Jump to content

Requests for comment/Cswiki issues 3

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. The request was eventually archived as inactive.

deCheckUser Wikimol


Czech CheckUser cs:User:Wikimol repeatedly spoils my privacy. He checked the identity of cs:Wikipedista:Emil Ká, although he was already blocked. The obvious but not expressed reason was to breach my privacy, although Mr. Zanatic in the flame war with Nolanus explained to both of them there is no reason for CheckUser. In my view breaching of the privacy at cs: must end. If you have the other opinion, please let me know why. -- Zacheus 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However I clearly stated that it was just my opinion and I would respect any Checkuser's decision. Zanatic 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't. My privacy was breached, not yours. -- Zacheus 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The check was important, because sockpuppet Emil Ká broken time allovanced ban from czech Arbcom against cs:User:V. Z. Check was necessary for legitimate restart of ban. Cinik 12:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Zanatic explained to you, the ban was already restarted before the check. That's why the check was completely unreasonable and its only purpose was to breach my privacy (again). If you did not understand his Czech, I hope you will understand my English. -- Zacheus 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restart is illegitimate without check. Check was necessary and OK. Cinik 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where have read your original opinion? Checking is available only in small amount of wikis, especially in en: & cs:. In other wikis restarting is not possible? Allowing checking in cs: was a terrible mistake, because this privilege is a subject of constant abuse. -- Zacheus 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Zacheus: There would be no checks against your sockpuppets if wou weren't avoiding your ban with them. Wait quietly one year until the ban expires. Requesting the removal of Wikimol's flag in such situation is simply an insolence. --Egg 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that petition for respecting my privacy is an insolence, you have passed the best certificate about situation at cs: and Wikimol's behaviour. I have to add that I was banned by decision of 2 (in full two; yes, two only) my enemies: Beren and Wikimol. Beren uses sockpuppets himself (even in voting) and Wikimol was largely criticised. -- Zacheus 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that Egg was recently censured for trolling people. -- Zacheus 06:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@VZ In my opinion this discussion here is pointless - as you can read in CheckUser#Removal of access, suspicion of abuse should be discussed locally first. The role of stewards is to enact the will of local community. As no objections regarding my decision were raised on cs: it's hard to see such will. Nevertheless, as cs: has arbcom, according to the policy you can fill a complain to cs: arbcom. Well - you probably also don't trust cs: arbcom... So what you really want to ask for is removal of my CheckUser flag by decision of some authority external to cs: wiki. According to mentioned policy such authority is the board of Wikimedia Foundation, so if you realy really believe your privacy was violated, go ahead and fill a complain to the board.
I've allready explained on cs: what was that important bit when I was deciding - after you'd been bannned and subsequently blocked, apart other things you also threatened to damage cs: wiki by slowly including mistakes (so called stealth vandalism). If you respected the ban and followed another of your statements - that you're leaving cs: completely - there wouldn't be much reason for checking. But if you create new accounts and engage in discussions, my worry is, whether your activity is limited to such relatively harmless malice or you do also something malign in articles.

(Please: Further talk here is a waste of time of all concerned, so I'm not going to reply even if you dispute all of my words. If you really believe some of your rights were wrongly invaded, follow due procedures, if you simply want to argue, please find some other fora and someone else. Thanks.) --Wikimol 18:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share your view that people on Meta are formalists who would require to discuss spoling of privacy of the banned Wikipedian on the part of the Wikipedia where he or she is banned.
If the role of stewards is not to prevent breaching of the privacy in the future by improper CheckUsers, by whom is this role assumed?
It is obvious that I could not raise an objection on cs:, because banned Wikipedian there are not able to edit even their own talk pages. You should reverse this practice.
OK, I will fill a suit to the Czech ArbCom. I curious at its reasoning of my request refusing, since I have no doubt about its decision.
Board of Wikimedia Foundation was deaf to many more important petitions, that's why I won't waste my time.
so called stealth vandalism I confess that after almost one year of terror by you and your colleagues one day I just lost my nerves. Last drop was repeated vandalizing of my own user page. I apologize that I did not act as a martyr quietly taking all your strokes.
followed another of your statements - that you're leaving cs: completely Yes, you are correct. I was a bad guy who after reading some articles decided to correct some typos. It is the bannable offence on cs:. Now, when I notice any poor quality article, I just leave it alone.
I would like to leave cs:, but problem is that people from cs: (-jkb- and Egg) come here and elsewhere and breach my privacy. What should I do?
engage in discussions I was baited and mocked by your colleagues, which is against established policy in every civilized part of Wikipedia. I just reacted to these baits and mocks and you did nothing to supress them.
my worry is, whether your activity is limited to such relatively harmless malice or you do also something malign in articles. If I dediced to malign activies, you woudn't detect them by checking of users. That's why your argument is not sounded and only an alibi for placid sniffling into my privacy. In your approach, everyone is suspect and should be checked. I reject this notion.
I'm not going to reply It is your problem, not mine. By refusing to defend your actions you passed a certificate how good CheckUser you are and what is your respect to privacy.
-- Zacheus 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]