The case included allegations that Zacheus published the names of Czech editors and that he accused -jkb- of being a communist collaborator [27]. In the aftermath of the case, Zacheus attempted to change the name of his account on cs from his real name to V.Z. and was rejected there; there was a big fight on meta and much ill will on all sides, apparently.

After being banned on cs.wikipedia, Zacheus posted some material to his en user page (now deleted) in which he responded to discussion of himself that was occuring on the cs admins' noticeboard (see User_talk:Thatcher131/Archive7#User_talk:Zacheus for explanation and partial translation, see also here). I asked Zacheus to delete his user page and to stop bringing the cs drama to en [28] and he did so.

In the past, Zacheus and -jkb- have made multiple accusations that each is trying to "out" the other's real identity. It appears that Zacheus has at least once created an attack article on en.wiki against a person he believes to be -jkb- [29] [30] [31] — although Zacheus has never explicitly stated on en.wiki that so-in-so is the real name of editor -jkb-. (See generally User:-jkb-/Vandalism and impostors.) Zacheus has also accused -jkb- of wikistalking and trying to "out" him. There is also a persistent Czech vandal with a pattern of racist vandalism and attacks on -jkb-, although Checkuser established that the vandal was unrelated to Zacheus.

Zacheus ( talk · contribs) has just over 200 edits. -jkb- ( talk · contribs) has just over 500 edits.

What's new

It appears that the current complaint began with an editing dispute over 2006 Gdansk school suicide incident, an article with BLP problems, about the suicide of a 14 year old girl following an alleged sexual assault. Zacheus added the words "alleged" [32] which -jkb- reverted with the edit summary rv of a quite insulting edit. At one point admin Thebainer blanked and redirected the article; -jkb- reverted and moved it back to the name of the victim. -jkb-'s action was reversed by Jimbo Wales [33]. See Talk:2006 Gdansk school suicide incident for more. -jkb- complained to Jimbo ( very negative experience for me) and including Zacheus' real name, bringing up the events on cs, and arguing that by deleting the article, Jimbo was supporting the efforts of vandals. Zacheus' reply.

Earlier in the dispute, [34] -jkb- attempted to undermine Zacheus' position by referencing his banning on cs. This is the earliest direct conflict between them that I can find since December.

There is nothing in Zacheus' en.wiki contributions (after December 2006) to indicate that he is harassing or threatening to expose -jkb- or that he is in any way a disruptive editor. I do not know whether Zacheus is involved in the publication of a photo of -jkb- as alleged, but if so, it occured off-wiki and involved multiple editors. Based only on en.wiki contributions, -jkb- is the one who won't let this long-simmering dispute rest, although there may be more going on beneath the surface or on other language wikipedias. Thatcher131 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Final followup?

• See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive153#Breaching_of_my_privacy.
• Checkuser confirms that slovak user V. Z. is the same as User:Zacheus [35]. I find it an unlikely coincidence that after threatening to publish -jkb-'s photo on the slovak wikipedia, that other users would just happen to post the photo to meta, unless there was some coordination.
• -jkb-'s repeated posting of Zacheus's name is not a privacy violation per se as his name is the former account name of V.Z., and there is ample evidence and discussion of this fact on wiki; however it does seem rude to keep bringing it up.

Thatcher131 has looked into this carefully and unless one of the parties refutes his findings with specific diffs showing additional, recent problematic behavior, I think we can take his statement as a fair summary of the situation, at least insofar as it is reflected on En-Wiki. If that is the case, it seems clear that both parties need to be strongly admonished to stay away from each other and enjoined that under no circumstances are they to discuss each other's real identities, off-wiki political activities, and the like, or to bring the very troublesome disputes from other projects here. Hopefully, at least one of the parties has already gotten that message, but it could stand repeating to both. Strong sanctions should then be imposed on either of the parties (or anyone else) if they were to engage in any further behavior of this kind.

Although these admonitions and instructions need to be given, I am not at all sure that the best vehicle for doing so is through a formal arbitration case. Opening a case will provide a vehicle for the parties to lambaste one another for both their on- and off-wiki activites and to continue importing here their disputes from other projects, and in fact would almost require them to continue criticizing each other on high-profile arbitration pages, while what is really desired is precisely for them to disengage from each other. Opening a case would also prolong consideration of a dispute that, if the parties abide by the instructions they are given, should be resolvable relatively quickly, and add to the committee's caseload at a time when it is busy with other pressing business.

Accordingly, I suggest that the case be declined, but with appropriate language in the arbitrators' comments advising both parties to immediately discontinue the types of behavior noted, and that administrators then follow up to make sure that the admonition is being heeded. This would of course be without prejudice to sanctions by either admins or ArbCom if this proves necessary due to future problems, which hopefully it would not. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

VZ was banned from editing on Czech Wiki after very long period of nasty conflicts with several editors. Accusations of being fascist or secret police collaborator or mere idiot were the daily bread, on Wikipedia and outside. It may be quite hard to understand on en: the extent of such a conflict on a small Wiki.

After his ban VZ (and few others who supported him) moved to other Wikies and continued in their attacks (I documented some it in Evidence). These attacks are very persistent, nasty and bear the same signature. I am suprised that -jkb- reacted to this cyber-hunting so mildly and it is on the RfA only now.

I suggest:

1. To block Zacheus and any other accounts that will attack participants of the Czech arbitration in the future.
2. Advise VZ to use only one active account (he had several identified on Czech Wiki, here it is the old User: V. Z. and almost certainly User:Zorro CX).
3. Any further RfCs or arbitrations should be directed to the Czech Wiki Arbcom which has more information and more context. What is happening here is only spillover of the drama from cs:.
4. Behaviour of -jkb- should not be equalled with VZ, that would be relativizing the victim with the attacker.

• explanation for the "uninvolved": witnessing the wars on Czech Wiki (they started in 2005) I decided not to work there. I hope these wars can be avoided on en:.
• "underage steward Datrio": this is a very mild example of the kind of arguments exchanged on cs: during the wars.

Pavel Vozenilek 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I have noticed that the fact of revealing -jkb-'s real name by Zacheus is compared with revealing Zacheus' name by -jkb-. But it is not the same. As far as I know, Zacheus used to have his user name on cs.wiki identical with his real name, and it is of course impossible to refer to his deeds there without mentioning his cs user name. If he had wanted to keep his real name secret, he should have changed it for the wiki purposes. I would feel ridiculous if I attacked somebody for revealing my name because he talked about my wiki activities using my (practically identical, just diacritics missing) wiki user name. Jan.Kamenicek 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Moved here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Picaroon (t) 02:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I would like the Arbcom to confirm that User:V. Z. is an alternate account or a sockpuppet of User:Zacheus, and is subject to the decision. (Originally, the account V. Z. was the user's real name, then it was blocked on the user's request, then it was - again on the user's request and to protect his privacy - renamed to V. Z. and the user created another account Zacheus to use [he indeed confirmed that they are operated by the same person], but the block did not carry over after the rename.) - Mike Rosoft 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Is there some reason for this request? A user can have more than one account as long as they are not used abusively. Thatcher131 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed; in fact, I have an alternate account, and it's an open secret which one it is (hint: look at the history of my user page). On Czech Wikipedia V.Z. was known to evade his ban using sockpuppet accounts (I don't know of any evidence of their misuse on English Wikipedia), and also had a habit of wikilawyering, so I would like it to be explicitly declared. - Mike Rosoft 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Given Zacheus was put under restrictions, it would make sense along the lines of the recent incident with Vickers on AE, no? Daniel 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I am uneasy about this request because it is so vague. Certainly it is part of the case evidence that V. Z. and Zacheus are both accounts used by this person. He changed the name of the V. Z. account because it was his personal name; the account still links to talk page edits signed with his real name. However, neither account has contributed much lately and there are no accusations that Zacheus has been misbehaving, so the only outcome of this request is to call attention to the prior case and its particulars. Thatcher131 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Probably best to make a note at the Arb case page that a user renamed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps}

  This fact is noted on the case page. Picaroon (t) 02:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

See point of remedies (... restricted ... importing outside disputes, including disputes from other Wikimedia projects, into the English Wikipedia;) and enforcements (... Should ... Zacheus, editing under any account name [= V. Z.] or IP, violate the direction contained in the "Remedies" section of this decision, he may be blocked ...), and compare it with these contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/V._Z. from October 1st. Thx for your patience, -jkb- (cs.source) 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply