| Revision as of 16:07, 25 November 2006 editMike Rosoft (talk | contribs)Administrators67,164 edits Moved comments from main page and response | Latest revision as of 03:17, 29 November 2006 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 editsm moved Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vít Zvánovec to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/V. Z.: user name change | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Reaction: Decision of Czech kangaroo court is not enforcable in en:. There is good reason for this: Czech arbitrators lack any credit and skill to lead arbitration. | Reaction: Decision of Czech kangaroo court is not enforcable in en:. There is good reason for this: Czech arbitrators lack any credit and skill to lead arbitration. | ||
| *Exactly how are the Czech arbitrators incompetent etc.? By refusing to cater to your demands and filibustering? | *Exactly how are the Czech arbitrators incompetent etc.? By refusing to cater to your demands and filibustering? | ||
| It would be very long discussion and there is no need and no place for it. I will answer only shortly: petition for a due process is not an obstruction. And I ask you to restore my barn star that I was awarded. -- ] 10:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| And I would like to add: Even if I would use abusive sockpuppets (which I would not), there is no reason to block non-abusive sockpuppets, only vindictiveness, which is established rule on ]. No abuse, no punishment, this is a clear logic. -- ] 10:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | And I would like to add: Even if I would use abusive sockpuppets (which I would not), there is no reason to block non-abusive sockpuppets, only vindictiveness, which is established rule on ]. No abuse, no punishment, this is a clear logic. -- ] 10:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *This doesn't make sense. Blocks and bans apply to the person, not to the account. Otherwise, what would be their point if the user could avoid them by registering a new account, or by using an already existing, undiscovered one? - ] 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | *This doesn't make sense. Blocks and bans apply to the person, not to the account. Otherwise, what would be their point if the user could avoid them by registering a new account, or by using an already existing, undiscovered one? - ] 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| It makes. Blocks apply only to accounts, you are mistaken. Concerning bans you are right, but too vindicative. If a new account makes no wikicrimes, what is the reason to block it? The point is to block wikicriminal accounts and to ban wikicriminal users (there is no need for another process with banned people committing wikicrimes with new accounts.) -- ] 10:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == My comment == | == My comment == | ||
| I strongly protest against it. Reasons will continue. -- ] 09:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | I strongly protest against it. Reasons will continue. -- ] 09:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 03:17, 29 November 2006
Reaction: Decision of Czech kangaroo court is not enforcable in en:. There is good reason for this: Czech arbitrators lack any credit and skill to lead arbitration.
- Exactly how are the Czech arbitrators incompetent etc.? By refusing to cater to your demands and filibustering?
It would be very long discussion and there is no need and no place for it. I will answer only shortly: petition for a due process is not an obstruction. And I ask you to restore my barn star that I was awarded. -- Zacheus 10:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
And I would like to add: Even if I would use abusive sockpuppets (which I would not), there is no reason to block non-abusive sockpuppets, only vindictiveness, which is established rule on cs:. No abuse, no punishment, this is a clear logic. -- Zacheus 10:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- This doesn't make sense. Blocks and bans apply to the person, not to the account. Otherwise, what would be their point if the user could avoid them by registering a new account, or by using an already existing, undiscovered one? - Mike Rosoft 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It makes. Blocks apply only to accounts, you are mistaken. Concerning bans you are right, but too vindicative. If a new account makes no wikicrimes, what is the reason to block it? The point is to block wikicriminal accounts and to ban wikicriminal users (there is no need for another process with banned people committing wikicrimes with new accounts.) -- Zacheus 10:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
My comment
I strongly protest against it. Reasons will continue. -- Zacheus 09:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Explanation
The first account (V. Z.) I dropped because it was a source for abuse by -jkb-, Egg and others on other Wikimedia projects. This time it is blocked forever by enjoying Right to Vanish. Blocking prevents its usage for any wikicrime, that's why its checking is totally improper.
Since people from cs: use this for harassing and stalking me at en: I asked for user name change this week on Meta. Since there was no reaction I have to ask for this here and I hope my petition will be fulfilled with no reluctance.
The account Zacheus committed no wikicrime. The other above named accounts are not mine. But I strongly protest against repeated namimg of my accounts together with them. It is an intentional attempt to paint me as a vandal and grave disruption of Misplaced Pages. It should stop immediately.
And I think that I should be informed about these actions on my discuss page. -- Zacheus 09:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)