Requests for comment/Cswiki issues

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

From Requests for permissions#Removal of access; moved by Aphaia

There is no concensus about those requests, hence it needs more discussion in another place.


Urgent action is needed: cs:Wikipedista:Vrba arbitrarily, for no clear violation of rules, bans many users:

  1. 13:14, 23. 8. 2005 Vrba zablokovává „Wikipedista:Pastorius“ s časem vypršení 2 hours (editace cizich stranek)
  2. 13:12, 23. 8. 2005 Vrba zablokovává „Wikipedista:Cinik“ s časem vypršení 1 day (urážka wikipedisty)
  3. 13:11, 23. 8. 2005 Vrba zablokovává „Wikipedista:V. Z.“ s časem vypršení 1 week (Neustálé konflikty a snaha narušit chod
  4. 00:13, 20. 8. 2005 Vrba zablokovává „Wikipedista:Jvano“ s časem vypršení 1 day (4x revert) [1])
  5. 23:13, 4. 8. 2005 Vrba zablokovává „Wikipedista:V. Z.“ s časem vypršení 1 day (nedodržování wikietikety)
  6. 12:17, 30. 7. 2005 Vrba zablokovává „Wikipedista:Pastorius“ s časem vypršení 3 days (hrube poruseni wikietikety)

I think he should be desysopped, even no consensus is yet taken (and I cannot participate in it, since I am banned for seven days.) -- V. Z. 12:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

en:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - thanks to this page, the community doesn't really need a rule for everything there is. From what I understand, Jvano was banned for making 4 reverts of an article, you and Pastorius were banned from breakin the "Wikietiket" (and later you were banned for conflicts) - am I correct? Datrio 13:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, so far 11 wikipedians, including 3 sysops, expressed suport for today blocking by cs:Wikipedista:Vrba. One (Jvano) disagrees. --Radouch 13:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they belong to the clique which took over the Czech Wikipedia. All these sysops were nominated by me and it has been their personal revenge for my critique of them. -- V. Z. 13:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of my cases: 4. 8. 2005 - I was banned for "not following wikiquette", not specified. 23. 8. 2005 - I was banned for "Permanent conflicts and a try to disturb the progress of". This I deny. I only asked sysops for action concerning "Where the use makes it practical it is recommended that you provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that one person is using them all.", not to edit my home page and so on. -- V. Z. 13:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Within 30 min after banning has sysop cs:Wikipedista:Vrba 11 thanks on Administrators' noticeboard (cs: Wikipedie:Nástěnka správců) from other wikipedians for his courage. -- Pastorius
V. Z. does not accept any solution against him from any arbitrator (in order Radouch,Mormegil,Vrba - each is called by him "enemy" or is accused for violating rights). V. Z. enforced Mr. Vrba as sysop during the voting about desysoping (Mr. Vrba voted NO) without asking about the community will, but OK. Because the most of sysops was involved in the cause and others did not want to come in flame wars, Mr. Vrba starts to solve the worst problems as arbitrator. Other participant of flame war accepted his decisions (several of them were banned), but V. Z. did not as usual. It is thankless work to be indipendent arbitrator in V. Z.'s cases. --Beren 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This typical statement of the leader of the group which took over Czech Wikipedia. There are typical manipulations for them:
  1. Beren one time said: "Mr V. Z. is right, unfortunately." This is best expression of his personal attitude towards me.
  2. Beren resigned as a sysop in a protest that Czech community wished me to remain the bureaucrat.
  3. arbitrator (in order Radouch,Mormegil,Vrba These persons are not arbitrators. Radouch is my leading enemy, Mormegil did not act in this whole case (he just voted against me), Vrba only punished me two times with severe and unjustified penalty.
  4. My unilateral nominating of Mr Vrba for sysopping was established practice in Czech Wikipedia. Last time before me it was used by Mormegil three months ago.
  5. There are some bureaucrats who are involved in the case on neither side: Ludek & Malýčtenář, and sysops: Daniel Mayer, Michal Jurosz, Miroslav MALOVEC, Mojza & Wikimol.
  6. I did not accept the punishment, because I did not break any established rule, but I was banned for seven days, the other two did, but they were banned only for several hours. This is complete injustice.
-- V. Z. 07:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is true color of V. Z. Half-truth, lies and manipulation with facts. For example:

In the same time was V. Z. banned not for a week, but for 1 day and I was banned not for serveral hours, but for 3 days. His current ban (1 week) is a result his current "holy war".

cs:Wikipedista:Pastirus 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Pastirus, in fact "Pastorius", is the one who wrote: "I promise I smash your mouth [in original there was used the vulgar expression] in the nearest ocassion." For this crime he was banned for 3 days only. He used one of his IP addresses for editing after 1,5 day of banning. For this he was never punished and the punishment expired after another of 1,5 day. -- V. Z. 12:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is true. I said: "I promise I smash your mouth in the nearest occasion, if you immediately don't stop me displease." and my editing after 1,5 day of banning was the apology and notification of leaving wikipedia, because V. Z. has started to persecute his enemies after "successful" voting. Please Mr. V. Z., DO NOT DO THE PRESS CENSORSHIP.

-- cs:Wikipedista:Pastorius

You "forgot" to add your own words: "This is not a threat. [??? - remark by me]. If you don't stop with injuries [There were none. - remark by me], I'm gonna execute you immediately. I have your business card, that's why I find you."
I haven't persecuted anybody, I haven't got such a power.
I haven't censored anybody, I've just removed your vandalism of this page. -- V. Z. 19:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. cs:Wikipedista:Pastorius

But originally Pastorius has written this: "I have no time to translate all your attacks and injuries (this is small book). It is not conflict between you and me. It is a conflict between you and czech wikipedian community. You are the coward. I feel ashamed of you. Do come round." (boldness mine) and vandalised other's edits again. Wouldn't be useful to block Pastorius for doing this? -- V. Z. 07:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I ask for de-adminship of User:Fantasy. He has violated his stewardship rights, because there was no consensus for de-adminship me on cs:. More on User:V. Z./V. Z. v. Fantasy. -- V. Z. 07:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you said it by yourself:
The quorum was unilaterally set up to 66.666 %. The so called "voting for desysopping me" was one-month long provocation. I was called in different times a bastard, shammer, hick, pussy-licker, and manipulator. The rafactoring was always reverted. For all these injuries and personal attacks no one was ever punished. I was even threaten by bodily harm one time. Under this permanent stress I have made mistakes, I admit. But the actual result was 25 from 38 which is 65,789 % = no concensus.
It is clear the users on cs: didn't want you being an admin, and even though there wasn't the specified ammount of votes in favor for desysopping you, there was a consensus that you should be deadminned. I'll let more stewards to discuss this, but come on - it was only 1 % - if we'd follow all the rules so hard, that would be plain stupid. Take a look at WP:IAR on the English Wikipedia - use commons sense in such cases. Datrio 08:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been clear. The consensus was set at 66.666 % (= quite low). Many people did not vote, because they did not find it necessary. Rules are rules and they should be obeyed even in the case they are not for us favourable.
The quorum for voting was not the the most important thing. It was the whole arbitrary desysopping process based on unclear rules, provocative, and totally unwikipedian. -- V. Z. 09:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out some more facts. The desysop vote started because of very controversal usage of sysop and bureaucrat rights by V. Z. (Blocking users, nominating new sysops etc.) During the vote, V. Z. repeated many times that everyone who votes against him becomes his enemy. He requested personal appology from everyone doing so. After the vote and before his wikiholiday, he stated explicitly that he will never cooperate with anyone voting against him and he has demonstrated this posture by many of his edits. It became obvious that he abandoned the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia for his personal aims. Today he has returned from the wikiholiday and he created a subpage of his personal page called Fiat iustitia pereat mundus. The name is a quote which can be translated as: Let justice be done, though the world perish. My question is: Should Czech Wikipedia perish for a very doubtful justice for one sysop, who is not considered trustful by many Czech wikipedians including sysops designated by himself? --Egg 10:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks about this individium: Egg called me a shammer and manipulator. For both there injuries or personal attacks he was never punished. He acts like the head of a group which wishes to leave me Wikipedia forver. Reasons are personal. I was involved in a discussion with him about famous Czech forgeries and famous Czech mystification. I explained to him Wikipedian standards. Since then he hates me.
The desysop vote started because of very controversal usage of sysop and bureaucrat rights by V. Z. (Blocking users, nominating new sysops etc.) This is untrue. I blocked one user because of violating 3RR.
During the vote, V. Z. repeated many times that everyone who votes against him becomes his enemy. This was because this voting has no rules, it was merely a lynch to fulfill their predecided plan: To make me leave Wikipedia forever.
He requested personal appology from everyone doing so. Yes, because participating in lynching is against Wikiquette.
After the vote and before his wikiholiday, he stated explicitly that he will never cooperate with anyone voting against him and he has demonstrated this posture by many of his edits. The second lie. I clearly indicated the will to forgive.
My question is: Should Czech Wikipedia perish for a very doubtful justice for one sysop My aim is not perishing of Wikipedia. No citation should be interpreted such litteraly.
who is not considered trustful by many Czech wikipedians By 25 from 1415.
-- V. Z. 17:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am one of sysops on Czech wikipedia. In the beginning of July I voted against removal of sysops right for V. Z. I thought such a removal would be unfair because his opponents - according to my opinion - also contravened wikietiquette guidelines. Unfortunately main activity of V. Z. now is accusing other wikipedians who voted against him, creating pages about his "lynch" and so on. His behaviour did not change after the end of voting when he thought he won, and it is not better now when he is desysoped. I do not think, that he could be good sysop now. --Karakal 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is very personal statement from the reasons I don't wish to go in detail for sake remaining a gentleman. -- V. Z. 19:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support the de-adminship of Fantasy. He simply carried out what he felt was the consensus of the community. If anyone on cs feels that wasn't the case, they're welcome to re-admin V. Z. The wiki has three bureaucrats who could reverse Fantasy's decision, so this isn't a steward matter anymore. Angela 11:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but but the vote of the czech wiki was obviously ok. If you read above, there were only 25 from 1415 users fopr it, so it is a complete nonsence, as the czech wiki has just about some dozens of active users - the numbver 1415 are all user which registered. And I would propose to look at the czech wiki and the situation - it is rather critical and even if V. Z. will stay there as a normal usual user, I think in short time the most other users will leave the wiki (as many did already in the past). -jkb- 11:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (sysop in cs:)[reply]
This is because Czech sysops are very lazy (including me when I was one) to make rules for solving disputes. There is no prompt solution, no Arbitration Committee or Arbitrator, and that makes users angry. -- V. Z. 12:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is virtually impossible. CS: has now only three bureaucrats cs:Special:Listusers/bureaucrat. cs:Wikipedista:Mormegil is my enemy, cs:Wikipedista:Ludek is no longer active since 15 August 2005, and it would be a heavy burden to ask cs:Wikipedista:Malýčtenář to stand against 25 very active a very loud flamers. -- V. Z. 12:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I agree with Angela; Fantasy's actions were obviously along the lines of what was felt by him to be the community's consensus opinion. If V. Z. "shouldn't" have been de-sysop'ed, then he can be re-made one by the bureaucrats.
James F. (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I cannot find the support here, I have to ask en:WP:RFAr. -- V. Z. 12:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think V. Z. should remain a sysop.


cs:Wikipedista:jvano is often victim of the clique led by -jkb-. I tried to protect him, but unfortunately many times in vain. -- V. Z. 12:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether V. Z. should stay sysop or not, it is irrelevant with the action of Fantasy. There was no abuse from Fantasy, but wish to help in carrying out a task within his role. What I would suggest is a middle decision. First solution : Remove sysop status of V. Z. for 1 month. Second solution : remove sysop status and let him have to ask again for sysop status. Apply usual rules for this second nomination. In any cases, this is an internal problem of the czech and we will not take the decision for your community. We can only offer suggestions. user:Anthere.

ad First solution. I agree.
ad Second solution. This is impossible. There are no rules for sysop nomination at cs:.
Yes, it is internal problem of cs:, but IMHO it is impossible to solve it. I began with my punishment of 3RR. Then was a voting, which I passed successfully. Then was unilateral decission of -jkb- and Fantasy. Then my twice banning by Mr Vrba. These chain of actions and reactions could not be solved internally, I think. In cs: there is no indepedent arbitrator who would have trust of both the parties. -- V. Z. 13:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Impossible" is not a word I recognise valid. When there is a will, there is a path. If there is no rule for sysop nomination, then suggest a rule, discuss it and get it approved. When I was first made sysop (it was on the french wikipedia), there was no rule at all, since there were no sysops. Well, the three people (Aoineko, Shaihulud and myself) interested said they volunteered. We ask if any one disagreed and no one did. So, we were given the password to become sysops (the software was in the first version, so no sysop interface to do things). This was the only rule at that time : you ask, if no one complains, you are sysop. Later, when we started being more numerous, we proposed something more complicated, such as at least 2 weeks request, 5 people speaking and more than 75% support. And that was it. Impossible simply does not exist. You need something, you work for it. Meanwhile, I let the cz editors decide between solution 1 (temporary removal, and I'll restore the status if no bureaucrat does it in one month from now), solution 2 : the cz editors work out a page with basic rules for getting admin access on the project, you apply in a month and if access is given you are restored admin. jkb, is that okay ? user:anthere 25 august
It seems to be a good aprooval for the czech wiki indeed. At he moment there is a voting on How to accept new rules, as there is no rule at all by now (see :cs:Wikipedie:Pravidlo pro přijímání pravidel) . The voting should end at Sept 17th. After this, there are more proposals how to manage the current crisis, above others there was a proposal to discus not only how to vote new sysops (i.e. vote, indeed, not to make them sysops by a bureaucrat like up to now), but also there is a proposal, that all sysops who got this function up to now should be revoted or confirmed by the community. So I think if you let us some time we shall solve this problem. There is a great suspection against making something verry quickly (so e.g. let us ban somebody for ever in a voting in three days) and also against something like lex V. Z.. We are a small community, but we do it. Thanks for trusting us. -jkb- 16:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say almost the same thing as -jkb- wrote few minutes ago. There is good will on cs: to formalize elections of sysops and bureaucrats, but there is 'no (at first I wrongly typed "now", sorry} chance to finalize this process in one month. On the other hand, there is very little will to cooperate with V. Z. even if he stays on Czech wikipedia as a normal user because of his behaviour in last two months; his resysoping by stewards would have devastating effect on cs: I afraid. --Radouch 16:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (one of sysops on cs:)[reply]
I agree with Radouch that there's a small clique of users (perhaps a dozen out of 1444 users) in cs: which has very little will to cooperate with me (IMHO none).
I don't agree with Radouch that my resysoping by stewards would have devastating effect on cs:. I won the vote on confidence. I don't think that all 25 users who have voted against me has not accepted the result. It is only a very tiny minority of people who hate me and has no will to cooperate with me, like -jkb-, Pastorius, or Radouch. -- V. Z. 08:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be precise: "I won" means "25 users voted against me, 11 for me, 2 abstained". See here. Argument about 1444 registered users needs no comment, I guess ;-) --Radouch 09:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Radouch once said: "I will ask stewards only if 75 % of voters is for desysopping." -- V. Z. 12:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
V. Z. says "small clique of users". Please notice, now has cs: only about 20-25 users with more than 100 edits in month. [2] -- Pastorius
May of 2005 statistics? I am among recently absent wikipedians. :-) -- V. Z. 12:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is immaterial objection. It is irrelevant whether 25 or 26. You say about 1444 and it is the difference. Pastorius

If there is someone who cannot believe what she/he is reading here, so I can tell her/him, she/he is not alone in this universe. -jkb- 14:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Respectable colleague -jkb-, be sure, you are not alone in this virtual universe.--Jan Pospíšil 12:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

then all is well. It is good Cz is working on some rules to elect the new sysops. For now, V. Z., you are unsysopped. When the new rules are set up, please apply again locally and if you are supported within the new rules, you will be back a sysop. In the meanwhile, I recommand that you help set up the rules on Cz. You are also welcome to help translate the last quarto. Cheers. Anthere 15:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anthere, I reply only today, because Pastorius (the one who threaten me with bodily harm) has deleted your comment.
I find ridiculous the master - slave mentality of the lynchers. They are servile towards you because they consider you a master, they are ungentle towards me because they consider me a slave. My opponents don't wish any compromise (your first proposal). They wish absolute victory. That's why they propose even two bills how to vote new sysops, although there is no clear rule how to adopt it, beacause formalizing voting about new policies & guidelines has just begun. Both the proposals suffer of many errors. (My profession is to revise Czech legislation, that's why I know that.) Some examples (from many others): prejudice against "organisers" (people like Angela) in favour of "editors" (people who save their edits more time) counting of abstaining, automatic desysopping of current sysops, prejudice against experienced users from other parts of Wikipedia (especially en:) etc. Therefore I viewed them as a confirmation of hostile take-over of Czech Wikipedia.
In my opinion it would be unfortunate if I candidated. The atmosphere of cs: is hostile to everybody who supports me. For example sysop Karakal was twice persuaded by e-mails of both Radouch and -jkb- to change her vote for me in the process. I think this of one the reasons why she has changed the sides now. Anyone who would vote for me would suffer hostile campaign against him or her. For example sysop Tom Pecina (see below) mitigated the unjustified banning of me. As a result Tom Pecina was proposed to be desysopped and I was immediately banned again, although I didn't make even one edit and Wikiquette stipulates to asssume good faith. Beyond this Tom Pecina was warned not to try mitigate banning of me anymore. The bureaucrat Malý čtenář proposed mitigating the 7-day ban to the 6-day ban. He was laughed at and pressed to assume personal responsibility for my behaviour. The whole situation could be illustrated by two another bills: Pravidlo V. Z. (The V. Z. Rule; the bill to ban me forever) and Pravidlo ostrakizace (The Rule to Ban for Long [= 1 month or more] or Undefinite Period; generalisation of Pravidlo V. Z.).
Since I am banned I cannot help set up the rules on Cz. Even if I weren't banned I could not help. For example I've tried to help mitigate frequent revert wars. I've proposed a guideline Every revert considered harmful. This proposal was immediately placed on VfD. Concerning translation of the last quarto I am not a good translator. My translations are too literal.
-- V. Z. 07:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear V. Z., please stop these activities. We spoke about all these things personally. So be a little bit critical to yourself and communicate with the Czech community more kindly, more as gentleman, and you could be among the Czech leaders back again. Go back to work, not to fight, please! With WikiLove, your friend --Jan Pospíšil 12:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC) look and[reply]

How to be kind, when this clique effectively blocked alleviating unjustified banning of mine? The punishment of violating 3RR was alleviated to merely one hour, the punishment of the crime was alleviated to 1,5 day. I am banned for nothing for 7 long days. -- V. Z. 14:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a justification of the ban regarding V. Z., and what I was given in response was so ludicrous and childish I could not believe what I read: one example is that his behavior "disturbed the friendly atmosphere" prevailing among the users of CS wiki, the other that he "argued too much". I understand two warring clans of kids in a kindergarten could make similar explanations of their animosities, but I was horrified that these were (presumably) adults behaving like peevish, intolerant idiots. I am led to believe that the real reason behind this bullying is V. Z.'s habit of voicing strong, clear-cut opinions and his unwillingness to refute what he considers prima facie absurd. I understand V. Z. (who I happen to know personally) can be difficult to deal with at times. Yet, the ad-hoc "majority" that seems to have formed at the CS wiki appears to be acting very abusively, effectively destroying the democratic principles of the community and usurping powers that go far beyond what could be useful for the project. --Tompecina 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on the subject:
1.De-sysoping of V. Z. by User:Fantasy - this was not really fortunate. There was relatively clear consensus on cs: that V. Z. (mis)used sysop rights, in his personal conflict, something a trustworthy sysop can't do. On the other hand there was some oposition against establishing some "vote for desysoping" procedure (see also en: policy on that matter...), the consensus on desysoping was less clear, and there were some promises V. Z. won't use sysop rights in his conflicts agin.
Generally, in so controversial case as forcible removal of access, it would be better to be more careful, 1/3 is signifficant minority, and if there was some formal rule on vote counting, it should have been followed. IMHO voting for desysoping should not be seen as a mere mirror image of voting for admin status.
2. request for de-adminship of User:Fantasy - this is pure nonsense and attempt to escalate the conflict to a higher level. Fantasy acted in good faith.
Ad current situation in cs: - after the removal of sysop status, V. Z. enganged in more conflicts, almost unable to cooperate with wikipedians, who woted against him. As I was on holiday (and wikiholiday) for a month and a half, I don't know the details of the story. A the end of August, big part of V. Z.s edits was deliberately bad-faith. Most of the time V. Z. stayded on the edge of letter of various wikipedia guidelines (beeing a lawer and very experienced wikipedian and former sysop, ), in fact creatively misusing them to stir conflicts. Obviously, after months of conflicts, he usualy found somene willing to fight. The conflict with some users escalated to personal insults on their side and legal threat by V. Z. (which led to legal counter-threats...).
Now, V. Z. has been blocked indefinitely. Quickpoll is going on that matter (now there is a consensus-2).
V. Z. will probably argue the voting wikipedians are his enemies. In my opinion

  1. really, there is a group of "enemies", engaged in former conflicts
  2. majority of Czech wikipedians feel latest activity of V. Z. was causing singinfficant disruption to the project. nothing personal
  3. the solution is not exactly just, because no action was taken against users whose fight against V. Z. was against basic rules of civility and many guidelines of Wikipedia were punished only by short-term block, and not after voting etc.

Unfortunately, now there isnt anybody with formal authority to make a judgement, and probably not even anybody with suffcient informal authority. Now, last availiable step in conflict resolution on cs: is mediation (which failed in case of VZ) and something/someone able to decide some "forcible" solution is missing. (Unfortunately, compared to en: in its youth, cs: don't have Jimbo :-). And what autority has one wikipedian over anoother wikipedian? Thus, dealing with conflict at such level required involvement of big part of the community, enless disputes, various polls, policy proposals, etc... Which would not be a big deal in en:, but if in cs: 10 active wikipedians are occupied with a conflict, and the whole Wikipedia has maybe 20 very active contributors...
Ad future developement

  1. in near future (two months or so) cs: will have formal rules for voting for adminship..
  2. I hope in several months (~end of the year), we'll have something like ArbCom.
  3. When such institution will be established, V. Z. will certainly have right to appeal and judged his case in some normal manner.

I'm really ashamed with maybe 20 very active wikipedians we at cs: have one "banned", need ArbCom and this discussion is going on meta. --Wikimol 13:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC) (note: chandged upon request, after exmining the history) --Wikimol 11:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my defence at User:V. Z./My defence. -- V. Z. 07:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning comments by Wikimol:
ad 2. Maybe, but what should I have done? His act was not really fortunate, I agree. Should the steward do unfortunate acts?
I don't consider editing controversial topic as being in bad faith. I never deleted other's POV, I just edited them. If I was reverted, I mostly just added NPOV or Two Versions template. I reverted removing of the templates or bad faith edits (simple deleting of my edits, with no attempt for rewording to achieve NPOV).
There was relatively clear consensus on cs: that V. Z. (mis)used sysop rights, in his personal conflict, something a trustworthy sysop can't do. I agree, I punished 3RR in which I was involved. But violation of 3RR was clear and after that I admitted that acting in my own case was a mistake. Since then I never repeated that.
in fact creatively misusing them to stir conflicts This is very hard charging, which I deny. Creating and editing articles about controversial topics is no bad behaviour per se.
Obviously, after months of conflicts, he usualy find somene willing to fight. ??? I haven't wished to fight.
and legal threads by V. Z. ??? I never passed a suit (action) against anybody. I was just determined to seek police protection against one Wikipedian.
majority of Czech wikipedians feel latest activity of V. Z. was causing singinfficant disruption to the project. nothing personal They are influenced by propaganda of my personal enemies. I have no power to defend myself, since I am banned for the third time.
the solution is not exactly just, because no action was taken against users, whose fight against V. Z. was against basic rules of civility and many guidelines of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, now there isnt anybody with formal authority to make a judgement, and probablz not even anybody with suffcient informal authority. Yes, but I am punished for my alleged wikicrimes immediatelly, others are not, even I clearly noticed them on my home page.
Now, last availiable step in conflict resolution on cs: is mediation (which failed in case of VZ) I don't think so. There was some compromise. The problem is that mediator was not recognized by the other party. The second refused to be a mediator.
10 active wikipedians are occupied with a conflict Nobody asked them to continue with their personal attacs and evading wikietiquette.
When such institution will be established, V. Z. will certainly have right to appeal and judged his case in some normal manner. Is it normal to be banned for months by unilateral decission for no clear violation of rules?
I'm really ashamed with maybe 20 very active wikipedians we at cs: have one "banned", need ArbCom and this discussion is going on meta. The lynchers rejected compromise proposed by Wikimol, I expressed a will to bargain about it.
-- V. Z. 08:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have voted


Here you will find a private statement on the situatin in the Czech wiki : User:-jkb-/A private statement -jkb- 22:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they have lynched me again (for the third time). I prepare my reaction to the huge amount of lies -jkb- committed in his "private" statement. -- V. Z. 14:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I reject -jkb-'s notion to censure my behaviour outside Wikipedia. Just as Jimbo Wales has full right to do in Bomis whatever he likes, so do I have the right to run my own blog not regulated by Wikipedia rules. It is not easy to forget his own past, but World Wide Web is not totalitarian Czechoslovakia and Mr. -jkb- is not is not Communist official regulating all day long life of his subjects. We have luck and that's why I won't correct his claudicatory translation of my words.

After his desysoping, the user V. Z. started a serie of injuries of other users Plain lie.

of destabilisation of the czech wikipedia Plain lie.

he permanently provoked Plain lie.

disturbed the work here Plain lie.

the otherwise good athmosphere. Plain lie. Cs: if full of edit wars, quarrels, and heated disputes: Mr. Vrba v. Malý čtenář, Radim Hasalík v. Malý čtenář, Mormegil v. Tomáš Pecina, and so on.

He also injured the regullation No legal threats (twice times). Plain lie. As lynchers' knowledge of Wikipedia rules and law in general is limited, they mixed up legal action with seeking police assistance. I've just used the advice "It's also often courteous to ask a site operator — the community in this case — to assist and to notify the other party prior to seeking restraining orders or police assistance to protect yourself from possible threats" which lynchers failed to translate correctly.

After one admin of ou had blocked an anonymous user, who injured another one, the user V. Z. had reverted this Plain line. There was no injury, but just personal attack mixed up with useful information. Mr. -jkb- just deleted the sentence of one the several users he personally hates. I restored it and adviced him refactoring it. Mr. -jkb- probably didn't understand my advice since his knowledge of Wikipedia rules & engine is generally low, although he is a sysop.

He also reverted some issues very often, one of them more then three times. Partly he used his puppet account as user "Z". Yes, I reverted -jkb-'s editing of my home page. I just wished to express that cs:Wikipedista:Z is my second account in order to become publicly well known and minimalize possibility of violating Sock Puppet Policy. Mr. -jkb- acted entirely opposite. For this behaviour he was never punished.

For these reasons he was blocked several times by several admins. I was totally unfairly blocked three times:

  1. 22:13, 4. 8. 2005 by Vrba for not specified "not following wikiquette" for 1 day
  2. 12:11, 23. 8. 2005 by Vrba for not specified "Permanent conflicts and a try to disturb the progress of" for 1 week
  3. 08:20, 2. 9. 2005 by Vrba not specified "He doesn't wish to write the encyclopedia, but to provoke others" for indefinite period
    17:42, 31. 8. 2005 by Mormegil for 3RR for 1 day. In cs:Jásir Arafat I didn't make any my own edit, I just tried to enforce NPOV. I admit I did it more than 3 times. This ban was supported by Radouch and -jkb- with no attempt to enforce NPOV as Beren and me tried.

The abusing of Vrba's sysop rights was 2 times supported by -jkb- in complementary blocking. It can be seen that these "several admins" are in fact known duo Vrba - -jkb-.

The quite enormous result of the voting shows . . . that cs: is now led by mob rule. 36 "collegues" has signed under these words: "I would appreciate if the community would shake off this element. " = speaking about me "I intentionally don't indicate examples of V. Z.'s bestiallity, I don't have stomach to this." "Voting is not allowed to comment." For all these personal attacs he was never punished.

that there is no possibility for a cooperation in the next future In my view, fully satisfactory would be ending of Vishinsky-like punishment of me, punishing injuries and personal attacs towards me and restoring of my rights.

Then, it is no problem, wes hall be able to discuss the question of the user V. Z. once again, if there is a need and a consensus on this question. ???

After the end of voting this midnight, I have blocked also the account V. Z. for infinite, according to the vote of the community. I was already banned by Vrba till the end of my life, that's why there was no need for that. I wonder if everybody of 36 lynchers would agree that voting on "to exclude / not to exclude" actually means "ban till the end of life".

-jkb- 22:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC) (admin in the czech wikipedia since November 2004) By oligarchical decission. It was my fault I enforced it and did not publicly object it. I had only mental reservation since -jkb-'s not knowing of engine and rules has been obvious already at that time and has not improved since.

-- V. Z. 06:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note: the word, which was used to describe actions of V. Z. on the page of the last vote, doesn't translate to "bestiality", but rather "atrocities". --Che 11:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of translation. Original expression was "zvěrstev", in nominative "zvěrstvo". This word is derivated from the word "zvíře" which means "a beast". Best translation of "atrocity" is "ukrutnost" which means "cruelty". -- V. Z. 07:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, bestialities is a correct translation, but too literal. Though atrocities may sound too mild, I cannot think of a more pertinent translation. --Tompecina 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wished to be literal, because neither bestialities, neither atrocities have in my case any reasonable meaning. I wished to point out Miraceti's not punished personal attack. -- V. Z. 15:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have just been expelled from, for reasons far more banal than V. Z. My conclusion is that the community is beyond repair, prone to bullying and utter intolerance, so I rest my case. --Tompecina 23:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tompecina's statement is untrue. He was not expelled from He was just blocked (by me) for two hours after he made six reverts in one article during few hours. After he deblocked himself he was blocked again by me for 1 day. He deblocked himself many times after that and expressed his opinion that administrator cannot be blocked. --Radouch 08:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tomáš Pecina was provoked by Cinik. No sysop took sides of Mr. Pecina and punished Cinik, which is very symptomatic for today's cs:. In the realm of lawlessness is very hard to stay and to stay calm. -- V. Z. 09:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, the reverts were enforcing a binding spelling rule, which the people involved in the dispute eventually admitted had been broken. All I said is that one admin should not block another one as the two are peers, placed on the same level of hierarchy. In the army, one private may not punish another private but it takes an officer (or an ensign at least) to do that. --Tompecina 09:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ad Radouch, above: no Tompecina didn't expressed his meaning only, he wrote to every de-block of himself in the edition summary "if you really wnat to block me so you must desysop me first", which is a serious affront against the normal behaviour. -jkb- 14:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Radouch and others didn't develop any steps to stop Cinik's provocations. They resigned as sysops to be impartial, to mitigate disputes, and in effect supported Cinik's misbehaviour. -- V. Z. 15:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My blocking was illegal from the very beginning: I exceeded the maximum number of reverts only in order to enforce another rule, in which no other admin came to help me and all sided with the transgressor. As a matter of fact, Cinik exceeded the 3RR several times by deleting my comments and texts (including the unrelated one), without any consequences for him.
Unlike V. Z., I don't think there is someone coming, a deus ex machina, to settle our disputes and restore law and order at Unless Czech users do that that is, those that are constantly abused by - as V. Z. names it - the clique. They may even re-elect the clique to adminship as the voting will be public and everyone will be afraid to vote against vindictive people like Radouch, Egg or Cinik, fearing they might face more abuse if they expressed their dissent. No one else is going to do this for but Czech Wikipedians, who are far too sheepish to even consider ousting the clique of oppressors. A sorry state of things, isn't it? --Tompecina 16:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still have trust in Board of Trustees. I don't believe they can authorize injustice and lawlessness. I share with Mr. Pecina fear the hostile take over of cs: will be completed by re-election the clique to the adminship. The urgent action is therefore needed. Non-lynchers and antilynchers are clearly endangered. -- V. Z. 07:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, V. Z. Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do if you were to make a decision, given the fact that you could not speak the language of the community? You could view the logs, you would probably notice that there's a lot of infighting and disciplining going on, people blocking each other, voting on restrictive motions, there are maybe signs of personal vendettas being administered through formal procedures. You could identify all that, but there is nothing to be done about it by the Board.

On a more general note, a Mr. Springer, a professional judge from Germany presently assigned in some kind of advisory capacity to Hradec Králové's Regional Court (if I am not mistaken - it may just as well be the Justice Ministry), characterised the situation of today's Czech Republic as follows: This country is in urgent need of a Protector!

Right. The Communist rule instituted a system of large-scale intimidation and bullyism, and though the Communists are long gone, the system is still alive and well in this country. No one seems to understand that a position of formal authority requires personal integrity, tolerance and a record of outstanding personal achievements, otherwise the person of authority is a mere overseer, hysterically yelling at people and threatening them with draconic punishments for trivial offences.

Have you seen Kubrick's Clockwork Orange? The prison officer character is a model of what Radouch and Cinik have evolved into. And it was you who gave them the whip in the first place... --Tompecina 09:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think language is the problem which cannot be solved. There's a standard mechanism. There's no need for the Board to investigate objective reality, they should decide between claims of the two parties. With preservation of audiatur et altera pars no harm can be done.
Concerning situation in the Czech Republic that is the reason why sad condition of cs: cannot be solved by cs: community itself. Members of the Board are not postcommunists. -- V. Z. 12:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I'd term naïveté. Fighting for power in general is highly unproductive and resource-consuming activity. Why are mafia-based political systems unproductive, compared to democracies and dictatorships? Simply because most of the energy is spent on infighting. Since the start of the war, which I didn't start and didn't wish for, I have been able to write just one single article ( Výklad (právo) ), and it was reverted immediately because it was by me. This is a lose-lose situation. --Tompecina 13:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick comparison between CS and other wikis with languages of comparable numbers of speakers. The results are rather stunning. CS has been clearly outperformed not only by Swedes, the Dutch or the Poles, but also by the Slovaks and the Bulgarians, who have lower living standard, less Internet penetration and still more articles per speaker. The reason? The most productive Czech authors are wasting their time by fighting each other (and defending their rank in the pecking order), while occasional and prospective authors find the atmosphere unbearable and leave in disappointment. --Tompecina 13:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your cognition that the situation of cs: is alarming. That's why urgent action of the Board or others not involved needed. -- V. Z. 14:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cs:Wikipedista:Tompecina - temporary removal of admin flag

Moved from Requests for permissions by Wikimol 22:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cs:Wikipedista:Tompecina - temporary removal of admin flag is requested (1 day should be enough). Tompecina was blocked after breaking 3RR. Unfortunately he was unable to calm down and deblocked himself. Several blockings and self-deblockings followed - see cs:Speciální:Log. --Wikimol 20:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that this account of the events is untrue. Regretfully, the whole case seems to be very similar to the recent expulsion of Z. Without going into much detail, I would like to mention that a spelling change that violated an approved rule on was made and my alleged breach of the 3RR was merely due to my legitimate attempt to enforce the rule. I tried to discuss the matter with the other members involved in the dispute, who later admitted that I was absolutely correct in interpreting the rule. Therefore, the ban was wholly unwarranted and it was in order to overrule it. I always try to settle things peacefully, and it was only due to excessive use of reverts by the other members that the conflict escalated, but again, if it were not for my banning (without taking a vote, even without a word of warning), there would be no conflict now. I still hope for things to be resolved by discussion rather than by using (and potentially abusing) formal authorities. --Tompecina 21:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This request was annouced on cs wiki on Village pump --Zirland 21:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the editor is not sysop according to our interface. So I did not remove the status. Anthere
Actually it was made by Danny on 18 September 2005 at 22:07, not bothering noticed that. I point out Wikimol asked only for temporary removal of admin flag (1 day should be enough), although even that is controversial. -- V. Z. 07:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a problem anymore. I left with no intention of coming back. Basically, as I said earlier, these people are bullies, knowing very little about what making an encyclopaedia is about (most of them posses no recognisable expert knowledge or skills they could contribute - some of them writing in hideous, semi-illiterate Czech at that). Their only concern is the POWER they can exert over those who actually work for the community, telling them how to do things they cannot do themselves, correcting their alleged spelling errors (which are no errors at all) and flexing their egos by punishing them for non-existent infractions. The prognosis is bleak: either the community is going to summon enough strength to get rid of the wimps who are terrorising it (which is unlikely to happen), or will become a quagmire run by worshippers of mediocrity, which it more or less is now. --Tompecina 09:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with Tompecina in this case were breaking three reverts rule (six reverts!) and misusing of administrator's rights in his own case. It is a bit funny if he says our only concern is power. BTW, on Requests_for_comments/Cswiki_issues Tompecina says he was expelled from which is not true at all. --Radouch 09:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on Requests for comments/Cswiki, Radouch and others fatally failed to punish Cinik's provocations, because he shares with them the membership in the same clique. 3RR is not a dogma, you should have tried IAR instead to find a compromise. That's why I must emphasise that the Group of lynchers is thirsty for power and lacks any common sense. -- V. Z. 15:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No only have I been suspended, but I was not even allowed to post a short statement on my own talk page, and a completely unrelated article I wrote - Výklad (právo) - was deleted as a punishment. I rest my case, nihil habeo cum --Tompecina 09:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now is more than one day when stewards were asked to desysop Mr. Pecina for one day. I see no restoration of his rights: Special:Log/rights and cs:Special:Listusers/sysop. -- V. Z. 07:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cs:User:Ludek was in conntact with Tompecina. Before removal Tompecina wrote him he didnt want to be sysop. Tompecina also twice announced leaving cs wikipedia. There is probably nobody against return of rights if Tompecina announces change of his decisions. --Li-sung 08:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd to set new and new conditions for restoring Mr. Pecina's rights. The application for temporary desysopping was unconditional. The term is now over, it's time to return his rights. -- V. Z. 08:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, a farcical end to a farcical story. Of the several explanations why my access rights cannot be restored, this one is my favorite: It is necessary to protect me from spoofers. What if someone used my (presumably poorly protected) password and harmed me by doing mischief in my name!? Fun, just pure fun... --Tompecina 08:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to explain to Beren & Malý čtenář unreasonableness of this claim, but in vain. I am sorry for that, but those who don't wish to hear they don't hear. -- V. Z. 12:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
@Tompecina: Stop laughing and give clear answer, please. Do you want to be sysop on cswiki (yes/no)? -- 09:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong question. I don't intend to go to Italy in order to use up the balance on my Viacard highway-toll prepaid card before it expires. Still, I am entitled to the balance. --Tompecina 09:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As bureaucrat on the Czech Wikipedia I feel to write some short explanation.
On the 18th September in reaction of Tompecina's messages in summaries of his contributions I asked Tompecina by mail if he really wants to give up sysop rights. He answered me by mail: "Yes." It was before action of stewards. Tompecina later also wrote on his own page (as new user Tomáš Pecina, because account Tompecina was temporarily blocked), that he will not work on the Czech Wikipedia. He also wrote on meta: "I left with no intention of coming back."
It means that Tompecina once wrote he does not want to be a sysop. He twice wrote he does not want to work on the cs Wikipedia. So now I am surprised what he writes here. Detailed description I already sent to steward Datrio (including parts of mails with translation to Datrio's mother tongue). I promissed him that I can send whole mail correspondention if he ask for it.
Today morning I sent mail to Tompecina, that if he changed decision, then he himself has to write it and in that case let he himself ask stewards for sysop rights back. --Ludek 09:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my view this is meaningless. Tomáš Pecina was desysopped temporarily, there is no valid reason to be desysopped for ever. -- V. Z. 12:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely "Rule Tompecina": temporary measures are permanent if the offender is unpopular with the sysops. --Tompecina 13:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the is busy disciplining another user (Jvano) who happened to vote against he majority on the issue of blocking V. Z. No, nihil habeo... --Tompecina 11:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have already noticed much earlier (23 August 2005), Mr. Vaňo is often victim of the clique of lynchers. I am very sorry that no steward did any effective action. -- V. Z. 12:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tompecina got his sysop rights back today at 12:03 (UTC). --che 22:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for immediate action


The Czech ArbCom has begun discussing the issues involving Z. Z wanted me to act as his attorney, which I accepted. Unfortunately, I found out that any comments or motions I posted on the arbitration page were removed immediately by Beren, leaving thus only the texts posted by those opposing Z to be seen by the viewers and other participants in the discussion. This happened three times in a row, while Z's texts are being removed on an ongoing basis by Beren as well. As no Czech sysop helped resolve the issue, I feel an urgent action is needed from the stewards. In my opinion, Mr. Beren should blocked/banned from accessing until the arbitration is finished. Otherwise, fair process will not be granted to Z and the arbitration proceedings would hardly be more than a kangaroo court. --Tompecina 16:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very funny... :-) Beren is member of cs.arbcom. Mr. Pecina located his ::: subscriptions on wrong place. Beren moved this subscriptions on right place. Cinik 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Tompecina already mentioned, Czech ArbCom has opened the case of Z (which was blocked indefinitely since September 2005; he regularly used sockpuppets to break his block). Following certain decisions made by ArbCom I decided to resign as admin on cs: and left Czech wikipedia. I think ArbCom, supported by some other wikipedians, did not treat V. Z. and other wikipedians equally. V. Z. was allowed to use his temporarily unblocking for organizing attempts to desysop an admin which blocked him and was allowed to mutilate nicks of other wikipedians (in an abusive way) although ArbCom explicitly banned such practice. I feel it as injustice, I am dissatisfied with very limited negative response to it among Czech wikipedians and I do not want to participate at cswiki in such situation.
It seems very curious to me if Tompecina claims V. Z. is harmed in this case. In this concrete "act of censorship" he mentioned ArbCom only wanted Tompecina to follow the same rules as others (rules concerning placing and length of posts).--Radouch 21:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some remarks: What was the base to ban me forever? There was none: it was a plain lynch. I used sockpuppets to make useful edits, because no one has dared to try solve illegal and draconic ban of me.
I try to desysop cs:Wikipedista:Che in the same way he desysopped me. Suprisingly Czech community decided that even he as one part of arbitrage has a right to ban the other party and that his banning of cs:Wikipedista:Jvano (my advocate) and me was correct. It is a typical case of postcommunist animosity to justice.
Radouch tried to force me to make grammatical mistakes and even threatened me with a ban if I wouldn't do them. Fortunately Radouch was not supported in his hatred towards me and he then felt betrayed by his fellows. Therefore he did not only resigned as a sysop – from a power he abused so much – but he also left cs: as a revenge the things did not go his way.
Tomáš Pecina protested that one side of arbitrage has 10 time more space than the other side. -- V. Z. 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop financially supporting Wikipedia


Following article is related to above discussed situation at Czech Wikipedia:

I have certainly found it ironic that the English Wikipedia includes an article about the expression "useful idiots" ( because it is essentially the status which the founders and management of Wikipedia (located mostly in Tampa, Florida) now have in the eyes of users of most East European language versions of their very own website. Please note that this is not name-calling, but merely a technically accurate description. After all, I am a polite guy.

The Wikipedia, in its English form, was founded under the naive impression that other language versions will be managed under the same civilized rules as the original one. Wrong assumption...

According to my research and various sources (who prefer to remain anonymous) only the English version of the Wikipedia can be described as relatively civilized and unbiased. Unfortunately this is not the case in most local language versions in countries with little or no history of democracy or western civilization. I am unable to read Chinese to verify it, but I am getting second-hand reports that Chinese Wikipedia does not include any historical information about atrocities commited by communists and that all articles must be from the official "Beijing point of view" - thus not NPOV (Neutral Point of View). I can't stop wondering why such a travesty of human decency is being tolerated by and supported with American resources. Seems to me that Google with its "Marxist version of the Google search engine" is not alone in its kissing up to Chinese communists. Well well well...

The situation is very similar in all East European language versions - where I do not need any translators and I can personally confirm it. It is bad on Slovak, Polish and Russian Wikipedias but the situation on the Czech Wikipedia is far and away the worst. In case you are not aware of it, the Czech Republic (a democracy in name only) is ruled by neo-communists - though they offically call themselves "socialists". Czech students, who are the main fodder-contributors to the Czech Wikipedia are saturated to their eyeballs with Marxism. They could not be any redder.

Thus it is only logical that the contents and daily life of the Czech Wikipedia looks and behaves accordingly. The sysops and admins of the Czech Wiki rule with an iron fist and they've created the very first Wiki-tyranny. Dissent or any democratic expression of a different (while still NEUTRAL) opinion is impossible and is immediately punished by extreme blocking (ranging from a few days to nine months) to prevent editing of said or any article. This is only for Wikipedians who do not goose step with the official party line - everybody agrees that vandalism is not to be tolerated anywhere and should be punished accordingly. Wiki-stalking of suspected wiki-dissidents is the rule not the exception and is a part of a Czech Wikipedia sysops basic duties. The Czech Wikipedia has been virtually hijacked by marxist Wiki-terrorists. Best of all, they have nothing to worry about because nobody in Tampa speaks Czech and they can always lie their way out - they have many willing accomplices among Czech students studying in the United States that will cover their backs.

As a result, thousands of articles on Czech history and society are severely biased and twisted to comply with the current political propaganda and prevailing sentiments in society. For example Czechs generally dislike Czech expatriates of the Cold-war era, and so articles about them reflect only one point of view. There are hundreds of examples like this. Discussion of these issues is not allowed and those who object are immediately accused by sysops of "disrupting" and repeatedly blocked until they leave the Wikipedia altogether. Basically, unless the article is about stones or flowers or other scientific things, only the communist and marxist point of view is allowed and only it is considered to be "neutral". All opposing viewpoints are thus banned.

The admins are also using technical means to further their goals: automatically blocking thousands of IP addresses, which are allegedly "proxies" (and they are not) and refusing to install software which would allow transparent reading of Czech words with or without Czech diacritics. That last trick effectively blocks thousands of potential Wiki visitors from abroad, who do not have diacritics on their keyboards - aka those hated Czech expatriates.

If somebody from the Czech Wikipedia attempts to seek remedy or justice at the English Wikipedia or META Wikipedia (there is such a guy, a Czech lawyer named V. Z.), he is quickly located and a "death squad" of Czech (but English-speaking) sysops from the Czech Wikipedia moves to discredit, dismiss him as a crackpot and neutralize him. In that effort they are getting very effective help from local American "useful idiots" (again, no name-calling, just a technical description) who would patronize, discourage and generally put down the "complainer" - like for example a Wikipedian named Dan, who wrote to V. Z. as follows at

"To request the removal of sysop access from another user, please gain consensus on this on your own wiki first. All discussion must be kept on your local wiki." This is not the place to propose a user's desysopping. Please make a request here only after you have obtained consensus among the cs.wikipedia community. ­ Dan"

Seems that "Dan" can not wrap his mind around the fact that any such action on the Czech Wikipedia is not possible, because such person would be immediately blocked (and V. Z. in fact was) and a Czech "death squad" would quickly show up (as they did) and proclaim V. Z. a known troublemaker with a history of "disrupting", who should not be taken seriously. Case closed.

It seems that there is no way to get a message through up the chain of command. Tampa is turning a deaf ear. Any such attempt ends up either being ignored or with the really illogical recommendation of placing a complaint with the very people against who you are complaining. Not even Joe Stalin could set up a smarter system.

But maybe there is a way and one which always gets attention and results. Wikipedia depends on donations. Simply stop sending any money to the Wikipedia Foundation, stop your contributions, stop your PayPal accounts - it will get noticed sooner or later. It will also force all the distinguished thinkers at Wikipedia Offices in Tampa, Florida to climb down out of their ivory towers and start dealing with real problems. I have no doubts that the absolute majority of donations to Wikipedia Foundation comes from the U.S., I do not think that contributions from the People's Republic of China or the Czech Republic matter too much. Therefore I believe that American money should not support intellectual brainwashing anywhere (be it in China or Eastern Europe) and that the founders and managers of this great idea - a free Internet encyclopedia - should decisively step in and use all means at their disposal to stop abuse of their own project by some marxist intellectual vermin of world. Situation is bad. And nothing short of immediate, resolute action to make it better is acceptable.

Ross Hedvicek Florida, USA

I am available to discuss details (in preferably civilized way) and offer more details. Ross.Hedvicek 18:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above text has nothing to do with reuqests for permissions, has it? I think it should be deleted from this page. --Radouch 06:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More over, this is a duplicated text posted also on the user's page in, see en:User talk:Ross.Hedvicek#Stop financially supporting Wikipedia! and some comments, therefore should be deleted here as not appropriate, -jkb- 15:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The two "protesters" above, Radouch and -jkb- are among the worst tyrants on current Czech Wikipedia and understandably have very personal interest in making the text above disappear. And in effort to achieve that they will happilly pretend how politically correct they are and how much they adhere to the rules :-). Ross.Hedvicek 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mr. Hedvicek. These two former sysops did everything what they could do to expell me from cs:. -- V. Z. 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially -jkb- has an interesting personal history on cs:wiki. He admitted on his homepage that before 1989 (ie, the end of Communism in this country), when living in Germany, he collaborated with the Czechoslovak Communist regime as so-called upravenec ("reconcilee"). Later he deleted the information, removed the whole page from history, and started insisting that anyone who'd ever mention his past be punished severely and any such edits reverted. The other sysops were happy to oblige. I am one of his victims. This is just for your infromation, who you are dealing with here... --Tompecina 09:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (currently serving another 7-days' sentence on cs:wiki)[reply]

Request for action: New undemocratic rule on cs:wiki


A new rule has been adopted on the Czech Wikipedia, stating that Wikipedia now limits the freedom of speech of its users outside Wikipedia's own Web space, i.e., no one is allowed to publish personal criticism regarding other users anywhere in the Internet. This is a truly breakthrough innovation, making Wikipedia something of a religious sect, persecuting and punishing heresy wherever found. I believe an urgent action is needed against this crazy rule or the admins of may soon start ordaining themselves and giving others absolution. --Tompecina 10:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As usualy - just a small note. The text in question is almost exact translation of en:WP:MYOB#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. As can be verified by anyone speaking the language, and probably even using machine translation. The conspiracy seems to be international :-) --Wikimol 11:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]