User talk:Tobias Conradi

Dear Wikipedians, if your signature has a talk-link, I may be more inclined to answer at your talk page. Otherwise I may be more inclined to answer here. I don't like to allways click 2 times to reply only because you do not provide a talk-back feature.

thanks to an idea by User:Ral315 I use raw signature now, because the other way of signing stopped working today. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Old talk until 2005-08-08 23:03 at [1]

2006-07-03 emptied page [2] until section Berlin which was started 2006-06-06.

Berlin

You alright, man? You never called.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• you did not call me neither? Maybe we missed the once in a lifetime chance to see us. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Once in a lifetime? I much doubt it :) I liked Berlin, and hope to return one day. It's a pity, though, that things turned out the way they did. You are welcome to blank my userpage once as you promised—you now have every right to do so :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal? First time I've been called that!

Tobias, I am appalled that you apparently did not even read my edit summary, nor did you take the time to realise that most of the changes to the Ubuntu article in the last few months have been done by me. Please see the talk page for further discussion, and please don't make me regret nominating the article for WP:AID, where I suspect you came across it! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• 2006-06-27 20:18 replied at [3]

Name calling

Please do not call people vandals when they are not vandalising, such as in the instance above. That is a personal attack and goes against WP:AGF. Consider this a warning. pschemp | talk 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• name calling? what's up? Do you have limited access to WP? Maybe read:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought
• I regard your personal attack on me as attempted censorship

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I regard your reaction as paranoia. Please try to be civil. This is your second warning.pschemp | talk 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

what to you mean by "second warning"? What of my reaction do you regard as paranoia? You may consider reverting your edit on russian mafia member page User:Ezhiki. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Additionally, Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --InShaneee 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for 48 hours for creating nonsense pages, violating WP:POINT, and vandalising other user's pages. --InShaneee 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your block has now been extended for further incivility while blocked. Additionally, your talk page has now been protected to prevent further innapropriate removal of warnings while blocked. Keep in mind that more behavior of this sort following the experation of your block will simply result in reblocking. --InShaneee 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now extended your block to one month for mass sockpuppetry and disruption. --InShaneee 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you have continued to user IP socks (see edit history of your userpage) after being warned, I have extended your block further. pschemp | talk 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More socks

And for attempting to evade your block with User:Hauke, your block has been extended again. Have a nice day. pschemp | talk 23:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Eisenkappl

Please refrain from referring to me by a diminuative. I was in two minds whether to comment at all after reading your history of incivility and anti-social behaviour above. However, I'll take your comment at face value rather than more mischief-making.

Eisenkappfl is located in Austria is not an article. It does not state whether this is a person, town, building or geographical feature, or where it is in that large country. To discuss whether it should deleted seems pointless, especially as it can hardly have been a major task for you to write one short contentless sentence. jimfbleak 05:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Block

• Tobias block log

Involved users

• User:Tobias Conradi 2003-05-06 [4], contribs:24183 main 17472
• User:Jimfbleak 2003-02-03 [5], admin, contribs 23954 main 20367
  • violation of deletion policy
  • violation of CIV (called tobias a vandal)
• User:InShaneee 2004-11-10 [6], admin contribs 8530 main 4037
  • violation of block policy
  • violation of protection policy
• User:Pschemp 2004-09-27 [7], admin, contribs:9119 main 5856
  • violation of deletion policy
  • violation of semi-protection policy
  • violation of block policy
  • ? violation of vandal, deleted comment of Tobias on an AfD
  • stalking
  • ?disruption
• User:Voice of All 2005-07-15 [8], admin, contribs 12926 main 3350
• User:Lar 2005-06-08 [9], admin, contribs 6524 main 909
  • defended unjustified block of Tobias Conradi
• User:Ezhiki 2004-03-01 [10], admin, mediating in this case contribs:13942 main 10002
• User:Chrisjj2
• User:Hauke

Involved policies

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators&oldid=61349230
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&oldid=61350414
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=61363159
    • violated 2006-06-30 12:36 by Admin User:Jimfbleak
      • Tobias created a stub which provided enough context to be expanded.
    • violated 2006-06-30 20:30 by Admin User:Pschemp
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=61176680
  • not violated by no one
  • used as accusations by Pschemp and InShaneee against Tobias
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy&oldid=61034236
  • violated 2006-06-30 20:39 by Admin User:Pschemp [11]
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Protection_policy&oldid=60477850 more specific #Protecting_the_talk_page_of_a_blocked_user
  • violated 2006-06-30 19:40 by Admin User:InShaneee
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism&oldid=60969971
  • Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
    • not violated.
  • Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages
    • not violated.
  • The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.
    • contextless phrase since user talk is not article talk and thus the above definition of Talk page vandalism does not apply anyway. It also contradicts the WP:Vandalism intro.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&oldid=61452209
  • violated several times by Admin User:Pschemp and Admin User:InShaneee, see block log. no block was justified by the blocking policy
  • Admin User:Lar supports the block
  • esp. #Evasion_of_blocks
    • While blocked, a user is not permitted to edit Wikipedia except his own talk page. Sysops may reset the blocks of users who intentionally use various tactics to evade a block, and may extend the original blocks if the user commits further blockable acts.
      • since no blocked user commited "further blockable acts" the extensions of the block of Tobias were unjustified even if the IP edits were made by him.
    • Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked appropriately. Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted.
  • #Disruption
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Harassment&oldid=59979153
  • possibly violated by Admin User Pschemp
  • possibly violated by Admin User Lar

Involved guidelines

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub&oldid=61304311

2006-06-27

• 11:55/12:09 add cats to Ubuntu page [12]
• 13:18 Samsara removes cats (have we completely abandoned the idea of hierarchical categorisation now?) [13]
  • this despite the source contained [14]:
    • This notice is here because this article is believed to define the category Category:Ubuntu. As explained at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, an article which defines a category as well as being in a higher category should be in both; therefore, this article should not only be in Category:Ubuntu, but in the parent categories of Category:Ubuntu. Please do not remove this article from those categories unless you dispute that this article is a defining article of Category:Ubuntu; if you dispute this, please discuss the matter either at the talk page of this article or at the talk page for Category:Ubuntu.
• 13:28 Tobias reverted Samsara edit summary (rv vandal rmv of cat) [15]
  • note: Samsara acted against Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes [16] and did not follow the note to please discuss cat removal
• 20:18 Tobias adds to Samsara talk thx for coming to my page.... btw.. you are certainly not a vandal, by the criteria of WP:VANDAL .. [17]

2006-06-28

• 04:18 Pschemp -Name calling- Please do not call people vandals when they are not vandalising, such as in the instance above. That is a personal attack and goes against WP:AGF. Consider this a warning. [18]
• 19:30 Tobias replies [19]

2006-06-29

• 18:22 Samsara adds to Ubuntu talk [20]
  • how about instead of destroying the hierarchical organisation of categories,
    • no diffs for this claim.
  • well done for your subversive editing
• 19:59 Tobias adds "subversive? I wanted to help you because it seemed you suffered from some disabalities. Now it seems you did it on purpose. Regarding hindering mmy surfing: you do it by deleting ubuntu from the dist cat. No top right hand link to the dist cat, after you edit. And last but not least, i did not destroy hierarchy, this is blatant nonsense" [21]
• 20:42 Pschemp adds to Ubuntu talk "Tobias, please attempt to be civil in your comments. You have already been warned about this." [22]
• 20:47 Pschemp reverted edit by Tobias to User Ezhiki [23] - no reason given
• 20:49 Pschemp blocked "Tobias Conradi (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalsim to people's user pages)
  • false claim in edit summary. does not correspond to the following reference to one user's page. Pschemp used exaggerating wording in edit summary
• 20:49 User:pschemp posted that Tobias is blocked for 48 h [24]
• 20:53, 29 June 2006 Pschemp unblocked Tobias Conradi (contribs) (apparently had persmission)
• 20:53 Pschemp reverts and marks this as minor [25]
• 20:56 Pschemp adds to talk Tobias "I regard your reaction as paranoia. Please try to be civil. This is your second warning." [26]
• 21:03 Tobias replies: "what to you mean by "second warning"? What of my reaction do you regard as paranoia? You may consider reverting your edit on russian mafia member page User:Ezhiki." [27]

2006-06-30

• ??:?? Eisenkappl created as stub
• 12:36 User:Jimfbleak deletes Eisenkappl without using WP:AfD nor giving notice nor reason. [28]
• ??:?? Tobias re-created Eisenkapp(e)l
• 19:07 Tobias Conradi moved Eisenkappel to Bad Eisenkappel
• 19:16 Tobias added This user is a deletionist [29] to page User:Jimfbleak [30]
• 19:16 User:InShaneee reverts [31]
• 19:24 Tobias added to talk Jimfbleak [32] "Little Jimmy likes deleting. [33] But what is notable?"
• 19:32 InShaneee deleted Bad Eisenkappel without using WP:AfD nor giving notice nor reason. [34]
• 19:33 InShaneee inserted Template:Npa3, Template:Test2, no context provided [35]
• 19:34 InShaneee blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism, personal attacks)
• 19:35 Tobias removed the former post by InShaneee from his talk. edit summary "rmv nonsense" [36]
• 19:36 InShaneee added to talk Tobias Conradi, You have now been blocked for 48 hours for creating nonsense pages, violating WP:POINT, and vandalising other user's pages. - no evidence provided for these claims [37]
• 19:36 InShaneee re-inserted the 19:33 post, edit summary: do not remove warnings [38]
• 19:38 Tobias removed the 19:33 post from his user talk again. edit summary Name calling - delete nonsense again you asshole [39]
• 19:40 InShaneee: "m (Protected User talk:Tobias Conradi: removal of warnings while blocked [edit=sysop:move=sysop])"
• 19:41 InShaneee unblocked Tobias Conradi (extending block)
• 19:41 InShaneee blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 1 week (further vandalism/personal attacks while blocked)
• 19:48 IP edit to talk InShaneee Special:Contributions/84.190.47.186
• 19:49 InShaneee blocked "84.190.47.186" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandal sock)
• 19:52 IP edits to page Tobias Conradi Special:Contributions/84.190.23.131
• 19:53 IP edit to User_talk:InShaneee Special:Contributions/84.190.23.131
• 19:54 InShaneee blocked "84.190.23.131" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandal sock)
• 19:59 IP edit to User_talk:Striver Special:Contributions/84.190.73.66 [40]
• 19:59 InShaneee blocked "84.190.73.66" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandal sock)
• 19:59 reverts IP edit on user talk [41]
• 20:02 User:Striver reverts deletion by InShaneee
• 20:05 InShaneee adds to talk Striver "..You can leave the comment below there if you really like, but it was left by a vandal who's been using an open IP address to stalk me today. He has been spamming dozens of pages with the below comment." [42]
  • no vandal involved here. no diffs to dozens of pages. no stalk diffs.
• 20:03/18 IP edits to page User:Tobias Conradi Special:Contributions/84.190.64.160
• 20:20 InShaneee blocked "84.190.64.160" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandal sock)
• 20:22 InShaneee unblocked Tobias Conradi (extending block)
• 20:22 InShaneee blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 1 month (mass sockpuppetry and disruption while blocked)
• 20:26 InShaneee blocked "84.190.64.75" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandal sock)
• 20:27/30 IP edits to page User:Tobias Conradi Special:Contributions/84.190.31.104
• 20:30 pschemp
  • deletes Eisenkappel redirect [43]
  • deletes Eisenkappl redirect [44]
• 20:32 InShaneee blocked 84.190.0.0/17 with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism through possible open IP)
• 20:43 InShaneee adds at talk Ezhiki
  • Tobias was actually blocked for disruption (he moved a town page to "Bad (town)"), and for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages. [45]
    • possibly false claim: " people's userpages. " - no diffs provided
  • Additionally, he began a systematic campaign of disruption by way of open IPs as soon as he was blocked.
    • no diffs for systematic campaign of disruption provided.
• 20:44 Pschemp unblocked Tobias Conradi (unblock to reset)
• 20:45 Pschemp blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 6 weeks (Continued sockpuppet use to evade block)
• ??:?? Tobias wikimailed to InShaneee "can you give any evidence for your claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=prev&oldid=61424178 if you stick to this without any evidence i regard this is blatant lie."

2006-07-01

• 01:31 InShaneee adds to talk Ezhiki [46]
  • I'll admit I'm not completely familiar with the topic of the article, but I do believe that there's more going on here, especially since his edit summary when creating the article was "fight against admin power abuse. fight against deletionists like [name removed]".
    • remember: Admin InShaneee deleted Bad Eisenkappel without discussion. Then Ezhiki showed him that there are 120 000 Google hits for this location. And now Admin InShaneee just states he is not familiar with the topic.
  • And you are right, a week is typically longer than usual for that sort of activity, but when I looked at his block log, I saw this was not his first block for this exact same behavior, which does warrant a longer block.
    • "exact same behaviour" was not defined. Tobias never saw the block by TexasAndroid justified. Nor the block by Pschemp (who undid the block after some minutes). The block by User:23skidoo regarding 3RR violation was not accepted valid by Tobias, justification missing.
• 05:17 Jimfbleak removed comment made by Tobias. edit summary: (→James Janderson - rm comment by known vandal) [47]
• 05:33 Jimfbleak adds to talk Tobias [48]
  • Eisenkappfl is located in Austria is not an article.
    • remember: Tobias created this as an austria-geo-stub, not as an article.
• Tobias asked Hauke, which is a friend of his and did some minor anon edits in WP, to register.
• 18:06 InShaneee sent email to Tobias (outside wikimail system). You can 'regard' it as however you want. Firstly, you put 'deletionist' templates on other people's userpages without their permission, which is vandalism. Secondly, you created a page "fight against deletionists", which is not only a violation of WP:POINT, but a personal attack against the user you named, which you have been warned not to make in the past. Regardless, your block of 6 weeks will now stand due to your attempted use of sockpuppet IPs to cause disruption while blocked. ~Shane
  • 'deletionist' templates on other people's userpages
    • no diffs. probably false claim.
  • Secondly, you created a page "fight against deletionists",
    • no diff. probably false claim.
• 21:58 first edit of User:Hauke Special:Contributions/Hauke

2006-07-02

• 11:37 Tobias wikimails to InShaneee

>You can 'regard' it as however you want. _I know.

>Firstly, you put 'deletionist' templates on other people's userpages _can you provide a diff?

> without their permission, _how did you know?

> which is vandalism. _can you provide a permalink stating this?

> Secondly, you created a page "fight against deletionists", _can you provide a diff?

>which is not only a violation of WP:POINT, _can you show me how the above mentioned page violated WP:POINT?

>but a personal attack against the user you named, >which you have been warned not to make in the past. _can you provide diffs?

>Regardless, your block of 6 weeks will now >stand due to your attempted use of sockpuppet >IPs _can you provide evidence for this claim?

>to cause disruption while blocked. _can you provide evidence for this one too? 1. Where did the IP users you call sockpuppets of me caused disruption (please also mention the corresponding policy) 2. that it was my intention to cause disruption.

>~Shane _Tobias

• 17:56 Hauke asks on WP:RFPP that the semi protection of Tobias user page may be reviewed. [49]
• 22:37 Pschemp blocked "Hauke (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of user:Tobias Conradi)
• 23:37 Pschemp edits Hauke [50] and accuses him of being a sock puppet of Tobias Conradi [51]
• 23:33 User:Voice_of_All comments the post of Hauke with "Au no" [52]
• 23:43 Pschemp unblocked Tobias Conradi (reset block)
• 23:45 Pschemp blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 8 weeks (continued use of sockpuppets to evade block user:Hauke)

2006-07-03

• 11:20 Tobias wikimailed to Voice of All "what do you mean by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=61760792&oldid=61759397 ???"
• 13:24 Ezhiki: unprotected talk Tobias [53] and writes "unprotected--it's been long enough. User should be able to challenge his block, too. If anon IPs are at it again, I'll re-protect this talk page." [54]
• 13:54/59 Tobias cleans up his talk until around 2006-06-20 [55]
• 15:22 Jimfbleak adds to talk Ezhiki [56]
  • I can't remember whether I gave a reason for deletion in the deletion summary
    • remember, he gave no reason. [57]
  • I don't think I have been uncivil to this user,
    • remember, he violated deletion policy. deleted a stub created by Tobias without talking anywhere. He indirectly called Tobias stub " one short contentless sentence. " [58] - which is not the truth.
  • I have, I think, behaved with restraint and civility,
    • he violated del.policy
  • ... certainly compared to Tobis Conradi. I have no intention of apologising to him, since I have been treated uncivilly by him, rather than the other way around.
    • Tobias did not "treat" Jimfbleak prior to the stub deletion without giving reason, the latter being a deletion policy violation by Admin Jimfbleak
    • Tobias added to user page Jimfbleak after the del.policy violation by Admin Jimfbleak took place " This user is a deletionist [59] " [60]
    • Jimfbleak indirectly called Tobias " known vandal " [61] which may be true that he is known as such, but as of now Tobias never met the criteria of WP:VANDAL.
• 16:41 Pschemp replied on her talk page to Ezhiki [62]
  • Considering that he used multiple IP's for the the socks, it is quite easy for him to set up a new account with a different IP that would of course not show the same as his on checkuser.
    • remember: still no pre-Hauke sock mentioned.
  • I see you are his friend, but that doesn't mean his actions were appropriate. You forgot to mention his many other infractions up there, such as calling decent editors vandals,
    • no diffs here
  • ... Not to mention his blanking without archiving of most of his userpage and some civility warnings looks very bad.
    • seems Pschemp does not mean the user page, but the user talk. No style guide line or definition of "looks bad" provided. Of course it is archived, see the 2nd ref link at [63]
  • He had plenty of opportunity to use {{tl:unblock}} and has done so in the past, so your accusations of him being not allowed to contest the block are baseless.
    • remember: Tobias was informed about the block 19:36, the page was protected 19:40. It is unclear at which time Tobias was aware of the block. Probably he was on editing somewhere else. These "plenty of opportunity" must have occured during 1, 2 or 3 minutes.
• 18:22 Ezhiki "...He will not be able to personally apologize for the next five and a half weeks, which is the duration of the remainder of his block. ..." [64]
  • at this point in time the block was around 7 weeks 6 days and some hours
• 18:29 Ezhiki adds to talk page of Pschemp ".... Tobias's user page. Do you think you could unprotect it now that he has access to his talk? I think there is no reason to keep it protected now—he can't edit it while being blocked anyway and I think I was able to explain him that editing from anonymous IPs while being blocked is unacceptable" [65]
  • no policy showing why this is unacceptable was provided
• 18:36 Pschemp removes {{semiprotect|IPSockpuppets}} from user page of Tobias [66]
• 18:42 Lar: Blocked users can still post to their own talk pages unless there has been egregious vandalism or uncivil behaviour or other abuses, as by practice, we do not protect talk pages of blocked users unless there is a need. ... [67]

2006-07-04

• 11:44 Chrisjj2 asked Voice of All what he meant by "Au...no" [68]

2006-07-05

• 01:02 Pschemp adds to page User:Chrisjj2 {{sockpuppet|Tobias Conradi}} edit summary (socktag) [69]
  • no specific evidence provided
• 01:10 Pschemp delets Wikipedia:Second_warning [70]
  • no context provided.
• 12:40 Ezhiki mailed Tobias and made him aware of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks
• 15:12 Tobias mails to Ezhiki
  • now that I know a policy that says it's forbidden to IP edit while blocked I agree to not IP edit as long as I am blocked. Since I am aware of sock policy the reference to evasion-accounts brings nothing new to me.
  • I don't know in how far a violation of a policy that I did not knew at time of violation, justifies block extensions, especially since the block extending admins never told me about this policy.

2006-07-06

• 18:51 User:TexasAndroid claimed Tobias had asked him as a second person to post some comments that he has to User:Pschemp. He refuses, but nevertheless points Pschemp to Tobias's talk [71]
  • remember: Tobias only asked if TexasAnroid could post the diff.

2007-07-07

• 14:11 Pschemp blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 33 hours (reducing block to one week)
  • which would mean Tobias is unblocked around 2007-07-08 23:11, which means it is a block of around 8 days and 3 hours. which is more than one gregorian week

2007-07-09

• 04:11 Pschemp claimed there was no need to repeat certain stuff on her talk and writes there is a checkuser supporting Hauke and Chrisjj2 being sockpuppets of Tobias. [72]
  • seems it has been good to repeat this, and prove Pschemp to be wrong, because Pschemp revealed news.
• 04:23 Tobias edited tango.info [73]
• 04:25 Pschemp edited AfD tango.info - since when is Pschemp interested in Tango? [74] - is this WP:STALK?
• 15:05 Pschemp blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 24 hours summary: (personal attacks) [75]
• 15:09/12 Pschemp provides context [76] [77]
• 15:10 Pschemp deleted what Tobias wrote on AfD page in reply to her. summary (remove personal attack) [78]

2007-07-10

• 03:44 Lar edited AfD tango.info [79]
• 03:50 Lar said something like that if admins stalk someone it is not stalking. He threatens with block extensions if Tobias goes on to call a stalking admin a stalker [80]
• 18:46 Tobias asked Jayjg for checkuser [81]

2007-07-12

• 00:48 Pilotguy blanked Hauke's talk. [82]

2000-07-13

• 01:56 Pschemp voted for deletion of List of tango singers [83]
• 21:19 Pschemp blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 48 hours (personal attacks again)
  • no diff provided by blocker pschemp.

block to do

• when was Eisenkappl first created?
• when Bad Eisenkappel?

to do

• Darma_valley fix Kali
• policy violation by ShaunES? [84] - among this mass change there are pages that say: please do not modify.

FYI

Tobias, I have crossposted the following summary at the talk pages of all involved parties. Please review and comment if necessary.

1. The stub about Eisenkappl, which Tobias created, was deleted by User:Jimfbleak on June 30. Jim later explained that the deletion was due to the stub not providing enough information for a reader to understand what the stub's subject was. This is a valid reason, however, it was not explained in the deletion summary.
2. Tobias re-created this article and moved it to Bad Eisenkappel, making an inflammatory edit summary ("fight against admin power abuse...") in the process. While making a summary like this is not constructive, it should be understood that it was made in response to Jim's deletion, for which no reason was given.
3. Tobias later added a "this user is a deletionist" note to Jim's user page. Again, this was not very constructive; Tobias should have requested a reason for the stub's deletion instead of losing temper.
4. The new stub on Bad Eisenkappel was deleted by User:InShaneee. No reason for deletion was given in the edit summary.
5. InShaneee then blocked Tobias for 48 hours for "vandalism, personal attacks". When I asked for details, InShanee explained that Tobias was blocked for "disruption" and "for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages". While the latter is true, the former referred to moving Eisenkappel to Bad Eisenkappel. While I see how such a move can be interpreted as intentional vandalism, the "Bad" portion is actually a part of this village's name, as a google search would attest.
6. At this point of time, the situation from Tobias's perspective looked very much like admin abuse—stubs he created were deleted by two different admins, both of whom gave no reasons for deletion. Tobias himself was blocked for "vandalism/disruption", the meaning of which was also not explained. This edit of Tobias's is a good illustration of the way he felt.
7. A moment later, Tobias was further accused of violating WP:POINT—no details provided.
8. Understandably, Tobias's aggravation grew.
9. InShanee protected Tobias's talk page in order to prevent him from removing the warnings and extended his block for incivility.
10. In response to his talk page being protected and his account being blocked, Tobias launched an anon IP campaign. While this was a direct violation of sockpuppeting guidelines, the user could not contend his block from his account as his talk page was blocked from editing at that point.
11. In response, Tobias's user page was protected from editing by User:Pschemp and his block was extended for sockpuppetry.
12. On July 2, User:Hauke account was created. Soon after it was labeled by Pschemp as a sockpuppet of Tobias and blocked. According to Tobias's email communication to me, Hauke is a friend of his, not a sockpuppet account. I asked Tobias to stop sockpuppetry on June 30, no matter how unfair the situation seemed to him, to which he agreed.

Summarizing the situation: while I in no way want to defend Tobias's less than stellar behavior in response to the accusations against him, I can see the situation from his perspective. Hopefully, this summary will allow you to do the same. I cannot, however, justify the behavior of the administrators involved in this case. Instead of trying to study the situation and finding out the cause of Tobias's aggravated response to the actions against his, the administrators pretty much reacted on emotion, thus complicating and elevating the situation, instead of trying to relieve it. Denying the user his right to contend his block by blocking both his talk and user pages is especially worrisome.

My opinion is that both sides largely ignored WP:AGF, refusing to listen each other. I thus urge the involved parties to shorten Tobias's block from unbelievable six weeks to a total of seven days (three of which he has already served) for not assuming good faith, for refusing to inquire about sanctions against him at the earlier stage of the conflict and resorting to inflammatory edit summaries, and for failure to challenge his block through legitimate means (such as placing an unblock template request at his user/talk page when it was still possible). I ask Tobias to apologize to the people to whom his was incivil. I also urge User:InShaneee, User:Pschemp, and User:Jimfbleak to apologize to Tobias for not providing the reason for their actions and to impose a self-block for refusing to assume good faith, for acting on emotions instead of reason, and for denying the user right to be heard through his talk page.

Being a proud Wikipedia administrator myself, I would not ask anyone to do something that I personally would not be ready to do in a similar situation.

Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ezhiki, thanks for the summary. The following is nonsense:

and for failure to challenge his block through legitimate means (such as placing an unblock template request at his user/talk page when it was still possible)

19:36 i was blocked. around 19:38 i found out about this. 19:40 my talk was proteted. Between 19:38 and 19:40 I did not "challenge" my block by illegitimate as your post implies. I did not challenge it at all. I will have a look, when I started challenging it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The case was moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tobias_Conradi.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ezhiki,

• point 5 "While the latter is true" - (for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages) - userpageS - please review
• point 10 "anon IP campaign. While this was a direct violation of sockpuppeting guidelines," - which guideline? was it a campaign?
• point 12 "I asked Tobias to stop sockpuppetry on June 30, no matter how unfair the situation seemed to him, to which he agreed." - I did not agree. I could not agree to stop something I have not done.

Removing warnings

Just to be clear Tobias, the history shows you removed warnings: [85] is one such removal, and there are others in the history as well. Do not remove warnings from admins without giving evidence that you have read, understood, and internalised them, (using an incivil edit comment as you did in several cases does not show you've internalised, rather it shows rejection) and when you're blocked, don't remove them at all, or in either case you may be subject to further blocking. Removing this warning, for that is what it is, make no mistake, a warning, will get you a longer block than you have now. If you want to lessen your block you have to go the other way, show that you understand that you have an issue to correct, and show that you intend to act civilly in future. ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• the history shows i removed context-free nonsense in the above mentioned case. Where did i vandalize? Please tell me.
• and there are others [warnings that Tobias removed] in the history as well. - please provide diffs.
• Do not remove warnings from admins without giving evidence that you have read, understood, and internalised them, maybe you make sure admins 1) write no nonsense 2) admins are marked as admins 3) make sure that everyone knows that removing a warning by an admin is forbidden by some policy XY.
• using an incivil edit comment as you did in several cases does not show you've internalised, rather it shows rejection - I reject admin right abuses. I reject a two class wiki-society. I reject deletions by admins without notification. I reject being acused of vandalism if i did not vandalize. I reject being told I made WP:POINT if I didnt. I reject being accused of sockpuppeting if I didnt. I reject promotion of physical violence, esp. by admins. As Ezhiki said: I am not an Angel. I am sometimes harsh. I am not proud of this. But I am proud not to do the things that I said I reject. And I am proud that I can settle things without being pointed to WP:CIVILTY by uninvolved 3rd parties. Sometimes things are settled allready, but the 3rd party stays and makes more trouble than originally existed. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The removals are there in the history for you or anyone to see but here's another removal: [86] A civility warning is not "nonsense", it's something to take very seriously. It is your responsibility to be aware of policy and when you get a warning, if you're unsure, ask politely for clarification instead of removing the warning with a profane summary. I think there's not much more new to say here but I'll repeat what I said before, you've shown no previous evidence of internalising what the issue is, and your words above show no new evidence. The block length seems justified to me, barring some change in your approach, I won't be supporting any reduction. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • the diff you bring is actually the same removal. The stuff written was nonsense to me. InShaneee could have provided more context instead of simply rv and post the warning again. You failed to provide 1) the policy that removing of a warning is forbidden 2) that I was aware of this policy.
    • please provide diffs of other instances where I removed warnings. Should be easy for you since you wrote about their existene only short time ago.
    • I disagree with your position that it is up to me to be aware of all policies.
      • I think there's not much more new to say here
    • bad that you are unable to do so.
      • but I'll repeat what I said before
    • you better would save your time and invent something new
      • you've shown no previous evidence of internalising what the issue is
    • the issue is me being blocked for creating Bad Eisenkappel. Did your brain internalise that? the issue is me being accused of vandalism. No evidene for this until now. The issue is me being accused of sockpuppetry - unproven. The issue is admins making false claims and promoting physical violence. The issue is admin right abuse. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Arda River

move to Talk:Arda River Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it was OK prior to that disambiguation. The Arda River in Bulgaria is a major river, 290 km long, while the one in Italy is a minor tributary located in a single province. In my opinion the Arda River (Maritsa) should be at Arda River, and a note should be put at the top, just like it used to be. We don't need overdisambiguation in such cases when there's one dominant meaning (Google test, Britannica has the Bulgarian and Greek river at Arda River and doesn't mention the Italian one). Todor→Bozhinov 10:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about as a middle postion: Arda River as redirect to Arda River (Maritsa)? This would still force people a little bit to precisley wikilink to one of these rivers, which is my main concern. Otherwise, with your proposal, one cannot be very sure whether all the what-links-here-links are correct. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, we'd have to change all the pages linking to Arda River anyway. You mean something like:

“ Arda River redirects here. For the river in Italy, see Arda River (Italy). ”

This would be OK, though I don't think it makes more sense then simply having the Bulgarian and Greek one at 'Arda River'. I'd support both and I'm leaving it up to you to decide, but I still like my idea a little better :) Todor→Bozhinov 10:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If I would not be blocked I would implement the middle position with Arda River redirects here. For the river in Italy, see Arda River (Italy). (there must be a template for this). I think I like this position the best. Hopefully this does not mean the middle has moved now ;-). best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Stories

Police department

The traffic light switched to red, so Tim stopped the car. On the other side of the street he saw a woman running in front of one policeman. He knocked her down, moved her dress up and started raping her. Tim saw nobody else on the crossroad. He could not stand it and crossed the street even if he already was told not to do so several times before. Aproaching the policeman he yelled: 'Against raping! Stop police rapes'. When he arrived the policeman was already gone.

...

Suddenly another policeman arrived. He jailed Tim. He also cut off the regular phone line which normally would be used to appeal. The only thing he was allowed to was writing letters by hand. He wrote a letter to his home, telling that he was jailed. He had a mobile phone, which the policeman could not take away. He sent a SMS to his home. His jail sentence was extended. He sent SMS to friends of him asking them to contact different places for to help to review his case. When the friends did so they were jailed too.

He sent a SMS to the mayor of the city, not for that he would review his case, but to make sure the mayor at least would know what was going on in the police department.

Invasion

British and US invaded Iraq with false allegations
Main article: 2003 invasion of Iraq

Moving forward

I hope you are willing to read this. I know you do not think much of me, given my previous block of you, but from my side at least, I still consider myself neutral to you despite what happened previously. I'm not you friend, but neither am I your enemy.

I have, however, been following the current situation since I saw it discussed on the admin notice board. And it is troubling to see a dedicated editor get blocked for so long over what appears to have originally been a misunderstanding. You may be a difficult user at times, IMHO, but I have never had reason to doubt you act in good faith towards the betterment of the project.

I'm not going to jump into the middle of this and unblock you, for reasons I will get to. I do however want to give you some advice, and maybe get you thinking about what happens next. If you choose to ignore me, so be it.

The key thing is, the way you are acting right now is getting you nowhere, and is not likely to get you anywhere. You are raging against the injustices you percieve, but raging is not going to get you unblocked. Especially when you refuse to ackowledge any responsibility in the situation.

The original block may have been caused by a misunderstanding over the whole "Bad XXX" page name, but the extensions were not a misunderstanding. A blocked user is not allowed to edit except their talk page. Period. Using IP addresses while blocked to edit any other page is block evasion, and is indeed grounds for block extension. Using IP addresses while blocked is sock-puppetry. I have no idea if it's written down (and if it's not, it should be), but block evasion like this is definitely grounds for block extension. The simple fact of editing while blocked is the action that provides for the extension. If users were allowed to simply evade blocks at will, blocks become meaningless. So evasion of blocks cannot and is not tolerated. And, while it likely was indeed unintensional, you did indeed evade your block. IMHO, whether the original block was valid or not, the extensions were totally valid given your actions after the block. There are lots of avenues open to protest invalid blocks. Evasion cannot be one of them.

So it comes to what do you want to see happen next? If you want your block to stand for eight weeks, with you continuing to rage against it the whole time, then continue as you are, because that is the result you are headed towards.

If however, you want to be unblocked sooner, then IMHO you need to do several different things. Things that may be difficult for you.

First you have got to acknowledge that your actions after the first block were wrong. Unknowing or not, you cannot evade blocks. Acknowledge that, and commit to avoiding a repeat of such evasion in the future, and you may very well find an admin willing to shorten your blocks. Blocks are meant to be preventetive, not puntative, so if it's known that your behaviour that caused the block (the extensions, specifically) is ackowledged and will not be repeated, then the reason for such a long block becomes much less.

One breif digression. I am focusing in on you, and your actions, because I see you as the one I could help with my advice. If you truely beleive that admins have violated policy, then you will need to take that up with the Arbitration Committee. They are the ones with the power to sanction admins. So please do not ask me to take actions against them, as I'm not prepared to do so.

But that aside, there's another lesson that I would hope you could take out of all this. The whole WP:CIVIL thing. This is what got you in trouble before, and I see this as your biggest problem. As an example, I see from your page that once again you've been asked not to use a diminuative on someone. I would suggest at this point that you seriously rethink your casual use of diminuatives of other people's names. Some, like me don't really care. Others, however, have shown that it annoys or offends them. This has now, in part or in whole, gotten you into trouble at least twice, and continuing this practice is likely to get you more trouble in the future.

I have more to say, but I think I will end this for now. Let's first see if you even read and absorb anything I am writing. If you are just going to dismiss my comments, then there's not much point in my spending all this time typing them up. - TexasAndroid 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Texy, I never stopped talking, I never did not read anything people posted to my talk page, at least not on purpose. I confirm, I have read your text.

• I know you do not think much of me, given my previous block of you,
  • not true. I think the block was unfair, but at least you took lot of time to talk with me. Finally you stopped, but on the other hand I think I did not present the evidence-collection for William Allen Simpson's attacks on me.
  • what is true: I do not think much of you because I don't know you much
• it is troubling to see a dedicated editor get blocked for so long over what appears to have originally been a misunderstanding.
  • anybody to undelete Bad Eisenkappel?
• You may be a difficult user at times, IMHO, but I have never had reason to doubt you act in good faith towards the betterment of the project.
  • fully agree.
• The key thing is, the way you are acting right now is getting you nowhere,
  • I don't care. If the project-admins decide to be unfair they are free to do so. I will not say anything I do not believe in.
• Block evasion
  • I will review this. Maybe you are right and I unintentionally violated a policy. I am not sure whether this in turn warrants an extension.
• I cannot promise to never violate policies in the future. How can I if policies are changed from time to time and new policies introduced. If there would be a policy "you have to post lies on your user page" - I would on purpose violate this policy.
• Using IP addresses while blocked to edit any other page is block evasion, and is indeed grounds for block extension.
  • IMO this is not true for own talk
• Using IP addresses while blocked is sock-puppetry.
  • re-read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
• Blocks are meant to be preventetive, not puntative,
  • punification can be interpreted as prevention. Otherwise I do not see why I am only blocked for 8 weeks. If it is because for WP:CIV I should be blocked until I promise not to violate this again.
• so if it's known that your behaviour that caused the block (the extensions, specifically) is ackowledged and will not be repeated, then the reason for such a long block becomes much less.
  • extensions happened due to false allegations of Sock puppetry. I cannot hinder other people on the planet to create acounts or to post a message.

---to be extended--- pls dont change

I'm gonna go ahead and respond, even though you are not totally done with your first response.

Knowing that you are reading this, and not dismission it, then let us continue.

I stopped communicating with you the first time because you make it very difficult at times to do so. At the time I reached a point where it was too much effort to continue, so I just let the whole thing fall off.

One of the big things that you do to make things difficult is that you parse every word that people write, looking for the slighest thing that is not perfectly correct, or smallest thing not stated well. Many people like to converse at a casual level, where we do not want to have to read over what we write five to six times to try to make sure we did not misstate or mistype something. But at times, to converse with you, that level of care almost has to be taken. It's tiring to do that, and some people can only doit so long before they say "enough". I reached that level last time and just moved on to other things where I did not have to be paranoid about how I phrased everything I wrote.

Back to the current situation. I now see one of the key problems. You are getting hung up over the definition of "Sock Puppet". I did glance back over the page, and you are correct that it does not expressly refer to IP hopping as sock puppetry. But given the way many admins view IP hopping, it likely should. In the end though IP hopping fulfills the spirit of the definition of Sock Puppetry, whether or not it is explicitly listed in the current definition. Sock Puppetry, when used as a negative term, refers to using multiple identities to evade the rules of the project. And "multiple identities" does not have to mean multiple accounts, it can mean multiple IPs. Again, I'm arguing the spirit of the rule, not the letter.

In the end though, your block was extended for evasion. It was called Sock Puppetry because that's a convinient term. And by the spirit of the definition, Sock Puppetry is really not a false accusation, as you have been labeling it. I do beleive that, like the block evasion itself, it was an unintentional violation, but it is still not a false accusation. You used multiple IPs to evade your block. You were ultimately blocked for the evasion, not sock puppetry, whatever it was called when you were blocked.

You do have a point that using IPs to edit your own talk page would not be considered evasion. OTOH, making this point is a perfect example of what I was talking about a few paragraphs back. You pick apart what is said, and hit on anything that is not 100% true. Yeah. There is an exception that makes my comment not totally correct. But my point is still valid, even if there is a technicality in there. Jumping on the technicallity really does not invalidate my point. It only serves to make it difficult to keep up the conversation when minor flaws are jumped on like this.

On the WP:CIVIL issue I understand that you cannot promise never to violate it. But you need to understand that, whenever you do get off of being blocked, the WP:CIVIL thing is likely to be a continuing problem for you. You have gained a lot of attention with this whole incident. I suspect you are now on quite a few admin's watch lists. Which means that things that might have slipped past unnoticed before are much more likely to be noticed by the admins. Blocks of you for being uncivil are much more likely now. And I'm sorry, but IMHO you can indeed be quite uncivil at times.

Ultimately you were blocked for 48 hours for all the events that set this up, including the WP:CIVIL issue, and the rest of the 8 weeks were for the evasions. At this point I'm pretty sure you are not likely to repeat the whole evasions thing again. I would hope you would think about the whole WP:CIVIL thing, especially the use of diminuitives.

Enough for now. I definitely still have more to say, but much of it needs to wait to see how you respond to this current set of comments. - TexasAndroid 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• can you do me a favour and make Pschemp aware of [87] by posting to User_talk:Pschemp? I am thinking about what you wrote, esp the spirit thing and that you think I may be on a lot of admins watch list right now. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I will take a pass on that, sorry. I have, however, left a note for him letting him know that the section is here, right below this point.

Some more dialog, then.

Let me again stress that, IMHO, the WP:SOCK page needs to be updated. It makes no mention of IP address socking, and admins are using the term to refer to that situation. So, in general, the page no longer totally reflects how the term is being used. And on WP, in a situation like this, it's much easier, and cleaner, to update the page to reflect the new reality than to force people back to older behaviours. Especially when the new reality makes sense (back to the spirit of the page thing).

agree should be updated, if handled like you say. Otherwise Pschemp and InShaneee should be updated

And I want to again stress that your block was ultimately extended for the evasions, not the "sock puppetry" itself. Using multiple identities, by itself, is not an improper action. It's using those identities to do actions that are iproper that is the problem. And in that case you have an underlying action. In your case, the evasion.

wrong. It was also extended for edits by User:Hauke, User:Chrisjj2

Returning to the issue of "moving forward", I have to wonder what you currently want. Do you want to be unblocked? Because you've really done nothing positive towards making that happen. That's what I meant with my comment about you just raging here. I'm not telling you to stiffle yourself about the admins, if you truely beleive yourself wronged. And I did say that, as far as I can see, the original block came out of a misunderstanding of the "Bad" prefix you placed on that article.

what I want? Jusitice? Admin abuses stopped? Bad Eisenkappel and the redirects undeleted. I have done nothing positiv? If this is your opinion - fine, it's yours, and you can go to bed with it.

But that aside, where does raging here on your talk get you? As far as I can see, it gets you continued blocked for the next 8 weeks. And maybe raging serves to let you vent. And that's not necessarily worthless thing. But if that's all you do, then be prepared to enjoy your 8 week break from the project.

I wanna make people aware of unjustice within wikipedia by WP admins. That's why I collected the evidences of policy violations by three of the admins. Now, may I ask you: Do YOU do anything towards to stop their violations? Do you do anything that injustice against me stops? Spirit: Is it the spirit of wikipedia to block editors for 8 weeks because of violations of policies they did not know? I knew sock puppetry was not allowed. I did not set up any new user account. But I still get blocked for sok puppetry.

OTOH, if you want the break shortened, there are possibilities. First off, you really need to calm down. Don't lose the complaints you have against certain admins, but lose your current anger. In the long run, the anger is simply not serving you well.

right the anger is not serving me well. That's why I wrote something like "fight admin right abuses". I wanna stop these sources of anger. But it seems the admins stand united and give shelter to the abusers.

Then you need to understand what happened. And I really am referring to the block extensions more than the original block. Had it not been for the evasions, your block would be over already. Had it not been for the evasions, you might have been unblocked by one or more admins upon evaluation more fully of the circumstances of the original block. That's a "might have been", but I know that I for one see little improper in the extensions reguardless of the original block reasons. So once you earned the extensions, you made it a lot less likely you could be unblocked easily.

I violated a policy i did not knew. I am not an admin. But I am here, almost double the time the most abusing of the admins are (Pschemp, InShaneee). The admins should know the policies, they are admins. I will check how the policy were like when I joined.

And finally you need to learn how to work within the project to get what you want.

or leave

There are proper ways to protest deletions, to protest blocks, to seek sanctions for abuse of admin powers. You have used none of these methods. I will gladly tell you how you could/can use these avenues, if you wish.

i saw how protest blocks work. you may remember. where could I protest deletions. I am allways willing to learn.

Finally for now, I will go ahead and offer you a taste of a carrot. (The blunt way I've been putting my opinions is the "stick") If you show me that you can calm down, and that you are learning some positive lessons from all this (I know you've learned some negative ones. :( ), then I will take your current block to the admin notice page and seek consensous on lowering it a good bit (I'm thinking of 1 week, total, instead of 8). OTOH, IMHO I see little to gain from letting you loose back into the project while you are still in a temper. But if you are more calm about things, then we shall see. - TexasAndroid 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I will not run around and shout if i would be unblocked today. In so far I calmed down already. Carrot is very good, banana would be even better. A good carrot would be if you offer to help to change/update policies and improve some of the processes here. I think this would be needed. You are maybe more in the politics here than me. And you are more civil, as is Ezhiki. You can maybe better reach the goal of policy change. At the end: I never wanted to be an admin. I am a simple top 128 editor Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I was wrong again. I'm not done for the day.  :)

statements regarding future events are really another dimension. :)

Protesting blocks did not work on my block because the admin who responded to your unblock request agreed that it was a fair block. I know full well that you still disagree with that point, and I really do not want to reopen that old discussion at this point. But before you evaded you had a very different set of circumstances on the current block. IMHO you might very well have gotten unblocked this time by a truely neutral admin. We're back to "Might have beens", though. Who knows. You right now have at least two admins who don't think that the original block this time was correct. (Me and Ezhiki) So despite the impression you may have from your first unblock attempt, we admins are far from all in step with each other.

before evasion I might have been unblocked ... unfortunatly I only had less then 2 minutes or so to use this channel.

Protesting deletions goes on at WP:DRV. In general, if you are anti-deletionism, it might be a good place for you to hang out at. :)

don't like this. I would need a deletion abuse board. One click for Jim to delete and lots of keystrokes for me to undelete.

I do not want you leaving the project. For all that I have bluntly said against you today, I do consider you an asset to the project. That's one of the reasons I stepped in today to try to mediate with you.

fine.

As for how to deal with Pschemp or InShaneee, you will need to file an arbitration against them. The arbitration committee is the main one with the power to sanction admins. - TexasAndroid 20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

ok. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Pschemp

since I cannot edit other people's talk, I asked User:Ezhiki to post the following to User_talk:Pschemp. He replied he rather would not. So I post here.

Your IMO false allegations and violations of policies

I did not receive any respons to the email send by wikisystem 2006-07-05 09:45 to User:Pschemp, but see this User has already more than 50 edits since then. The email was a follows:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chrisjj2&diff=62109993&oldid=62015957

what is the evidence? why don't you perform checkuser? And then please show how the Chrisjj2-IP(s) relate to me.

do you simple accuse everybody who 1) has short to zero edit history and 2) acts with reference to me of being a sock puppet of User:Tobias_Conradi ?

If not so, please reveal your system by which the accusations are derived.

Furthermore I think you violated at least one, maybe more Wikipedia policies, look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&oldid=62156940#Involved_policies

---

Can you please explain why did you delete Bad Eisenkappel, a place I came accross because it is the birth place of a tango teacher? It looks to me like a violation of deletion policy since critiria to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions&oldid=61457097 speedy delete] it, which you did, are not met. The article had links to it from other articles too and a simple google search brings 138 000 hits.

Furthermore I would like to know why you speedy deleted Wikipedia:Second_warning? A term you used on my talk page and which I found was undefined.

You blocked Chris ( User:Chrisjj2, registered since maybe one year) and Hauke (User:Hauke, registered lately, anon edits before). As the reason for the block you gave sokpuppetry and accused them of being sock puppets of mine. Infact they are distinct persons and both of them have been seen with me on several [[tango (dance)|tango]] dancefloors in Berlin when they visited this town.

Along with these false allegations you extended my block.

You also accused me of IP sockpuppetry, please re-read the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=61176680 sock puppetry policy].

best regards Tobias Conradi ([[User_talk:Tobias Conradi|Talk]]) 2006-07-06 12:36

How about deleting the sockpuppet tags in User:Hauke and User:Chrisjj2, and unblocking them? (see checkuser) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

untrue statement by TexasAndroid

I misread your request, end up fulfilling it anyway, but comment about how I didn't want to do it how I misread it. And I get an edit summary about an "untrue statement" by me. Yes, it was untrue, but it was a bloody mistake. I'm sorry for misreading your request.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said it was difficult to talk to you. You see something that is not perfect, and you attack it. That's twice so far today. I'm starting to wonder again why I bother making the effort with you. - TexasAndroid 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

what is bad, if you made an untrue statement? These things happen. But your statement put me in a bad light. The original fault was yours, not mine. Yes, you almost fullfilled my request anyway. And hey!!! I REALLY THANK YOU FOR THAT! - Will I get burned for yelling now?

the other thing I corrected today - it was really minor.

I think all you "be civil" people could relax a little. Maybe look why someone was uncivil. You can see from my user page that I collect admin rights abuses, especially speedy deletions just by discretion of an admin - if not covered by speedy policy. Jim was very nice to come to my talk page. Unfortunatly due to the block extensions made with wrong allegations by Admin Pschemp, I cannot talk with him. IMO it's allready bad that we have deletionists (as opposed to inclusionists), but admin speedies are another class. He came to my talk, that was really good. Pschemp on the other hand still did not explain to me what was meant by second warning. Instead Wikipedia:Second warning, a page I started which included what I found out about this term was speedy deleted. ... by Pschemp. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a combination of "untrue statement", and the fact that you decided it was worthy of memorializing in your timeline of this whole mess. Of anything that's happening, you choose a screw-up of mine to memorialize that way, with an edit summary like that. If this had been the only thing of this type, maybe I would not have gotten frustrated over it. But I feel I have to go over anything I write to you with a fine tooth comb before posting it to make certain I don't give you anyything to attack. And you still find ways. Enough. I'm worn out by all this for today. Let me know what you think of the rest of what I said, and I'll pick up again tomorrow. - TexasAndroid 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

maybe if we meet more often you can accept that I am nitpicking. Aren't you programmer? We have to be precise, don't we? I wonder in what you program. On the other hand I hope people can more trust in what I say. You are worn out? So am I by the admin attacks on me in the last days. Hopefully this will change during next days. I am still not sure whether I should leave all this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My offer

I made this awhile ago on WP:ANI, but you seemed not have read it so I will repeat it. If you apologize for using sockpuppets, and remove your false accusations of admin abuse from your page, I will reduce your block. As for your claims that you didn't know about blocking policy, you quoted the blocking policy (saying I had violated it) on this page *days* before you claimed you did know about it. You have been editing here a long time and have over 24,000 edits. By that time you should be familiar with basic policies such as that. Also, your first article "Second Chance" was deleted under the deletion of AFD with a consensus of users. The one in wikipedia space was a copy of that and as such inappropriate and was a speedy. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that we can speedy delete things, but we can and that's the policy. I have said before that you can post an apology on your talk page, as I watch it, so please don't claim you can't communicate with me. pschemp | talk 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I will not apologize for something I have not done. I will of course remove ANY false accusations of admin abuse or mark them as false accusations. "Second Chance" -> you mean Second warning. Yes it was a copy in the WP space. That is so because some of the delete votes in the regular space said it's not encyclopedic. Given the large amount of Google hits and around 50 or more % thereof in wikipedia I think there should be a place were people can learn what this means.
• I'm sorry you don't like the fact that we can speedy delete things, but we can and that's the policy. - You are misrepresenting things. I am infact happy you can speedy delete. But this should be done according to policy. The Eisenkappl stub had enough context to be expanded. And even more sure the Bad Eisenkappel had. Maybe at least on this front we can shorten things by undelete the latter? You can still vote this for AfD then, but speedy is just not covered by policy.
• I claimed I cannot communicate with you? I wrote since I cannot edit other people's talk, I asked User:Ezhiki to post the following to User_talk:Pschemp. He replied he rather would not. So I post here. And I did not receive any respons to the email send by wikisystem 2006-07-05 09:45 to User:Pschemp, but see this User has already more than 50 edits since then. The email was a follows: And furthermore you stopped editing here except for posting extensions and except for correcting categorization. For the latter I would like to thank you again. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your claims that you didn't know about blocking policy, you quoted the blocking policy (saying I had violated it) on this page *days* before you claimed you did know about it. You have been editing here a long time and have over 24,000 edits. By that time you should be familiar with basic policies such as that. - I did quote the blocking policy *after* it was violated. I was familiar with the _basics_. I only got to know lots of more details during the last days here. And it looks either some rules are wrongly applied or badly written in some parts. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So you are denying that you used IP accounts to edit your userpage while you were blocked? pschemp | talk 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I now have a checkuser in hand that shows that you did use those IP's to edit your userpage while blocked. Still going to deny you did that?pschemp | talk 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing some of the lengthy back and forth I had with him earlier today... Conradi does not deny being the IPs. He does deny being the two other registered users that he was accused of being. He denies that using the IPs is "Sock Puppeting", and between that and the denial that he was the two actualy IDs is where he hangs his denial of SPing. And he does have a point on a technical basis. The page that defines SP makes specific mention of it being about multiple login IDs, and makes no mention of IPs being SP. My response was that, given how admins tend to view behaviours the same whether it's IDs or IPs, that in current usage IPs are just as much SP as IDs. But still, he does have a point on the technical denial.

He has not denied the block evasion, but says he did not understand it was improper. Is it likely that such a long term user would not know of this? Not really. Is it possible? Certainly. If you concentrate yourself on article work and have no interest in the administrative side of the project, then it is definitely possible.

And here is where it gets down to whether or not one beleives Conradi in his denials. And when you get right down to it, I do. He can be annoying. He can be extremely difficult to work with. But in the conflict I had with him a few months back over my blocking him, and in everything I see in this current confluct, I really have seen nothing to make me doubt the honesty of his statements (at least about his own knowledge/actions), and nothing to make me doubt that he has the best interests of the project at heart.

At this point I beleive the current dispute is pretty much over, and really don't see a reason for the extended block. His original block time is now several days over, and his extension os for things that either are very unlikely to be repeated (IP evasion) or things that are IMHO most likely not him (the two other involved IDs). IMHO the block should be reduced to a total of one week, including time already spent blocked, and let run out in the next several days. - TexasAndroid 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will gladly do that when I get a statement from him saying that he did use the IP socks, and that he understands that was wrong. Also that an edit summary like this [88] (calling someone as asshole) is not acceptable. Simple solution. The whole point of a block is so a user can take some time off to consider his actions, it isn't punative. So far though, I have not seen one iota of remorse on this user's part, just more claims of admin abuse, wikilaywering and protestations the he didn't do anything wrong. I posted my actions on WP:ANI. If they were so out of line, the community would have commented then. pschemp | talk 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Tex is right: I never denied to have used IP edits. Yes I did. Yes I will not do it in that way again. remember: I got blocked, and only few moments after realizing this, my talk got protected. I did IP edit outside my user+talk page. With the rules I see now, I should not have done this. I also see, by the block evasion policy I probably should not IP edit my own user page. I disagree this is right. What I edited there was not a blockable act from the content point of view. I will less likely remove warnings in the future. I absolutely had no idea that this was forbidden. I still do not see _why_ it is forbidden. I mean they are in the hist anyway and if you delete them you somehow confirm you read them. Furthermore remember: one of the warnings called my actions vandalism. I did not WP:Vandalise. No diff was provided. One is allowed to remove personal attack. But if it comes from an admin one is not? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok tobias that works for me. I have reduced the block. pschemp | talk 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed this incident again and concur with Pschemp. Tobias, you are not showing any significant acknowledgement that you have erred, and no remorse for what you've done, and no reason for any admin to believe that you're not going to continue doing these unacceptable things. Pschemp's offer is fair and reasonable, and is what you should have to do to get unblocked early. Internalise that you are not participating in a civil manner, that the rules apply to you even if you don't know what they are, that it's not about admin oppression, and that you need to apologise, and then actually apologise, and I'd support a reduction. Continue with your current intransigence and I see no reason to reduce, and if it continues, every reason to lengthen your block. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you like to be unjust - so be it. You are making untrue bad words about me - so be it. You still did not respond to my last posting to you - so be it. If you want to lengthen my block - so be it. I am not a dealer of my soul. You can't buy : apologize and then get unblocked earlier. I will not apologize for something I think I don't have to. I do not apologize for other User's actions. And yes: it is admin opression. You stand united against an editor. It is your choice, you are free to do so. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

missing articles: intransigence

I have a hard time squaring what you just told pschemp (for which she reduced your block and which reduction, assuming you meant what you said there, I concur with) with what you are saying in the above to me. I think you still have issues to work through. I'm hopeful you will work through them and be a valuable contributor, but as long as you continue to think admins doing their jobs are actually out to get you, it may be hard for you to do what you need to do. I remain hopeful but will also remain vigilant. The choice of how things go from here is entirely up to you and how you choose to behave. Best wishes for the future. If you want help you have but to ask. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you have issues to work through if you want to be what I consider a good non-biased admin. An admin that before critisizing, critisizes fellow admins for their violations. I think Pschemp, InShaneee, Jimfbleak have issues to work through. But it seems you dont get this. Attacking my possible mistakes does not reduce yours.

I'm hopeful you will work through them and be a valuable contributor - well if admins keep on violating policies I am much more likely to quit being a valuable contributor. And it is really a shame that admins like you and Voice of All act like they did. At least you talk and this is really a good thing. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry for being kind of unpolite. best Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Tobias, calling someone a stalker is a personal attack and uncivil [89]. You did this both in the edit summary and in the edit. You are being blocked for 24 hours for this. Why couldn't you just not say things like this? It would save you a lot of trouble. I was nice to you and removed your block, and this is how I am treated as a result.pschemp | talk 15:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

you were nice to me? you _partially_ corrected one of your mistakes (false sock puppet allegations - btw. Hauke and Chrisjj2 still are marked as puppets of mine and are blocked). I feel like stalking, what do _you_ have to do with tango? What a coincidend that _you_ go to a page _I_ made. If my free speech claim of stalking is a personal attack, your "vanity" accusation is so too. You should block yourself now. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

at 04:23 I updated tango.info. At 04:25 you are on the AfD page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mate, please, there's no need for personal attacks on here, it's unproductive and only gets people blocked. If you have a real problem with someone, might I suggest avoiding them, and if you do cross paths, ignoring them? It's the best for the community, and for yourself (I imagine a 24 hour block is quite annoying). If you need any help in the future, you can email or hit me up on my user_talk page.

Some people have the AfD page on their watchlist to view current AfD's and vote on them, that does not mean they are stalking you.

In other words;

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! ShaunES 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

thx a lot for comming to my talk. It is stalking. I edited tango.info at 4:23, 4:25 Pschemp jumps in. Could you review the blocks of User:Chrisjj2 and User:Hauke ? Pschemp says the checkuser shows they are socks of mine, but Chris lives in UK and Hauke in Rostock. So I much doubt how this can be true. They are both tango dancing friends of mine.

And hey, thanks again for comming to my talk. You are the first I did not knew before and engaging here, not so much on the side of admin Pschemp. (Ezhiki and TexasAndroid that helped me where admins I knew before). Still you call me for civilty while free speech saying Pschemp is a stalker. If you would apply the same rules to Pschemp, shouldn't you critizes her for calling an article I created vanity article? It's her opinion, but so is that she is stalking. Both things are regarded a bad thing, so both are kind of accusations. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Baumfabrik

--I post here, because I am blocked and cannot edit other user's pages.--

hi, i replied at [90]

but am now block by my new stalker Pschemp. I updated tango.info at 4:23 and Pschemp voted on Afd at 4:25. What else is this than stalking?

If you have any questions regarding tango.info I will try to answer them, but only can do it here. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to stop calling people stalkers. There is no stalking here and to say so shows either bad faith or a lack of understanding of what admins do to carry out what they are asked to do. You've demonstrated a history that suggests that it makes sense for admins to watch your contributions and see what you're up to. That's not stalking, that's admins doing what the community asks. You are hereby warned to stop using that term, or other pejorative terms, when referring to admins carrying out their duties, or I will consider you in further violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and will extend your block further (after presenting it for review from my peers). Do not remove this notice, and do not call it nonsense, as it is a formal warning from an admin. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If admins stalk it is not stalking? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If admins stalk, it's stalking. However, no reasonable person would call watching an apparently problematic (based on block history and warning history so far) user's edits "stalking"... that's more like "prudent monitoring". ++Lar: t/c 03:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurlingham

Thanks for the tip-off - the changes have been made to Hurlingham. Mtiedemann 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser....

Just an FYI. An official checkuser request has been filed this morning to try to once and for all settle the accusations about sockpuppetry between you and the Chrisjj2 and Hauke accounts. I myself have looked for the older checkuser that has been mentioned as linking the three accounts, but cannot find it. So hopefully this one can settle this once and for all. - TexasAndroid 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. In America referring to someone by plain family name is a polite, not overly familiar, way to refer to someone. Shrug. So be it. I'll swap to using your personal name then.

As for the other two accounts, assuming that they are who you say they are (which is my current beleif), then they actually are a version of Meat Puppets. the only link I could find to a Meat Puppet definition is here. As currently used meatpuppets (MP) are a much more grey area around here than sockpuppets (SP). With MP, there is actually an additional person behind the different account. With SP there is still only one person, no matter how many people it appears there are. So it's not as cut&dried a problem.

As an example of where MPing would be quite improper, consider most any of the polls run around the project on official matters. Let's say you had a totally non-notable band, with 5 members. The band creates a vanity page on the project. The page ends up on AFD, being polled for deletion. The band members, not wanting their page gone, talk to friends and family members and all quickly sign up for accounts just to say Keep on the AFD poll. They end up with 30-40 people saying to keep the page on the totally non-notable band, just because the band's members rallied friends and family. In the end, this is totally improper for a number of reasons, even if every account had a different person behind it. In a way, the extra people didn't care about the page on the project, they just cared about helping their friend/family. They were acting at the will of the friend/family member, and thus the "meatpuppet" label.

But it all gets back to action, same as with SP. There is nothing wrong with having multiple accounts on the project. There are a number of perfectly valid reasons why people do so. It's when people use those accounts for improper actions/reasons that it becomes SP.

Same with MP. Just because you got some friends to connect to speak for you does not, IMHO, make it improper. But when you get down to it, they did join the project for the purpose of speaking on your behalf. Which technically makes them acting for you, and thus MP. - TexasAndroid 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I find family name using kind of cold, like you say, not overly familiar. In my daily life here nobody calls me Conradi. Once it happened in one company, where then it was short for Mr. Conradi. Maybe the boss had to speed up things, while at the same time using the given name would have been to informal. I perfectly understand this meat stuff. Here some more from my side: Hauke already anon edited before, I pointed him so often to WP that he started editing a tiny little bit. Chris did register around a year ago, but did not like WP very much. Since I was blocked (and my talk was too, and my user page was semi-protected) I asked them to do something so my case can be reviewed. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm done with you for now as well. I now totally regret informing you of that checkuser request. Or at a minimum, I wish I had asked you to watch and not comment there. The request has been declined, due to all the confusion that was created there. That avenue to clear things up has now been closed. And I see no reason to continue in the middle of this at this point. If you feel the need to file a RFAr against the admins who have harmed you, that's your business. But I see little more good I can do at this point. Good luck in your editing here. - TexasAndroid 04:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You are done with me? Sounds like after a fight. You regret that I had the possibility to correct false accusations even on the checkuser page? Really bad that they declined the checkuser. But what is more important no evidence was made that any checkuser ever was performed. It was nice that you helped me, and in opposite to the involved esperanza people you gave me hope and not reduced it. Hope that there are admins interested in truth and justice. Thank you! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

One of your articles, List of tango singers is being nominated for deletion. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I get to these AfD's and I can't believe that so many people have written "Delete per nom". Alot of people assume that because it's being nominated it should be deleted. I also think that because they do not like tango music they are much more likely to assume it is insignificant. Oh well AdamBiswanger1 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tango

Regarding your ad hominem attac here, please refrain from doing so. I have clearly mentioned that I have no relation whatsoever with any pro/anti tango group, and the article is afd'able on its own right. It popped up my screen when I was doing a random cleanup, and so I afd'd it. Thank you. --Ragib 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your ad hominem attac - maybe stop randomly cleaning up. BTW, why did you not notify the page creator? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

List of tango singers

Tobias, I just realized that you haven't voted yet! Please do!. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Otro pa'vos, pero no te olvides que si no votas, queda raro... la gente piensa "Si este no vota, porque voy a votar yo?". Suerte! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently giving this a going over - having found a very useful list of notable tango singers, I think this will ease previous concerns that they are being put in completely arbitrarily. I intend to put back information from the original list ASAP - the reason I made the drastic change is that the original list's references didn't seem to be working online anymore. Since making everything hyper-verifiable seems to be the way to do an AFD-save these days, I just ran with the first list I could find online. TheGrappler 21:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Haukes

I don't know. I've fixed it. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 21:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM

Your recent contact of 23 users to come and defend the List of tango singers article is in violation of WP:SPAM internal spamming. Please stop. pschemp | talk 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is extremely bad form to spam talk pages to garner support for an article in AFD. to quote WP:SPAM: Wikipedia editors are not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc.. Viridae^Talk 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: They are all members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina. Best regards. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Country subdivisions

move to Talk:Matrix of subnational entities Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

eng.tango.info

It's working now! Yesterday I couldn't get the singers section to work either in Firefox or Internet Explorer. The weird thing is that all the other musician categories worked fine - singers were the ones that were the problem.TheGrappler 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You were warned to stop calling people stalkers, yet have done it again. You are now blocked for 48 hours. pschemp | talk 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

After this [91] and this [92] I would have went a week, so you're lucky pschemp got to you first. Repeated warnings and blocks just aren't sinking in, are they? Please remain civil, or consider contributing elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

not a surprise that you would abuse your admin rights. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Tobias,

I was especially pleased at your positive comments at my RfA. Auf weiterhin gute Zusammenarbeit!

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tana River (Finland)

Interesting progression: Tana River → Tana River (Finnland) → Tana River (Finland)

Since it is called the Tana in Norwegian but the Tenojoki in Finnish I suspect that you mistook the county of Finnmark in Norway for the country of Finland. Not surprising; more than one person has made that misread.

Lacking any load outcry, I intend to change this to Tana River (Norway); the other logical revsiion would be Tenojoki River (Finland) and that is tautological, so I'd rather avoid it.

Williamborg 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

can't reply at your userpage, because I'm blocked (don't know why, my blocker number 1 seldomly provides diffs)

interesting tauto list. Since the Alaska and Kenya Tana River will not empty in the same body of water, a good dab could use the waterbody the river flows to. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming , e.g. Tana River (Atlantic). best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

tango.info

One issue I am having with tango.info as a source, is I can't work out how the "singer-ness" of singers is shown. If I could work out that the database is telling me "this person released 34 CDs in which they sang" then I'd feel more comfortable updating the list of tango singers. At the moment, I am more comfortable with using todotango.com, for whom the biographies usually provide enough information to assert notability as a tango. And of course the other sources I have for tango outside Latin America (I was pleased with my Turkish finds... they seem to know how to sing a very good tango!) Could you explain to me how to work out from tango.info how many CDs (does that include LPs?) have been released by a tango musician purely as a singer? TheGrappler 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure whether "Many tango musicians have been both instrumentalists and singers" [93] is right. First lot's of musicians have not been singers. Second, those that are kown as singers, maybe were composers and lyricist, but are rarely known for being instrumatalists, except for guitar. Maybe I am just not aware of what they played else. I will look, how I can improve tango.info so that one can sort by number of tracks. Anyway, if you have a singer page and it says 20 tracks, he is likely notable. Currently the data is only CDs. But these are in most cases re-releases of 78rpm or vinyls Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

http://eng.tango.info/singers?dsc=tracks , singers sorted by track descending Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Dance

Since you are making a tango portal, you might be interested in Portal:Dance. In particular, Portal:Dance/New article announcements. `'mikka (t) 18:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

unblock|no diff for allegation of perso attack provided by possibly stalking admin pschemp

first, its right here, please read your own talk page [94] and second, nowhere in the blocking policy does it say I have to do spell out the diff. You know what you typed.pschemp | talk 19:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

move to Category_talk:Districts of Pakistan Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Tobias,
Just to let you know I'm working on a table of /Subnational divisions by country for the sake of an overview if nothing else. Hope all well, David Kernow 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

...Hi Dave, thx for informing me. Good list, IMO mv to article space, so others can contribute. cu around Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do, once I've been through it again a couple of times to tidy it up, maybe a add a paragraph or two about the most common terms and fill in any more of the missing data I can find. Am also intending to move /NUTS levels into article space, again after tidying up etc. Yours, David 01:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Stadsdeel

The redirect of the stadsdeelpage to politics of the Netherlands (terminology)#Stadsdeel was discussed on the articles talk. Please do not revert that change, before discussing it on the talk page. --C mon 09:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic/Faeroe on List of tz zones

As you pointed out, I made a mistake in changing Atlantic/Faeroe to Atlantic/Faroe on List of tz zones - I have changed it back, and have taken the liberty of inserting an html comment at that point in the page so that anyone else who is about to make the same mistake might read it first and stop. Thanks for spotting it and pointing it out. Euchiasmus 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian naming issues

It might be worth reading the leadup and talk on the various pages to see why the issue is one in the first place :) SatuSuro 13:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not inclined to read various talk. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey be gentle, I'm just foll0wing it all - and suggesting that you see their reasoning, I make multiple mistakes on naming conventions across state lines :) - If you havent found it try -. . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places‎; thats where its all been happening :) - and if you want a good explanation - I'm not the one ! SatuSuro 13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And a big thanks, I do most editing on my imac, and for some stupid reason (shift) q does not work - so thanks for the King River correction! SatuSuro 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Argentina's motto issue

Hi, I noticed your comments on Template talk:User WikiProject Argentina, and I've started a new poll for all the people who want to change and/or remove the motto. As a member of WPAR, your opinion will be an useful contribution to our project. Cheers, —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Greg Garner

I talked with the creator here: User talk:TheBigOlBug. Basically this person is a NN teacher. This user also created a nonsense article ("Male stripping") which inclines me to believe s/he was just playing games anyway. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, A7 is one of the Criteria for speedy deletion, basically meaning "non-notable". --Fang Aili ^talk 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

place naming conventions

Hi. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)#New_.22General_rules.22 about your recent changes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), and reverted the change pending the outcome of the discussion. Please note I am trying to ensure that there is in fact consensus for the changes, so please join the discussion. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

please revert

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't do that. Your article contained no more than one single sentence, which is rather short and making it fit for the criteria for speedy deletion. It states:

Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.

If you can provide something which is longer than a few lines, it could stay...but one sentence is too short to merit an article.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know what you meant by me having violated WP:DP. I have thoroughly researched it and I still don't know what you mean, so please enlighten me...and do that without threats please, Wikipedia is not a battleground, you know.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 19:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

With violations of speedy deletion criteria you make it a battle ground. Because CONTRIBUTORS can do nothing to easily undo you de-contributions.

Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.").

Did I write something like that??? Your comparison is kind of insulting. And furthermore, what about:

Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.

You violated WP:DP/speedy deletion. The criteria are not matched. You are not allowed to speedy delete stuff only because it is "one sentence" as you said in the del log. I am really pissed of. You are not the first deleter of this kind. I would like every admin who does this to get de-admined for 1 month. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer this one in five parts.

• Don't try to blame it on me now. I wasn't who erupted this battleground, and you know it. I'm just doing my duty; you were the one started making uncivil remarks, not me.
• You are aware that that comparison is directly taken from WP:CSD, right? I can't help it that you were "insulted".
• Well, no. There's no violation there. I say that there was not enough context either. That can't be expanded on, as it has only one location of which no more details can be given. Furthermore, if this is a valid stub...then tell me how that strokes with the definition of stub at WP:STUB: It must be long enough to at least define the article's title and its meaning in order to appear in Wikipedia.. It doesn't either of those, thus rendering the article 'below-stub'. Which is 'CSD A1'.
• What are you trying to do with these threats? Scaring me off? This debate is not gonna be more friendly with paragraphs citing stuff like that.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool down chico. YOU VIOLATED, not me.

• You are aware that that comparison is directly taken from WP:CSD, right? I can't help it that you were "insulted".
  • I asked YOU wether I wrote soething like what you stated. I didn't. YOU are the insulter and disrupter.
• Well, no. There's no violation there. I say that there was not enough context either.
  • So I will go to ArbCom. Has nothing to do with threats. They shall decide whether there was enough content to expand this stub.

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I asked YOU wether I wrote soething like what you stated. I didn't. YOU are the insulter and disrupter.
  • Well some way, yes. Your article could be used as an example for what CSD A1 is meant to cover. Although the 'Factory and the Hacienda'-example appears to be of an overdone way, in order for WP:CSD to get the point across. So, don't jump the gun so quickly, I meant no harm with the quotation.
• So I will go to ArbCom. Has nothing to do with threats. They shall decide whether there was enough content to expand this stub.
  • You are aware that this RfC is futile, right? It states: 'at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed'. To me it occurs that you are the only one who's having a problem with me.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, the ArbCom seems not possible right now. I don't know whether I am the only one that has problems with speedy deletions of something one just created, while this did not fit the "not expansible" criteria. Thanks for admitting the citation was overdone. please rv your deletion. There is real bad stuff out, so let valid things go. You may also consider to CONTRIBUTE to the stub :-), you already now there is a river with the same name. Maybe there is a relation??? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility warning

You are resuming your pattern of incivility. This edit (and the edit summary that goes with it) is incivil: [95]. You have been warned before about being civil, I believe. Please explain why you should not get a block right away instead of a warning, or explain why you are not going to continue to be incivil in future? To be clear: removal of this warning from your talk page will get you a block as well. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you want, you annoyer??? Please obstain from personal attacks here. Go away. 03:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You (and others) are on my watch, because you have a pattern of bad behaviour here. So when I see things, I hand out warnings. It's what admins do. Calling me "you annoyer"??? That was incivil too. Blocked for 24h. Spend the time reviewing WP:CIVIL please. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But you are annoying. You behave like someone with personal disabilities in real life. like a Napoleon. Maybe your use of the admin buttons is just an compensation for your problems elsewhere. So be it Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to be rude after being blocked for incivility is an unwise move. Please, take a break and relax. There's no reason to get excited about what happens here. Friday (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

really, there is nothing to get exited about the admins here. They can violate policies, they can threaten. ...it's really annyoing. What do you want here? maybe go and CONTRIBUTE to WP or block policy violating admins. Or unblock legitimate users, users that are blocked for indefinite time by false accusatios. etc. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, this is a bit too incivil. As suggested by Friday above, perhaps you can take a break to cool down. Thanks. --Ragib 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read civility? It's stupid that people like Lar are admins. I dont wanna cool down. You dont need to thank for nothing. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've increased your block to 48 hours. Please stop being incivil and I'll stop increasing it. ++Lar: t/c 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no, you cannot buy me. You or Pschemp did try so before. As opposed to you I am not corrupt. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins here are not trying to buy you. Rather, we are trying to change your behaviour, as you have made valuable contributions here and elsewhere. But if we cannot, if you persist in misbehaving, eventually you will exhaust the communities patience and be indef blocked. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of trying ot change my behavior you should think about stopping abusive admins. Pilcomayo Department was a valid stub a speedy delete, directly by an admin was not right. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for stopping abusive admins. But that's not what this is about. This is about your incivility. Regardless of the merits of the deletion, this "you arrogant WP:CSD violation supporter" is incivil, and further, a personal attack. You need to internalise that no matter how upset you are, you must remain calm, make reasoned arguments, and avoid attacking others. Until you do that, you are going to continue to be blocked when admins notice that sort of behaviour. Regardless of how much you try to claim there is some vast (or small) conspiracy or that I personally am out to get you, or whatever, the fault lies with you for making comments like that. The sooner you stop making comments like that, the better. Really, this is not hard to understand. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pilcomayo Department

---

A WP-email I wrote to User:Trialsanderrors Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO nice that you wrote something about Pilcomayo.

Nevertheless, I am really annoyed that admins can abuse their rights, and on DRV more admins support this. The only person who confirmed that is was not right to delete was Friday. It's still not fair that the original stub stays deleted.

Abusive admins have to be stopped and IMO abuses have to be orrected.

best regards

---

A WP-email to User:JzG Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am blocked

with respect to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_8#Pilcomayo_Department

you may like to read

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=68664490&oldid=68661659

that you take it for a department of a company does not justify speedy on sight delete. Errors as yours can happen.

You could have checked what links here to perfectly find more relations, or google, or use the category link.

best regards

Tobias, I am not the first to tell you this and I am sure I won't be the last: the article was not a valid stub. It was a single disconnected fact, barely a valid sentence, which contained insufficient information to establish the context. The solution was simply to creat a valid stub, which has already been done. If you can't be bothered to include enough information in an article that a busy admin can see what it's supposed ot be about, why should we care? You have put massively more effort into argufying about this perfectly legitimate speedy deletion than you did into the article. What the hell is the point? A proper stub has now been created, there is an article three times the size of the one you created which (unlike yours) actually establishes what the fuck it's about, and you are still arguing about it! You seriously need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. This has to be the most absurd dispute I can remember! As soon as you show evidence of climbing off the ceiling I'm sure someone will be along to unblock you, given your history of good contributions, but honestly the abuse and hysteria you have put out about this entirely routine deletion of a near-empty article, hundreds of not thousands of whihc get nuked every day, is baffling. I cannot remember another instance of a good faith contributor losing it to quite this degree over something so utterly trivial - which would have been fixed by simply re-creating the article with a bit more context. It's ludicrous. Go and have a beer or something. Just zis Guy you know? 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

it provided enough conteXt to be expanded. So it was not a candidate for speedy direct admin deletion. That you are not the only admin insisting in the opposite and thus defending a policy violation does make the thing even worse. At first I asked the deleting admin, then I asked at DRV. I don't know where to turn next, RfC? ArbCom? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, we're not still talking about this, are we? I had taken a few days off from Wikipedia to cool off and to think of what would be the best next move. Well, here's my proposal; Tobias, let's try to be mature about the whole thing and settle this. I have been at fault for not letting you know in the first place why I deleted this, and you were at fault for being uncivil. The both of us have made mistakes regarding this situation, and it seems pointless to argue any further. After looking at this talkpage, the deletion review page and the shortlived RfC, we both have to conclude that it's just a very longwinded repetition of the same arguments. Seriously, can't we just bury the hatchet? This whole debate (with many participants now) does seem way overdone for an article that didn't count more than 8 words at the time of deletion. I hereby apoligize to you and I hope you will do the same.

Yours sincerely, —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(PS, good luck with the improvements on Pilcomayo Department!)

Thanks a lot for comming here again :-). I still think the original deletion was against policy. After having seen how many admins at DRV defend this violation I am not sure whether the admin selection process is good. IIRC only User:Friday was for undelete. You are right, a lot of repitition here. Whatever will happen next, could you, to relax the situation a little bit more, undelete the original stub and merge with what Trialsanderrors wrote? Maybe it needs moving to another page, then delete the redirect, then undelete and then merge. Maybe CSD has to be made more clear, stating how "enough context to be expanded" is to be interpreted. At least Trialsanderrors was able to somehow expand it. All the best regards and thanks again for having come back here. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have looked at your deleted stub again, and the only thing there which wasn't already in the current article was Category:Formosa Province, which I have edited in. The process you have suggested "moving to another page, then delete the redirect, then undelete and then merge" is really unnecessary, as it does nothing but triggering a pile of bureaucracy to erect. As for the comments regarding the CSD and the admin selection process, I suggest you take it up on these pages their respective talkpages and propose changes. Happy editing.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was, that the original stub is visible to everybody not only admins. That it is a lot of work to make this possible is so thanks to you and Trialsanderrors. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WPArgentina

Hi! I just wanted to inform you, as a member of WikiProject Argentina, that we are about to start using the {{WPArgentina}} for article categorization and qulification. Please, take a minute to read the project's talk page, as well as the taggin scheme and the Importance guidelines, and make the necesary comments. Thank you for your participation, Mariano(t/c) 08:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

They are a bureaucratic mess, but they are the only place where you can officially log a complaint against an admin. You can also make an informal complaint, by posting to either WP:AN/I or to WP:RFC (but not to both at the same time). If neither AN/I nor RFC appeal to you, I can help you with the technical side of the arbitration process. Please note, however, that arbitration cases tend to drag for quite a while. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you for the info. Seems some admins live a different life in their admin pages. yesterday I found one who had around 3000 deletions and 4000 edits in the main space. If I guess the main edits are also tagging stuff for del or whatever than this looks like big imbalance. Taking into account that he maybe aquired adminship only after some main edits it looks more imbalanced. Special care must be taken if admins devote 70% of their time to deletions only. And if then they violate WP:DP or defend their violation - it's really a mess. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like a bigger review of the direct-delete-by-admin process. Where should I go? Seems like lots of admins apply the rules very lousy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can imagine how one can have tons of deletions. If you patrol recent new articles, for example, you are bound to encounter loads of crap. Start doing it regularly, and your deletions can easily outnumber your contributions. Same goes for AfD closure—if an article is voted to be deleted, someone has to delete it, and some people regularly close AfDs, which, of course, throughs their contributions/deletions ratio off balance.

As for your other question, we have the following deletion procedures: WP:AfD (+WP:CfD & WP:TfD for cats and templates), WP:SPEEDY, and WP:PROD. I can't imagine how admins would be able to abuse AfD and Prod. Speedies, yes, those are not always as clear-cut. If an admin speedily deletes something, that something should very clearly fall under one or more of the speedy deletion criteria and should be specified in the deletion summary. If you feel that an article does not meet the speedy deletion criteria, you should bring this directly to the admin who deleted the page—the very least they can do is to restore it and put in on AfD instead. If for some reason they refuse to even hear you out, then WP:AN/I is the best place to bring it to everyone's attention. Or, you can always re-write the article, expanding it in such a way that no one would be tempted to nominate it for deletion again.

For now, I suggest you read through WP:SPEEDY—it's long, but it should answer most of your questions. If after reading it you still have any unanswered questions, feel free to ask me. If you disagree with some parts of that policy, you can always make a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; there are brief instructions there on how to best do it.

Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, maybe he only closed tons of stuff. Pilcomayo Department was speedy deleted, it did not fullfill the criterion of no context to allow expansion. Still several admins insistent the speedy was right. This is policy violation and admin right abuse. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A disagreement does not have to involve abuse. I'm as concerned about admin abuse as anybody, but we're all allowed to make simple mistakes. Quite often, asking someone politely to reconsider produces better results than crying "abuse" at any opportunity. Friday (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "please revert your deletion Pilcomayo Department" - but he didn't. I talked with him, he sticked to it. I went to DRV, the first reviewer endorsed the del. They produce the mess and I shall not address an abuse as an abuse? What do truth and free speech mean to you? I did not cry, I only named the thing. Admin right abuse is admin right abuse. And if 1000 admins defend the abuses, so be it. Abuse is abuse. And if 2000 admins come to the one who named the abuse and tell him how to behave and at the same time do not stop the abuser - so be it. Abuse is abuse is abuse. The initial stub is still deleted, the deleter did not say it was wrong, the defenders of the violation do not name the thing an abuse. So be it. But an abuse is an abuse is an abuse. Policy violation by admins is policy violation by admins. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the debates about the Pilcomayo Department; sorry I didn't notice this was going on before. In my opinion, the original stub, while quite marginal, did not meet CSD A1. If it only were one sentence, I'd probably agree with SoothingR's logic, but it was properly tagged and categorized as well, thus sufficiently defining the article's title and its meaning to facilitate further expansion. I also don't understand SoothingR's reluctance to undelete the article and, if he believed he was right, to list in on AfD instead—even if CSD A1 were technically met, it's quite obvious that the topic was valid. I'm all for deleting extremely short articles such as this one myself, but only under the condition that no one else is interested in expanding them or in incorporating them into an existing scheme (this one obviously belongs to Category:Departments of Argentina). I can see how this could piss Tobias off; after all, it's not the first time when his stubs are deleted per a CSD criterion, although, of course, I would recommend Tobias to create slightly longer stubs to avoid this from ever happening again. Friday also made a good point—just because you have a disagreement, it's not necessarily abuse, but I can't justify some of SoothingR's responses either.

Tobias, you mentioned that you brought it to some other admins to review, but I couldn't find where. Could you, please, provide me with the links? And please, please, please, don't get all wound up again—we are perfectly capable of solving this peacefully. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your comment. the DRV [96] .... I am off for tango now :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Todo

media storage

audio

• phonograph cylinder
• gramophone record (also phonograph record, or simply record)
  • The terms LP record (LP or 33), 16 rpm record (16), 45 rpm record (45), and 78 rpm record (78) each refer to specific types of gramophone records. LPs, 45s, and the exceedingly rare, generally spoken word, 16s are usually made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and hence may be referred to as vinyl records or simply vinyl.
  • 78 rpm shellac records, A-sides and B-sides existed, but for the most part, radio stations would play either side of the record, and records often had more than one track per side. The "side" did not convey anything about the content of the record.
  • The terms came into popular use with the advent of 45 rpm vinyl records
• Compact Cassette
• Compact Disc
• DVD-Audio
• SACD
• vinyl

video+mixed

• VHS
• DVD-R
• DVD+R
• DVD+R DL
• DVD+RW
• Holographic Versatile Disc
• Blu-ray
• HD DVD
• DVD-Video

ISO 639:sip Sikkimese 28,600

Tanaro

Hi! I am not really clear why you felt the need to move Tanaro to Tanaro River, but would you mind fixing the double redirects you created? (I have made the appropriate change to the only link which was not pointing to the river article, the Tanaro in Départements of France) Thanks, —Ian Spackman 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I help you to become more clear? Feel free to ask me, as precise as possible. As a start you may also read Tanaro, if you have not done so already. I don't want to fix the links, I think this can be done tool-supported by other people better. I am not here to fix all bugs in WP. Why did you say "Thanks"?. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that English is not your first language. Thanks means ‘grazie’, ‘danke schön’…. But do not worry—I’ve fixed the problem. Cheers (‘Prost’,‘Salute’) —Ian Spackman 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your guess was right as can be seen from User:Tobias_Conradi. Nevertheless I also ususally translate it this way ( more precise I translate as "danke" without schoen.). And this is the reason why I asked, I could not see what you thanked for. best regards and thanks for fixing. :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on your contribs to see "what this helpfull editor" does else. By doing so I saw you did a cut and paste move in the Tanaro case and were not that helpful as your above text let think me. Cut and paste moves are not wanted in WP because of copyright issues. Furthermore it is a bad behavior of you to undo the dabbing I did and to delete the valley. You said you were not clear about why I dabbed and I offered you help. But you kind of arrogant told me how to translate "thanks". You should probably better leave WP or change your behavior. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mails received

I received two mails from Tobias which I am answering here.

One I cannot quite determime what is being asked for and I reproduce it here in hopes it is of some help.

because of your block I cannot take measures to undo the following cut and paste move http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanaro_River&action=history additional would be nice if you inform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ian_Spackman of his possible pol violation. I did not find the pol, but think there must be one.

He also made a quite misleading statement at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=68832292&oldid=68830829 which left the impression he fixed the wrong links. I just wanted to see what this helpful guy did else, clicked contribs and this way found out what he really did. I think this is really bad behavior of him.

best regards Tobias

The other is (in its entireity):

is this is personal attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_8&diff=68649656&oldid=68627594

In answer, if I understand the question, yes, it is. Trialsanderrors in his statement is highlighting something that he feels is a personal attack you made, and correct (in my view) in his assessment that it indeed is a personal attack. If you do not think it is, perhaps further reading will help. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

ad 1: Ian did a cut and past move as I wrote in the mail. I thought you may help to correct this and inform him of his policy violation, if he violated one. But seems you arrogant Esperanza member refuse to contribute in article space and to correct Ian. Maybe you have so much to do with me?

ad 2: I was referring to "No, that was a perfectly good call, you arrogant deletionist non-contributor." a statement made by Trialsanderrors in reply to Geogre. I wanted to know whether you would think this was a personal attack, because Trialsanderrors called Geogre arrogant. Maybe you answer this question just with yes or no and then explain why you regard it as attack or not. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

1... tsk tsk, personal attacks. Thought we'd talked about this already. Calling me arrogant is not going to score you any points I'm afraid.

2... No, it is not an attack. What people who already have a good relationship say to each other when bantering back and forth is not the same in meaning and intent with what people say when they are antagonistically interacting with someone that they do not have a good relationship with. You calling someone an arrogant non contributor when you have no positive relationship with them is an attack. Trials calling Geogre that is banter. Perhaps ill advised banter but banter nonetheless. ++Lar: t/c 06:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1..I fixed the copy paste move

2..Thanks for the clarification of your view of the world. I can see the context depending differences between the Trialsanderrors words and mine. I don't think this kind of his talking is to the benefit of WP. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect to #2, I think you may well be right about that, banter taken too far can be detrimental. Especially when it's very close to actual bad faith statements in time or place, as this was (and as were some of my comments). The problem is that staying completely 100% serious takes some of the fun out, so finding the right line is the challenge. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)