User talk:Tobias Conradi: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tobias Conradi (talk | contribs)
37,615 edits
→‎Moving: delete repitition and attack, wait for answers
Line 1,972: Line 1,972:
::Tobias, Indonesian articles have been subject to alot of disruptive editing by trolls, particluarly pushing anti muslim sentiments during the last couple of months. When you move pages that relate to indonesia even though your actions are just reasonable bold edits, this is causing a lot of unnecessary heart ache for the regular editors. Please take the time to talk first, thank you for understanding [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::Tobias, Indonesian articles have been subject to alot of disruptive editing by trolls, particluarly pushing anti muslim sentiments during the last couple of months. When you move pages that relate to indonesia even though your actions are just reasonable bold edits, this is causing a lot of unnecessary heart ache for the regular editors. Please take the time to talk first, thank you for understanding [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Gnangarra, which move(s) are you concerned with? Which would you undo? [[User:Tobias Conradi|Tobias Conradi]] [[User_talk:Tobias Conradi|(Talk)]] 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Gnangarra, which move(s) are you concerned with? Which would you undo? [[User:Tobias Conradi|Tobias Conradi]] [[User_talk:Tobias Conradi|(Talk)]] 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Tobias, the request is to consult before you do moves – as it was last year when you undertook similar behaviour which in my opinion is highly disruptive. You can ask on the article talk pages, or better still on the Wikiproject Indonesia pages. I note too that not all your moves relate to Indonesia and it is my suggestion to get some consensus from interested editors from any area [[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 15:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::::My strong suggestion is to make a suggestion explaining the thinking behind a large campaign of moves (that you appear to be well into anyway) to the Indonesia project page where it can be openly discussed. Ie, rather than explain each one, explain at least in general terms. And please don't make more moves until you get consensus. thanks [[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 15:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:32, 9 April 2007

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 2006-06-27 20:18 replied at [3]

2006 summer admin incidents

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Block

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

Involved guidelines

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]
  • 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
  • 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]


Arda River

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,
  • 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.
    • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.. ViridaeTalk 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Hurlingham

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Re: Haukes

I don't know. I've fixed it. --Pilotguy (roger that) 21:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Country subdivisions

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


Pilcomayo Department

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In your opinion as someone who already knew what it was about it provided enough context. In the opinion of the person who speedy tagged it, the admin who deleted it, and several (in fact almost all) the people who have reviewed it since, it did not. Where to turn next? That depends on what you want. If you want the existing stub reverted to your original sentence then edit away, but be prepared for it to be rapidly expanded or deleted again (either is valid from that strat point). If you want something else to happen you're going to have to tell us what it is, because as far as I can see we're all sitting here looking at the much better article which now exists and wondering why on earth you are still arguing. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's is not a matter of opinion. Everybody could have find out what it was about. I don't want the stub to be reverted, I want mine undeleted and WP:CSD violations by admins stopped. BTW, bad try to intimidade with plural wording. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, come on, the current page is better than your stub, why would you want it undeleted and replace a good stub? Just let it go, it's a pointless argument. Move on... Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put stuff in wrong context. I think nobody argued the initial stub was better than the current. I want it undeleted so that everybody and not only admins can see what it was. If policy violations are pointless to you, fine, but maybe add this to your user page since you are an admin from whom at least some people would expect to work on stopping policy violations. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What's the point? It contains no information which is not in the new article. Just zis Guy you know? 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
quote I want it undeleted so that everybody and not only admins can see what it was. AND the violation has to be undone. At best the initial violater would do this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, please read WP:POINT. Don't be stubborn just for the sake of it. I have defended you in the past, but this time you're being paranoid. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a violation does not vanish by calling the person who made this public stubborn. I don't know what is the connetion between "i have defended you in the past" and the repeated WP:CSD violations. I don't need you here to defend me, I would rather like you help making public policy violations and help stopping this violations. Undeleting would help in documenting. Not only admins should be able to see the original stub and to see what happened. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for ever standing up for you and trying to tone down this argument. It won't happen again. You can pretty much count on me ignoring you from now on. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you sorry? Why do you wanna ignore me? Is this a threat? Are you offended by the point that I didn't agree with you? I did not call for ignoring me, I'd rather like that you help to counter repeated policy violations by admins. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tobias, I understood the part where you said you wanted it undeleted so that non-admins could see the history and yada yada, but given that there is nothing in the single dleeted edit which is not in the current article, and given that the article exists so there is no "volation" to undo, what is actually the purpose of adding the single deleted edit to the edit history? What does that achieve? Why have you spent so much time and effort to in the pursuit of nothing except having your name first on the article history? There are many admins who will happily undelete content just because people ask nicely, if it will achieve something, but this will achieve nothing at all in terms of the project, so if you want it done you need to give a credible reason. Just zis Guy you know? 18:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

For crying out loud, it only takes a minute to restore Tobias's original stub. He may be on the verge of WP:POINT, but so are other admins refusing to do this simple favor. Anyway, I've just deleted Pilcomayo Department with the intention to restore all revisions, but, unfortunately, I am now getting a database error preventing me from completing the undelete procedure. Most unfortunate. I will restore the article as soon as the database allows me to.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which, of course, it did immediately after I posted the comment above. Hopefully, we are not going to have another 100K-discussion about why or why not the original stub should or should not have been undeleted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are my WP hero of the day. I don't know what you mean by your last sentence. But of course the thing is not settled yet. Now it's time for a straw poll and/or then RfC and ArbCom. So many abuse supporting admins this was really astonishing. Maybe also a project AdminAbuseWatch would be good. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
thanks for your comment. the DRV [95] .... I am off for tango now :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Did not knew you like fun ;-). But maybe some contacts I lately made would not expect this from me neither. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

move to Template_talk:Infobox City ES? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move to Template_talk:Infobox_City_Lithuania Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Some pages: SPEEDY deletions for reasons of empty/no content/no context/and the like are generally without prejudice for recreation as a workable article. Any deletion can be contested by anoyone by listing it on WP:DRV, although frivolous listings are often closed. Articles up for deletion are discussed on WP:AFD generally before they are deleted. If you want to make an "informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin" you can start at WP:AN/I, or by opening an WP:RFC, but NOT both (please!). If you need more info, let me know. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolshakovo

Thanks! I did what I could. There is no corresponding article in ru-wiki, by the way. Also, what is "Elch lowland"? I couldn't find any reference to it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

move to Talk:Serua (disambiguation) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji

Tobias, when I look at "Related changes" for a category and see nearly every recent entry is by you and has the edit comment '(rv to tobias)' it suggests that maybe you need to be using the talk pages more before trying to enforce what is obviously not the accepted naming scheme for Fiji. --Scott Davis Talk 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of an admin candidate

what's this [96]... all about? That's a rather odd place to put an allegation, you may want to consider putting it somewhere else, perhaps? it might not get very noticed there. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Thanks for telling. Yes, it may not be noticed. But maybe one day a discussion starts there about his adminship and then there is some fact. I now also start collecting stuff at User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse. In his case it's not ready for AN/I or RfC, but I have other cases I really would like to bring up somewhere. User:Hauke and User:Chrisjj2 still are blocked and some WP:CSD violations are still active. But AN/I seems not a very good place. Is there a special Request for De-adminship page? Or Admin-conduct? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC has a section to complain about admin conduct. --Golbez 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo, Cebu, Pangasinan

Please do not accuse me of abusing my admin privileges simply because you do not agree with my actions, please assume good faith. I have been trying to get all the provinces in a consistent naming pattern wherever possible. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles)#Provinces. The names usually refer to the provinces, nothing else. I patterned this after the US States. Take a look at Hawaii (disambiguation) or other states. If you are not happy with this, then we can put this up for a vote to reach consensus. In the mean time, I will be reverting your reverts. Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis. --Chris S. 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I think you are out of line trying to accuse me of abusing my admin powers by blanking my RfA. If you are serious, then let's discuss the matter. I have already reinstated the provincial names back to their original namespaces. If you do revert my moves again, I will not intervene until there is input from other editors. --Chris S. 20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much you're familiar with the Philippines, but I think you are mistaken. When people refer to Cebu, they refer to the province AND island. They are the same. But since the province has official status, it takes precedence. Look at my Hawaiian example, there was an island named Hawai'i before the state was made but the state name takes precedence but yet, the state of Hawai'i gets its own namespace while the island is is Hawaii (island). So are you telling me that we have to change my grandfather's hometown of Oslob, Cebu to Oslob, Cebu (province)? I hope not. I really wish you would consider the guidelines that we are working on in the MoS. I have researched the variety of ways of bringing the most consistent namespaces for Philippine provinces, and other Filipino editors agree with the changes that have been made. Another administrator (Jondel) and I started it back in June. In any case, this dispute is not over yet. I am going to put up a poll in the talk pages of those articles. I will let you know when. --Chris S. 21:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
don't try to intimidade other editors by phrases like Another administrator (Jondel) and I started it back in June.. That you are an admin and Jondel is one, is of no say in content and naming disputes. That you started this in June, is not important at all. What matters is whether it is good or not.
You ask So are you telling me that we have to change my grandfather's hometown of Oslob, Cebu to Oslob, Cebu (province)? - No. This is against naming policies. IIRC have never seen such a naming for a municipality. BTW, you mention your grandpa, do you really think this matters for the naming scheme? Do you think you can make any special naming poliies because your grandpa was born there? I see no policy that allows this. Please respect policies and revert your abusive deletionsa and the corresponding moves. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Chris about keeping these three province articles where they were. Same as the situation we have with New York (referring to the state) and New York (disambiguation). In fact, 39 out of the 50 U.S. states have conflicting names, but all of them (except for Georgia (U.S. state)) are located at the base name, with links to corresponding disambig pages. Coffee 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really now, please stop moving the province articles like this. Policy and consensus is clearly against this. Coffee 04:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is no consensus, since we disagree. There is no policy that decides what is main article and what not. Bad try of you to frame it as if I work against policies. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus between other Filipino editors and myself at WP:TAMBAY. As far as I know, you are the only who opposes this. Now please don't go against consensus. --Chris S. 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, and there is consensus between me and me and at least one other editor. But there is no general consensus. Was just a bad wrong claim of you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
with respect to Tambayan, you can also have a consensus at your private talk page, but this does not stop general WP policies from being applied. WP:NC is a good starting point. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Conradi, I would like to point out that my consensus also comes in the form of the treatment of U.S. States, which are the equivalent of Philippine provinces. To wit, the state I live in, Washington, and the state of New York are given their own namespace in light of the fact that Washington, D.C. and New York City are more notable. When one mentions the word "Washington" one immediately thinks of the US capital. The same goes for New York; one thinks immediately of the Big Apple. Also, the state of Hawaii was created in 1959, which existed long after Hawaii (island). This is also mirrored in Canada. There's Vancouver and Vancouver Island, Quebec and Quebec City. There are oodles of other examples and there is no reason why the Philippine provinces cannot follow these examples. Thank you. --Chris S. 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, I would like to encourage you not to jump at conclusions and accusations. You know some people have been here quite a long time and naming schemes have been worked out. --Jondel 07:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I always _draw_ conclusions and _make_ accusations. Why do you tell me not to jump on some. Tell me where I did.
  • You know some people have been here quite a long time and naming schemes have been worked out.

please stop moving comments

move to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy

First of all, please, again stop the accusations. And second, please reread Wikipedia policy concerning the moving of pages by admins. It is perfectly acceptable to delete pages in preparation of a movie. --Chris S. 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your thing to ask me to stop, if I think they are valid. Provide evidence that I am wrong. WP:CSD does not allow what you did. Stop the violations, say that you will not do it again and revert all your abuses. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more collegial in working with others. Yes, that's an official warning. Reach consensus, then act. Consensus does not require unanimity. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show the policy that allows you to "officially warn me" in a dispute were other admins abused their admin rights. And there is no consensus. Maybe ther is Lar-defined consensus, but no consensus. They just jumped in in June 2006 destroyed the dab work of others, deleted pages to get their way for dabbing and you warn me of collegiality? You are crazy. Yeah block me for this fight against abuses, hey come. Block me for getting angry of such an annoying statement from you. Yes, I said annoying. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, the reference is CSD G6. Furthermore, I urge you to read Wikipedia:How to move a page which mentions that deletion is appropriate and that users may ask an administrator to delete a page for a move; such is what I asked of User:Jondel before I became an Admin last month. I gauged consensus from other Filipino editors, who are in a better position to determine how these provinces' name space should read. Please respect the consensus. --Chris S. 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G6 Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article. - you see that this does not apply, since there is controversy about the moves. Please revert your violations. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hi Tobias Conradi! I noticed that you had been recently blocked for what has been labelled as incivility. I hope that you don't become too jaded with Wikipedia and that your frustrations have waned. You are obviously passionate about Wikipedia and have shown quite a dedication to the project to rack up over twenty thousand edits! Wikipedia, while an amazing project, is just a website in the end, and I hope that you don't let your annoyances get the best of you. I would hate to see Wikipedia lose a tireless contributor such as yourself over a few isolated incidents and some bad experiences. If I can be of any help, please don't hesitate to contact me! Cheers! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'admin rights abuse'

I'm going to be blunt, mainly because it's 7:30am and I haven't been to sleep yet - Please remove your 'admin abuses' page. If you are going to take action against an admin, then do so, either with an RfC or an RfArb. If not, then it simply reeks of a passive-agressive mentality that will only irk, rather than aid - that you'll complain about 'admin abuses', but won't actually do anything about it. If you are using the page to assemble evidence for an RfC or RfArb, then please let me know. --Golbez 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use it among other things the latter way. Why do you want me to remove these abuse facts? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because having them hanging around, and not acting on them, is not collegial, and likely to give people a bad impression of you. Also note that they're not facts, they're your views, at least in a lot of cases. Having these around is not going to build your reputation as a person that's easy to work with. Golbez is spot on. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In admin right abuses I don't want to have a reputation as being easy to work with, if easy to work with means spreadig admin right abuse culture and repeating admin right abuses. Which of the facts are not facts by your view? You may join the talk there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your reputation as not being easy to work with is far wider than just in "admin rights abuse cases" as you call it. What you need to internalise is that as long as you have a reputation for being difficult (which you do) you are going to have admins watching you a lot more closely. I'm not really interested in debating with you about "admin rights abuse" because in my view it's just trolling on your part. We have hundreds of thousands of users that happily edit a wide variety of articles without ever getting blocked. You need to think about why that is.... Perhaps the reason you have been blocked so many times has something to do with your approach to editing here and your approach to conflict resolution here, rather than some vast conspiracy to oppress you. Straighten up and fly right and you won't hvae me posting here any more but right now, you're cruising for a block again with your commentary and approach. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the reason you have been blocked so many times has something to do with your approach to editing here - You mean when I got blocked for moving a page from "Name" to "Bad Name" and the blocking admin had no idea that 'Bad' was a german word here? Please stop making putting my edits in bad light. And stop allways threatening me with blocks. This is bad behavior of you and annoying. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have absolutely no problem if admins watch my behavior. Don't let it look like that. Stop your defamation attempts. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply just above proves my point. Please at least try to be more civil and take criticism on board instead of assuming that you are getting criticised because we all are bad people. And I'm not threatening you with a block, I am promising you that you will be getting blocked again sooner or later if you can't change your ways. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say you are all bad people? It's only that soe of the adins show bad behavior and threaten others. And don't try to fool me. Promising a block is pretty much the same as threatening. I can promise you that your body will not be able to let the fingers type threats in your keyboard. And I have also no problem if I get criticized. I only dislike unfair treatement and admin right abuses. Your civil stuff is really nonsense here. Remain civil, remain civil. Can you please stop these general statements? And can you stop your "official warnings" that you sent from time to time only because I said something you think was not civil? I don't need this. Give me exact diffs and policies and that's it. And you may also try to stop the abusive behavior among some admins. User:Hauke still is blocked with false allegations. But there you do NOTHING. Clear cut abuses you let go, because they are all worded so nice, in proper english. Oh yeah, this man, how could he have raped a woman, he allways was so nice nad had good manners. Yes, from this uncivil guy I would have expected it, but from him. No, I still do not believe it. Cannot have been him, he is soooo civil all the time. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek alphabet

I get errors when adding iso15924 at Greek alphabet. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tobias. What sort of errors are you seeing? It actually seems to display fine on my screen... with a link to ISO 15924 on the left and 'Grek' to the right. --CBD 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Country subdivisions

Hi. I would much appreciate participating in the WikiProject Country subdivisions (of which you are a participant), but unlike most WikiProjects, this one doesn't say that in order to participate I just need to add my name. I did not want to add my name there before being sure about any eventual participation restrictions. Please inform. Thank you. --Húsönd 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

See WP:MOSDAB, the normal style is to have "Blah may refer to:" at the top to hint the reader at what is going on, where some reasons could be confused, especially when the links aren't superficially obvious as being related. —Centrx→talk • 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes/Writing_systems

Huh, I followed the standard that ipa used, I didn't notice it was in the non-iso conform, thanks for the help. --2dMadness 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "iso conform is Grek". It was apparently your reason for moving the Greek script template. If the move is a good idea, I think the template still has to be edited and the category renamed to match, otherwise it doesn't work properly. Can you do that? Thanks Andrew Dalby 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions by User:Lar

Civility warning

You are resuming your pattern of incivility. This edit (and the edit summary that goes with it) is incivil: [97]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Another civility warning

This edit was not very civil. Nor was this one Please assume good faith, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was made by someone who very frequently comes to my page and posts civil warnings. Is mobbing different? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you talking to? --Golbez 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? To Jesus Christ? To God? To you? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an answer. I'm just wondering if you're making an actual complaint, or just being passive aggressive again. --Golbez 03:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I got what I wanted. A little longer statement from you. You can make an official complaint against Lar if you like. I don't think official complaints with the current admins will yield much good result. Look, there is strong cultural difference between me and some admins. I point out mistakes. I say: "WRONG", if I think something is wrong. And I also change my statements. So I changed the WRONG to "False conclusion". And then my stalker comes and gives me a civilty warning. He gives it to me, for standing up and saying WRONG. For me he is like from another planet. His contributions here have no value in my live. But he cannot accept this. He thinks everybody has to behave acording to what he thinks is right. It is censorship under the banner of civilty. Yes, the British and USians invaded Iraq and the banner was, that they will find WoMD. And admin pschemp blocks users with wrong allegations. And admins violate the policies. For me Lar is like a little Bush, trying to enforce in a very bad way his way of thinking to others. The AGF statement by Lar is absolut out of context. Why does he say "please assume good faith"? He is just posting mobbing-like statements. Yes, maybe he does so in good faith. But I will not make any assumptions here. It's irrelevant, I have no mind-reader at hand to check assumptions about other peoples faithes. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty making sense of that. --Golbez 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. AGF note was without any relation. And now I see pschemp engaging in a mayor deletion afford, near to something I worked on during the last days. Is this stalking? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, then file a complaint. I have no opinion. --Golbez 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. It is hard to prove. I think a complaint would not make much sense. To many bad admins here. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you complaining? --Golbez 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? If I did, why not? What do you think is the reason why people complain? Could it be that they want things changed? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You won't complain in a way that could get things changed, so what kind of complaint is this? --Golbez 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an email to Jimmy Wales Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Raul654/Raul's_laws "Laws by others", #3, #6, and #26... Hope that helps. (you may want to skip #49, it's a bit confusing). ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
help in what? It seems that the stuff there is not realy helpful in getting things related to admin right abuses and as in your case mobbing changed. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help in understanding that writing to Jimbo may or may not be useful. I see you haven't internalised that you need to be a productive civil contributor yet. ++Lar: t/c 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help in understanding that writing to Jimbo may or may not be useful.
I see you haven't internalised that you need to be a productive civil contributor yet.

Civility warning

You are resuming your pattern of incivility. This edit (and the edit summary that goes with it) is incivil: [98]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Some recent edits concern me

Hello Tobias: I find some of these edits, or their summaries, of concern: Yogyakarta - "your brain misses the power" Jambi - in response to being baited AWB (and many others in on the AWB talk page, in which you seem to be arguing with the developers and administrators of AWB about how they choose to administer their project and tool) Even when you're baited, as you were by Indon in the second one, it's important to remain civil. Please keep that in mind. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


AWB apparent harassment, unconsensual movement/renaming of provinces

I see that you have continued to harass Martin, and snipe away at the AWB policy on many pages, some only faintly related. If you have a specific grievance with how AWB is administered by its author and the folks he has chosen to help him, use formal dispute resolution channels, but stop this sniping it is unacceptable harassment of another user. This is an official warning to you, Tobias, if you continue to harass or be unpleasant to the AWB folk, I will block you for it, and this is your last warning on this matter.

I also got a note from one of the users you have been interacting unpleasantly with regarding indonesian provinces, aftre seeing my warning this user let me know how frustrating and unpleasant he finds working with you. Please be more collegial. This is an official warning to you, Tobias, if I see you acting the way you have been again, I will block you for that as well, and this is your last warning on this matter.

Removal of this notice would constitute acknowledgement that it was read, but really, I'd far prefer you left it here, at least a while, for the benefit of other admins. If another admin pops by to take action and missed that you had already been warned, and only warns you, when I come back and see it, I'll be extending the length of your block for that.

Please be more collegial. In looking through your contributions, in addition to these difficulties, I see lot and lots of contributions that seem to move the encyclopedia forward. So you clearly are doing good work. But no one gets a free pass, and your good work is outweighed by the grief you are causing others. Make no mistake, when people send emails, they are not happy at all with your ways. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

You chose not to try to explain what you are trying to achieve, I was actually prepared to help you, I've been talking to Martin about what might be clarified to address what I think your concerns are. You could have dialoged with me, but instead removed this without answering my good faith questions. Therefore you have read it and I will assume, internalised it. The next edit by you to any AWB related page that is in any way contentious, that anyone complains to me about, or that is a reversion of an edit, will result in a block, unless I see some evidence that you are working constructively to clarify matters with regard to AWB. Removal of this notice without a constructive answer will result in a longer block, if you do subsequently get blocked, than if you leave the notice in place because it is important that other admins be aware of the history here. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another civility warning (the latest in a considerable string)

Tobias, I find these edits [99] and [100] quite incivil. There are others in your recent history. Stop being incivil, stop going on about how admins are all out to harass you, or that admins are stalking you, stop assuming bad faith on the part of every admin that warns you or reverts your damaging moves or attacks, and especially, stop responding hostilely to warnings, or I'll block you again. You're a good contributor when you want to be but you just have to learn how to fit in here. You've been here a long time, I'm surprised you haven't figured it out yet. This is an official warning. If you remove it, it means you've internalised it and if you violate anything it says, you will be blocked without ignorance as an excuse, and I will put it up for review on AN/I as I always do. You've just about exhausted my patience. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions started by User:Nandesuka

threats

1RR on [ISO 15924]] and related articles.

I see that you are engaging in what can only be described as egregious edit warring on ISO 15924 and related articles. This is especially troubling given that the article has just been unprotected. You have already violated WP:3RR on this article today. In lieu of blocking you immediately, I am giving you this opportunity to change your editing pattern. Please restrict yourself to the WP:1RR pattern of edits on this article from this point forward. I suggest you focus your edits on making civil, persuasive arguments on the talk page instead of repeatedly trying to force your edits into the article text. If I see that you are continuing to edit war on this article, I will apply a block of at least 1 week. Please consider this your last warning on this topic. Nandesuka 15:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this warning again. Nandesuka 15:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected this talk page to prevent your removing this warning again. Warnings like this are important because they let other administrators know that you have been warned for your behavior. I will unprotect it in one week, or when you promise to stop removing it, whichever comes first. Nandesuka 19:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus in repeated discussions at AN and AN/I seems to be that users should not have to keep warnings displayed on their talk page. User talk pages exist to facilitate communication, not to embarass / annoy the person. --CBD 04:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions query

Hi Tobias,
As you're probably already aware, I've posted my first query since (nearly) finishing my first foray through "country subdivisions" here. Best wishes, David Kernow 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I'm sorry, I'm not quite following you. What purpose would that serve?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iso15924

Hi Tobias. Sorry, I overlooked your messages about this template until now... they were added further up on my talk page at about the same time as some new ones at the bottom so I missed it entirely until I happened to notice your name on the page history and didn't recall having read the note.

I undeleted the template for now. There wasn't any valid grounds for speedy deletion so it can go to TfD if someone really wants to get rid of it. In any case this looks to be the equivalent of a 'babel' template for writing systems... and almost everyone seems to agree that babel userboxes at least are 'safe' in the template namespace. --CBD 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your work on Template:User iso15924 which I am now using! Andrew Dalby 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, having looked at the comments made so far, I think the category structure for 'User writing systems' should be defended at all costs but there may be grounds for arguing that the number of skill levels should be reduced. I don't know if you would want to think about this. Level 1, confident with script order, being able to look words up in a dictionary. Level 2, confident with script-phonology relationship, being able to convert words to a different script. Level 3, fluent, being able to read in the script. What more is there, really? I can see no real difference between advanced, full and native-like. I leave that question for your consideration but I will register my vote to keep the system. Andrew Dalby 11:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User jpan-N, Template:User jpan

This template has now been deleted. (aeropagitica) 10:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gustavo86

Thanks for your message, buddy. Anyway, I'm not fully sure about what is it about. Can you explain to me why I may be interested in templates? Regards, --Gustavo86 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin right abuse

move to User_talk:Tobias_Conradi/2006 Kayah Li incident

*sigh*

Tobias.

I really, really, really hate to say this.

But you are acting like a child. A petulant, miserable child.

You are a very good contributor, most of the time.

I have looked at the deleted version of the article on Kayah Li. It was so uninformative, it was practically a tautology. This falls well within the criteria for deletion. Had I been the one to discover it, I would have left you a message telling you that you had twelve hours to expand it yourself or it would be deleted - but then, I am often told that I'm too nice.

It was not an article. It was a micro-article. There are many things that can be said about the Kayah Li script, and your article said none of them. I know it was very annoying to have the article deleted in the first minute of its creation, but if you can't be bothered to include enough information in the very first edit to make it clear why the article should be kept, that's exactly what you're risking.

We are janitors. We are cleaning up the constant mess that is being created 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by thousands of people all around the world. Every article has to stand on its own two feet from the very beginning.

And then, the article on the Kayah Li script got created anyway.

By someone else, true, but the information is there, and you even got to edit it yourself. It says everything you wanted it to, and more besides. That's what matters, isn't it? DS 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Tobias, I unblocked you, because I feel that you are likely to make productive edits, and all in all, you are an asset to the project.

However.

This does not allow you, or in fact anyone, to throw tantrums. You are thirty-two years old, not thirty-two months. You're capable of better. Show it. DS 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better what? You want me to NOT name admin right abuses? Forget it. Bad try to distract from the abuse by making several personal attacks on me. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, see my note on my talk page -- Best wishes -- Andrew Dalby 13:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read passive aggressive. --Golbez 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:HA. If we're going to be sticklers for civility I ought to be handing down blocks on the lot of you. :] --CBD 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why do you want me to read this? Yes, admins engage in actions defined by WP:HA, but until now their behavior did not stop me from editing. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the indentation level - the comment was directed at Golbez and then more generally at the disagreement as a whole. --CBD 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, while you are correct that the page did not fall under the criteria for A1 (contrary to claims, A1 specifically says that there isn't a 'size limit') you should have treated it as an understandable mistake rather than going directly to "admin rights abuse". Everyone messes up and dislikes being told about it... let alone being accused of malfeasance rather than simple error. You might have had better luck with an, 'I just started that article and was going to expand it' message. Yes, it would be better if nothing ever got deleted unless it should be... but people are human. They have different opinions and make mistakes. So that just isn't going to happen and inevitable foulups should be taken in stride. --CBD 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From his comments you see that now it is not a simple mistake - which it might have been in the first place and that was the reason I asked him to undo, and I did not go to RfC admin conduct. Since he sticked to the deletion it is obvoius abuse. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CBD and I are having a disagreement about CSD A1 that seems to revolve around our interpretations of insufficient context. I'm certain we'll come to an agreement soon through discussion, but in the meantime, I'd like you to review the actual conversation thread, Tobias. In short, I deleted it, you called instant 'admin abuse' (which was a failure to WP:AGF, hopefully not an indicator of things to come), I explained my rationale but restored a copy to your userspace so you didn't lose any data. With this in hand, you could have fixed the problem and reposted it, but you chose instead to plant your heels and repeat "admin abuse, admin abuse" over and over. I understand that you are frustrated, but instead of using this as an opportunity to learn and grow as a wikipedian, you seem to have chosen another path. I hope that you'll reconsider and return to your previous productive role. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad try of you to discredit me and my contributions and to talk nebulous of things to come. You did explain your rationals but they are in violation of WP:CSD A1. I told you that my edits fell victim to WP:CSD A1 violations not for the first time. This stub had an infobox, had references to it. It had full context. In first place you maybe made an error, I don't you and don't know your IQ, I mean whether you were able to see the context. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, attacking my IQ isn't really helpful. An infobox is pretty, but the one you used added no context. The references to which you refer was a single wikilink of the word "Kayah People". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I very well thought about the IQ statement. It was not a result of incivilty. But it was maybe insufficient, since IQ alone is not all to see the context. The context BTW was "script", "Kayah people", "ISO 15924" (where I made a typo for the code) and "lang-stub". I also would consider the referring pages to be kind of context, but this can certainly be contested. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, it's also possible to find a page via Special:Random; therefore, every page has to have enough context by itself. DS 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please obstain from discrediting

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chairboy&diff=73601957&oldid=73601074

comments by Pschemp

Read your own talk page Tobias. It clearly says that it was I who put up the unblock. I did it only to be nice. If you choose to interpret this as a mockery, I can't stop you, however, I was assuming good faith that you wanted to be unblocked. If you wanted to not be unblocked I apologize. pschemp | talk 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not erase my comments again. You removed my comment and did not put it anywhere else. That is not accetable behaviour.pschemp | talk 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments without responding to them is sometimes considered incivil, but it is not 'unacceptable behaviour' beyond that of incivility in general... and repeatedly restoring comments a user has removed has previously been ruled harassment by the ArbCom. --CBD 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't repeatedly restore that comment above, so what is the point of that statement? pschemp | talk 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chairboy repeatedly restored moved comments and Pschemp did so too. Followed by blocking me, posting a lie and protecting my talk page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been restoring the comments when responding to maintain context. It's just a way of keeping the conversation straight. Throughout this entire thing, you've failed to assume good faith at any turn. This is a good way to get an ulcer. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what was annoying behavior by you. I did not fail to assume good faith because I did not even try to. I did assume nothing about your faith. I have no mind reader to ever see what you believed. I was only referreing to your abuses. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Tobias, I am referring to the comment at the top of this thread. However, since you brought it up, you were moving talk page comments to article space, which is quite a different thing. No one told you you couldn't move comments. You were told they can't be moved to the talk page of an article, again, a different thing. pschemp | talk 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you refer to, it is my own talk page. There is no policy saying that an article related dispute cannot be talked about at the article talk. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar etc.

The Working Man's Barnstar
For being a hard-working veteran, and a huge amount of contribs. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely different note, would you be willing to join WikiProject Writing systems? You've been doing a lot of work on the subject lately, and you'd get a fancy little userbox too :-) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Feel free to add {{User WikiProject WS}} to your userpage. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week

Tobias, I told you that if you continued being incivil, or assuming bad faith, I was going to block you. This edit [101] in one package, is hostile, assumes bad faith, calls another user a liar and in general is not the sort of collegiate editing style that we require of users here. I can look up and down that diff string and find other examples. Therefore you have been blocked for one week because you just do not seem to get it, despite repeated blocks. ++Lar: t/c 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, other than the word "lie", that diff looks to me completely civil and accurate. Obviously calling something a lie is 'incivil'... but then I'd think out of process deletion, move warring, and unwarranted blocks would be considered 'incivil' too. I don't think Chairboy was 'lying' about the nature of CSD A1, but I am quite certain that he was mistaken about it. --CBD 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Lar is posting a false claim. I did not call someone a liar in the above diff. I did only say that someone posted a lie. And this is true. Pschemp posted a lie. I don't know how else I should correctly name a false statement that was made with the knowledge that it was not true. Maybe the article lie should be changed then? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want to stay blocked? pschemp | talk 20:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no. The same in this case. Can you unblock me now? I mean you know that you lied and therefore my statement was true, can certainly not be called uncivil and thus the one week block by Lar is not covered by wp policies. Maybe also block Lar for repeated harressement, mobbing and abuse of admin rights. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't lie then if you wanted be unblocked. All I did was try to be nice and put an {{unblock}} template on for you. I never said you put the template there. If you wanted to stay blocked, then it might have been a mistake, but not a lie. Stop calling me a liar for trying to be nice to you. And just because a statement is true (which yours is not), doesn't mean it isn't uncivil. You have no right to respond to anything with uncivility, no matter how wronged you think you are. If you want to be unblocked, put the {{unblock}} template on your page. pschemp | talk 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pschemp, I think the point is that the 'unblock' template says, 'This user has requested to be unblocked because of XYZ'... Tobias hadn't actually done that so the text automatically generated by the template was incorrect and doubtless you knew he hadn't asked when you added the template. That being said it seems more a case of not thinking about or not worrying about the technical accuracy of what the template text would be. --CBD 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made it absolutely clear who put the template up, so calling it a lie is unacceptable, especially since I did it in good faith. Or should I have left him to rot instead or attempting to make sure another admin came in to review the block? Again, calling someone a liar because they attempted to do a nice thing is unaaceptable. Every attempt I've ever made to be nice to Tobias has been met with icivility. Please tell me why I should tolerate that? pschemp | talk 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, you indirectly announced your lie. But that does not make your lie less a lie. By reading lie it is absolutly acceptable to call your statement a lie. First: your block was not covered by policy. Second: Protecting my page was not covered by policy. Third: That you lied is not covered. You are mobbing me. You have blocked two of my friends User:Hauke and User:Chrisjj2, calling them sock puppets. You claimed you have a checkuser at hand, which could not be found true. Your behavior is disruptive, you should de-admin yourself. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not interacted with Tobias for very long. I have objected to some, but not all, of his activities with regard to ISO 15924. I have, however, in following this discussion, come to understand that Tobias' interest in quantity does not (necessarily) add quality to the Wikipedia. All this business about "lies" and "admin abuse" does not convince me that Tobias has been an angelic but persecuted Wikipedian. Evertype 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype, I don't know what of my activities you objected, I only remember one you agreed with and another one where I did object to one of your proposals (you proposed content deletion). I am very surprised to now see that you objected to some ... but not all of my activities.

When I objected as registrar of ISO 15924 to your duplication of its content, you responded rather aggressively and impatiently. I objected very much to your "mini-stub" on the Gaelic script which showed a complete lack of understanding about what the Gaelic script is. You suggested that it should not be confused with Ogham, and no one could possibly confuse them. That was a mini-stub for a mini-stub's sake. You were not adding quality content to the Wikipedia. At present, I am objecting to the shouting match you are engaging in with a number of admins. Evertype
I did not duplicate the RA content. I moved a list from the main article to a seperate list-article. IIRC the Gaelic / Ogham confusion was not my invention. I stumbled about wrong links. And IIRC I went to you because I knew you know more to get some clarification. Then I created a stub. I did not saw any objection, thaks for telling me now. I do object very much to your implied statement that I should not have created the stub only because I have no complete knowledge of this script. I add what I know, I cannot add what I don't know. Fortunatly other editors know other things and is this case including you put more content to the article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what do you consider my interest in quantity and why this what you perceive as interest in quantity does not add quality to WP?

Your own user page makes much about how you are in the top 200 of prolific Wikipedia editors. That's quantity. Your mini-stubs are not quality. Your mini-stub on the Gaelic script showed complete ignorance of what the Gaelic script was. Evertype
Disagree, my mini stubs have content and context. Thus they add quality. Of course a mini stub is less then a whole article. I don't think it makes sense to value editors by what they did NOT contribute.Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your mini-stub on the Gaelic script showed complete ignorance of what the Gaelic script was. I am not going to debate you further. Evertype

What do you exactly mean by all this business - did you review all of Pschemp's Lar's and other admins attacks on me and admin right abuses ? Don't know why you state that naming abusive behavior and lies does not convince that I am angelic. Anyway, I agree with you. There is no connection between their abuses and mobbing and me beeing angelic. It does not matter whether I am angelic at all. Seems you too try to distract readers from the abuses by indirectly talking bad of me. So be it.

I think your behaviour here (regarding your "persecution") has been rather graceless. I'm not trying to distract anyone. But you should be taking something on board: it is more important to have good contributions than tens of thousands of contributions. Evertype
what does this has to do with the "persecution" as you call it? I object to your last sentence. First of all WP is not here for only your way of thinking about contributions. I make lot's of small edits, this mainly if I see wrong links or discover inconsistency. Other people may only fix spelling errors. Everybody may do what he wants to, as long as it is increasing the value of WP. You are in lack of the right to tell other people how they should contribute. Secondly, I also claim that your statement is a false one. "good contributions" do not have necessarily more value then "tens of thousands of contributions" Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That you are not convinced that I am "persecuted" is one thing. Another question would be, are you convinced that I am not? Don't you think your statement is a personal attack on me? I mean, how would you like if someone writes the followig fictional statements: "From all the business about unicode I am not convinced that Michael did not have sex with minors" OR "I have come to understand that Michael's interest in quantity does not add quality to Wikipedia." OR "I am not convinced Michael is not an ape." - Hey - why did you attack me???

I have not attacked you. I have criticized some of your behaviour. In my opinion, you are not reacting in a measured fashion to criticism. I am not persecuting you. But I don't see you listening to criticism. And I do think you're more interested in whether you have 30,000+ edits than whether your mini-stub on the Gaelic script was accurate or not. (You could make up for this by writing a nice article for the German Wikipedia like Gälische Schrift...) Evertype
IMO you attacked me. And now you do it again. Furthermore, to repeat: you are in lack of right to tell me what artiles I or any other user should edit. You may also read my User page which says "This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia." Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make another point clear, could you directly state whether you agree with all those admins that engage in or defend speedy article deletion in violation of WP:CSD A1? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already expressed my concern to the admins that precipitous deletion of stubs in an actively-growing category like Writing systems frustrates editors a lot. I think that an admin who dislikes a stub in such a category (such as a writing system with an info box pointing to an international standard that has a four-letter code for it) should engage the community or the editor of the stub about improvement rather than deleting it. So I agree with you there. I don't agree that shouting "Abuse! Abuse!" is helpful. Nor do I agree that Wikipedia policies are anything more than guidelines. Mostly the guidelines are good and helpful, but getting angry over their "violation" and staying angry about it isn't very sensible. Take some days off, Tobias. Translate Gaelic script into German. Have some fun. Evertype 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanna let abusers go, then this is ok. Even in real life, crime happens and people that see this, do not engage in stopping it. If this is your approach so be it. For me personally it is not ok. You say shouting "abuse abuse" seems not helpful to you. If you have another idea how to stop the abuses I would be interested to know. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crime? My stars. I see you have been blocked on the German Wikipedia since February, apparently for vandalism of user pages. Maybe you ought to think about that. For my part, I will have to watch your edits with care. My experience examining some of your work so far is that your quantity exceeds your quality. Saying that a mini=stub like your mini-stub on the Gaelic script "adds quality" to the Wikipedia is just wrong. Unfortunately you have damaged your own reputation somewhat. I won't write you off, but I'm afraid you're going to be in my caveat editor box for some time to come. Having said that, I would still encourage you to make a German version of the Gaelic script article. That would show me that you care enough about writing systems to do more than proliferate mini-stubs. But you may prefer to choose to ignore my suggestion. Enjoy your holiday. Evertype 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, crime, like rape, violence, robery, murder, mobbing. There are people who stay silent about this stuff when they see it. And this is what happens here, you suggest to let abuses go and that I should stay silent, not shout "abuse" if I see one. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are hiding behind the word "abuse". You have been abusive. Even of me, who really just tried to give you some sensible advice. Evertype
it seems you are someone who does not make up his own opinion but judge people by what others have judged about them. This is an easy way, but is not a sign for a strong personality.
This is an ad-hominem attack. Evertype
I stopped contributing to German WP after beeing defamed and out of process blocked there.
Keine Überraschung, vielleicht. Evertype
I will thus not translate.
A pity for the Gaelic script, then. Evertype
For me it was important to contribute to en:WP since more people can benefit from it. Again I strongly object that you go around and tell people what they should edit or not. Your mockery like statement "Enjoy your holiday" is of no value. I have no holiday. That the mini stub did not add value to WP in your opinion may be caused by your limited view of what constitutes "value". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Don't enjoy your holiday. Don't do anything constructive like learning something about the Gaelic script by translating it into German. If you think that your mini-stub, "The Gaelic script should not be confused with Ogham" adds any value, you should really think again. It is so wrong as to be embarrassing. It only suggests that the author knows nothing about either the Gaelic script or about Ogham. So don't consider the ban to be a holiday. Think of it as punishment, and spend a week in bitterness, trying to vindicate your rightness. Evertype 17:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, why was the Gaelic script stub such a bad thing? Look at the article which has come from it (largely by your work) in such a short time. Would that have happened without the stub? Nor does the original statement that it should not be confused with Ogham seem incorrect to me. While closely related they are also clearly not the same thing... they have different Wikipedia articles, different ISO codes, et cetera. At that, the word 'ogham' doesn't even appear in the 'Gaelic script' article... though it probably should. --CBD 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CBD, that was a direct quote from Tobias's initial version of Gaelic script. See this revision. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CBD, that direct quote had no "quality". It was utterly ignorant. Please see Ogham. It isn't the Latin alphabet. It cannot possibly be confused with the Gaelic variant of the Latin script. The Ogham and Gaelic scripts are completely unrelated. The only thing they have in common is that they were used in Ireland. It seems that some of Tobias' mini-stubs have, indeed, such preposterous content. But my opinion may be influenced by my "limited view of what constitutes 'value'". Evertype 21:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err.... I realize it was a direct quote. That's why I cited it. But... I still don't see what was wrong with it. You keep saying 'it is preposterous', 'utterly ignorant, shows that Tobias 'is so wrong that it is embarassing', et cetera... but... um, it seems a completely true statement. I don't know anything about the subject, but it seems obvious that Tobias was correct. The Gaelic script should NOT be confused with Ogham... the redirect, which Tobias replaced, from 'Gaelic script' to 'Ogham' was incorrect. What exactly is the embarassingly foolish part of his completely true statement? They were being confused. He said they shouldn't be... you're being very rude about it. Why? What's wrong with his statement? --CBD 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "The Cyrillic script should not be confused with Mongolian" is equally "true". There is no "value" in the statement, however. Evertype 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. So he should have left Gaelic script as an incorrect redirect to Ogham. There was "no value" in saying they weren't the same, providing the proper ISO code for Gaelic script, and marking it as a stub to be expanded. Got it. I don't agree, but at least I understand what you are on about now. His obvious improvement of the situation was not good enough, and is indeed worthy of disdain in your opinion... have you heard of collaborative editing? Wikis? Every little bit helps? You think Tobias is incivil and unhelpful? Check a mirror. --CBD 10:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. As Lar pointed out, a "more or less uninvolved editor Evertype (talk • contribs) gives some good advice and Tobias rips into him for it". I found that unpleasant, and tried to continue dialogue. Now you want to call me incivil, too. If I've learned anything in these exchanges, it's that those mini-stubs are of little value. The one which Chairboy originally deleted (Kayah Li) had the virtue of not being misleading and incorrect, at least. Evertype 11:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CBD, before you hand that mirror to Evertype, you might want to gaze in it for a while yourself. You asked this editor what the issue was. He gave you details of how this user inserts nonsense into articles. And in return, you're abusing him for it. I'm very disappointed. Nandesuka 12:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, can you honestly tell me that you believe calling Tobias's work "utterly ignorant", "preposterous", and "so wrong as to be embarrassing" is not uncivil? If so, then I am sorry but you are very much mistaken. You say that Tobias was uncivil... and that's true. It does not however give you license to be so as well. Such harsh criticism for 'not improving the page enough' is completely unwarranted.
The amount of energy we have spent dealing with this mess is most irritating. I was irritated with Tobias' edit on Gaelic script far before the Kayah Li deletion which has precipitated all of this. I expressed my opinion on that here. My opinion of its quality has not changed, and I don't need to be spanked by you for being frank about it here. I have not gone out of my way to insult Tobias. I do think that the content of the "mini-stubs" is poor. I do think the proliferation of "mini-stubs" is irritating, and we have spent much time discussing it simply because Tobias was pissed off for having one of his mini-stubs deleted. Evertype 13:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nandesuka, your claim that Tobias "inserts nonsense into articles" is also uncivil... not to mention obviously untrue. As is your statement that pointing out Evertype's clear incivility is "abusing" him. If I were to do so to excess... seeming to stalk him around and look for any pretext to snipe at him... making condescending statements about being 'disappointed'... that could become 'abuse' in the form of harassment. But a single statement that it is incivil and unhelpful to harshly criticize another editor for making only minor improvements? That's hardly 'abuse'. --CBD 12:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias did the Wikipedia equivalent of creating an article on Fish whose only content was "A fish should not be confused with a bicycle." Yes, I do in fact think that that is nonsense. I can't comprehend why you don't. To shake down Evertype because he points this out in blunt language is, at the least, very odd. Evertype hasn't been incivil at all. He's described Tobias's contributions accurately. Nandesuka 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. Can we stop this thread now? Evertype 13:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not before I reply as below. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka seems to have limited knowledge of what happened. I assume Fish (Gaelic script) never was a redirect to Bicycle (Ogham script) and Bicycle is not the script used to write Fish languages. To state that the script to write Fish language should NOT be confused with the Fish script seems valuable to me. Since there was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaelic_script&oldid=29156621 I fixed this. To avoid that other people make the same error which existed in WP for around 10 months, I made a stub and stated, don't confuse Gaelic script with Ogham script (the script that is used for writing Gaelic language). And yes, I did not know much more about the Gaelic script. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are encouraged to create new stubs and I for one appreciate your work in this regard. You changed an incorrect redirect (Gaelic script > Ogham) into an article which stated they were not the same and provided the correct ISO code for the topic... thus making it easier for others to locate information on the subject and expand it. As indeed... they did. This was a good thing. --CBD 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A related link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=73971286#Tobias_Conradi_redux Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblocking

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tobias Conradi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In disagreement with CBD, Lar sees one of my edits as incivil. Both have problems with me using the word lie, in relation with a lie pschemp posted to my page by inserting Template:Unblock. This template in deed produced at least one lie. The block by Lar is out of policy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to take a deep breath and take a break from Wikipedia for a while while you collect your thoughts. Civility is not optional here, even when you believe that others are being incivil towards you. While reasonable people can disagree about whether you are being treated fairly or unfairly, your characterization of the situation is unacceptable. If you continue to sling arrows over this, rather than discussing things calmly, then I will protect your talk page from editing for the duration of your block in order to protect you from your own mouth. -- Nandesuka 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Can an admin point me to the policy covering 1) Lar's block 2) Nandesuka's decline to unblock? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tobias. The most directly relevant policy is Wikipedia:Civility. Note that it requires politeness even when impolite things might be true or in response to incivility from another user. Obviously, this is a difficult standard to maintain and all of us are less than fully polite from time to time. However, there has to be an apparent effort towards remaining polite and assuming good faith. For example, when Pschemp put the 'unblock' template on your page the text it displayed was clearly untrue... you had not 'requested to be unblocked for reason XYZ'. However, is it not at least possible that pschemp just didn't know or think about the exact wording of the unblock template and put it there to get someone else to review the block? If so then he it wasn't a 'lie' because he didn't intend to make a false statement. That's 'assuming good faith'... giving the benefit of the doubt that maybe it was just a mistake. But even if it wasn't and you knew for certain that something was a deliberate lie it is not 'civil' to say so. Likewise, when Chairboy deleted your stub... I strongly agree that this did not follow process, but 'assumption of good faith' should have led to thinking that he probably just made a mistake or has a misunderstanding of the A1 criteria which can be discussed with him and others to resolve. Calling it "Admin abuse" in the section title is again a 'civility' issue. Asking if it was a mistake or for an explanation would have been better... and when he moved it to your user space - ok, that obviously isn't what you wanted and it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, but as the civility policy says the best course is just to let it go. It wouldn't have been too hard to add in a few more details and then move it back to the article.
It all comes down to giving people the benefit of the doubt and using non-judgemental language. This does not mean that you cannot disagree when something seems wrong or unfair. Lar and I have recently had a very intense disagreement, but managed to remain mostly civil to each other... likewise Nandesuka and I are downright angry with each other right now, but have been no more than 'snippy' in our discussions and edit summaries. Still less civil than we should be. Having good reasons for being angry (such as your article being deleted) doesn't change the requirement to be civil. It's something we all try to do to keep conflicts and arguing to a minimum. The blocking aspect of this is at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption, but if a user remains civil and discusses disagreements calmly they don't have much to worry about. --CBD 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages 2

moved to Talk:Yapeyú Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ipa-0

This template you asked to have restored following a mistakenly out of process deletion has been deleted again by Pschemp. I started a review of the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 3. Hopefully we can get your block resolved in time for you to comment on the review. --CBD 12:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

Shouldn't it quite be time for an archive? Your page is 105 kb...

Hello! Please click here to post a new message ...or if it's really pressing click here to email me. Thank you!

--Scotteh 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proposition to Tobias and the admins

This is becoming a dogpile. I'm not a huge fan of some of Tobias's work, but I think this is getting to be ridiculous. I propose this: Tobias, stop complaining. Period. Admins, stop poking. Period. That is to say, no more discussion occurs here. None.

Tobias: Be nice. Period. That is a requirement of being here. Even if people are not nice to you, you have to be nice to them. Civility is non-negotiable. Admins: Honestly I don't think y'all are doing too much wrong, it's just the sheer volume and unrelentingness of it that's probably not helping.

Now, if Tobias does something that needs admin action, like deleting one of his stubs, then do it, and let him know how he can improve in the future. Tobias gets no special treatment; his substubs are no more sacrosanct than anyone else's. Likewise, Tobias, you need to learn that an infobox and a single sentence is not sufficient, no matter how much you say that it is. However, that brings me to the next point:

Admins: No more threats about blocks. If you have a problem with Tobias, take it to RfC, RfM, or RfAr. Likewise, Tobias? If you have a problem with an admin, take it to RfC or RfAr. And if you have a problem with a deletion they make, instead of accusing them of "abuse", go straight to DRV, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Saying they are abusing and attacking you fails the civility requirement. USE THE PROCESS.

The point of this is to not have endless, constant words without any gain on a talk page. If ANYONE involved in this has ANY PROBLEM with ANYONE ELSE, take it to an OFFICIAL VENUE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION, and do not offer threats and random blocks.

That is my proposition. You all may take it or leave it. --Golbez 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-signed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: And Tobias, please do not move conversations around after someone complains. --Golbez 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once tried to use the DRV process, but the WP:CSD A1 violation was endorsed there. Furthermore I think it is better to at first contact the deleting admin. For RfC on admin conduct I need a second person first. I invited another person, Chairboy also offered help, because I told him I found the RfC pages confusing. (thx to Chairboy here) But then I was once again blocked.

One sentence and an infobox can in deed make a valuable stub. E.g. some user made [[Kayah State|Kayah Li]] this is stupid. So I created a little article, to not have a red link which could invite people to make these kind of wrong wikification. Another example: There was confusion and IIRC wrong links related to Gaelic script and Gaelic languages (written in Ogham script), so I started Gaelic script. I was accused not to write a longer text about this script I never heard of. Great. At the end: I reserve all rights to clean my talk page and move article related discussion to the corresponding articles. cheers Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for "The A1 violation was upheld there", so be it - consensus trumps weak rules. (as opposed to strong rules, like civility, verifiability, and NPOV, which are non-negotiable) As for "contacting the admin", yes, please do - but don't immediately come out accusing them of abuse and lies. That really, really poisons the well. I don't really care about the disputed article, I'm just trying to defuse what was appearing to be a rapidly escalating situation. I just wanted everyone to sit down and shut up. Everyone. (My suggestion for the Gaelic script thing - contact the Languages wikiproject.) --Golbez 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to cool the thing down. I agree that using the word abuse in the first contact with Chairboy might no have been optimal. As for your strong/ weak rules, where is this written, that a very clear rule like WP:CSD A1 can be overturned by 5 or so admins? I assume there is a much larger consensus that initially installed the rule. Do you made up this concept to support your oppostion to current speedy rules. On your page you state you would follow the rules, now you advocate that there is no need to follow WP:CSD. This seems corrupt to me and lets me doubt that you really like to be an admin that wants to serve the WP community in the lines of the rules that the community installed. But maybe you can point me to the policy that defines negotiable and non-negotiable rules. I am not 100% sure about the lie thing. Pschemp is an admin which is as far as I am concerned a lot in the blocking business. I would like to see a proof that she did not were aware of the template intro: "This blocked user ... has asked to be unblocked.". She inserted the template twice, she announced the insertion, so the insertion was no accident. It was inserted to mislead the reader, i.e. to think the reader that the statement is true while knowing it is not true. That's what constitutes a lie. The Gaelic script that I started is a nice article now, therefore only kind of historic issue for the writing systems project (not language project). best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break Tobias. If it had been my intention to mislead, I wouldn't have clearly stated on your talk at the time of the insertion that I put the template in to help you. I announced that I put the template in to help you. Yes, it was deliberate, it was a deliberate attempt to be nice to you! There was no intention to mislead, and your paranoia here despite the fact I have said this mutiple times is really tiresome. I did it to help you. I was being nice, I was making sure another uninvolved admin would see the request. If you don't believe me fine, drop it and go do something productive. pschemp | talk 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that, that what you call paranoia, is in deed tiresome to you. And I hope it will be so tiresome that you stop abusing your admin rights, never again engage in stalking, and leave mobbing me. And yes, let editors do something productive, i.e. e.g. add content to wikipedia. And then, let verifiable content stay in WP. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nandesuka replaced "stop abusing your admin rights, never again engage in stalking, and leave mobbing me" with "(personal attack removed by Nandesuka)" - I don't think there is a policy covering this removal. If I am wrong, please cite. Otherwise, Nandesuka may consider following the WP rules in the future. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As promised, I will now protect your talk page for the duration of your block for your "When did you stop beating your wife" type personal attack in your last comment. Regards, Nandesuka 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I have removed it. User talk page protection is to prevent vandalism. You can't run around calling Tobias a "bad user", placing false notices of vandalism and/or warning removal on his page, encouraging other users to be incivil to him, and protect his page when he acts up. Should he be incivil to Pschemp? No. But then Pschemp shouldn't be calling him a "petulant child" either. You people want to be able to block others and protect their pages for 'incivility'... put your own houses in order. Stop engaging in the same behaviour you would condemn him for. --CBD 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever CBD. I said he was "being a petulant child", not he was one. That's called metaphor. Too bad its true that he is acting like that. The whole issue here is his behaviour, so commenting on it is entirely appropriate and calling every comment on his behaviour a personnal attack is ridiculous. Your definition of personal attacks is warped and oversensitive. pschemp | talk 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying someone is "being a petulant child" is "entirely appropriate". Got it. If that's not a personal attack then the comments which Nandesuka protected the page over certainly must not have been either. There aren't different standards for admins. You don't get to abuse users just because you have a sysop bit. Tobias is incivil and makes personal attacks (by my 'warped and oversensitive' standards)... but so do you, and Nandesuka, and Chairboy... by the standards written down in WP:NPA. --CBD 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already

Tobias, please just stop responding. At this point there is little more to be said. You are making personal attacks on admins... they are making personal attacks on you. Yes, their behaviour has been reprehensible and completely out of line with Wikipedia civility policy... but so has yours. Since they are apparently unwilling to refrain from incivility and personal attacks I'm going to ask you to do so. --CBD 17:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to my last what you call personal attack I made on an admin? IMO their behavior is not in line with several policies, not only WP:CIVIL. It would be nice if you would help me in an RfC about what happened here. I would like some official ArbCom statement. If ArbCom or SuperAdmin Jimbo say it is ok, then this might be interesting to some more people than only the 10 or 20 watching the issue right now. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Thank you very much for your engagement here. Engagements like that are IMO very valuable for WP, or at least for what I once thought WP is/should/could be. I am not sure anymore where this ship sails. But hey, everyone has the right to fork. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a philosophy that says 'personal attacks' can be removed. However, this is disputed because people often have wildly different definitions of what is and is not a personal attack. I'd rather not go through an RfC as they are often nasty tedious affairs which accomplish little, but if you wish I will help you with the procedures. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#CBDunkerson loses it - where alot of these issues have already been discussed. As to personal attacks, well as I said definitions vary widely (and often on a per case basis in my experience)... but I'd say that questioning Chairboy's IQ would definitely qualify. You didn't say he had a low IQ or such, but it certainly seemed implied and just a bad idea to go there at all. Any accusation (e.g. 'abuse' or 'stalking') might also be called a personal attack though that is something more of a stretch as it is usually defined as a negative description of the person rather than their actions. Though the latter is often 'incivil' whether a 'personal attack' or not.
Wikipedia is alot of things... but mostly it is alot of people. And people means personality conflicts and disagreements. Usually your best bet is going to be to walk away from that. If something you were working on gets deleted - let me know. It can always be restored and expanded unless there is some strong reason that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all (which seems unlikely). I don't agree with alot of what goes on either, but mostly I just go somewhere else until the problem goes away. There is always something else to work on. --CBD 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some policies are very poorly defined. One which seems pretty clear to me is WP:CSD A1. The only dispute could be is there enough context or not? In several cases not only I saw the context but others too and the stubs got expanded. If now Chairboy comes and says there was not enough context I assume he only did say this to defend his deletion, or that he really saw no context. What is needed to see context? I assumed a certain IQ level. I later added that this assumption was probably not sufficient, one can have a high IQ but if there is lack of knowledge then this might not be enough to see context. Maybe he did not know what the word "script" means? I doubt this. If so, I propose to only let admins delete per WP:CSD A1 and keep this deletion up after a complaint, if they succesfull passed a vocabulary test. Another proposal could be to by default let admins delete by WP:CSD A1 until it is found out that they lack to much knowledge (and/or IQ) to handle this correctly. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second time you've called me stupid. I understand that you're frustrated, but I've treated you civilly during this entire exchange and I ask you to do the same in return please. The micro sub-stub did not contain anywhere enough near context to remain as a WP article, the consensus on this subject is clear. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Where did I call you stupid?
  2. the mini stub, or miro micro sub sub stub DID contain CONTEXT to be EXPANDED. That's what counts for WP:CSD A1.
  3. yes, even I may join the consensus that this stub did not contain enough to stay as an article. But this is not what all the thing is about.
  4. yes, you have been rather civil during the debate. Maybe not so on the WP:AN/I page. Despite the deletion and sticking to it, you behaved very well. I mean you even provided a copy quite fast, something other WP:CSD A1 deleters didn't. And you offered help in the RfC process. Unfortunatly we were stopped, in this process when Pschemp and Lar showed up. Some days back I also sent an email to you, so that maybe we could discuss the thing a little via skype or so. Sometimes the atmosphere may be more relaxed then, as is also suggested by WP:TEA. I am not sure whether this would be true, but I thought it would be worth a try. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, the dispute about CSD A1 isn't a reading comprehension issue here but a disagreement about what 'context' means. I, and apparently you, think it means that the subject of the article is defined. Chairboy (and Pschemp) presumably think it means something else - though neither has said what despite invitations to do so. From past comments that the stubs were 'too short' I gather that they consider 'context' to have something to do with length, but that is not my understanding of the policy. In any case, Chairboy didn't delete your stub because he couldn't understand it, but rather because he views A1 as allowing deletion of things you do understand if they lack... enough length or something. I'm not sure exactly what criteria he is using. --CBD 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw him saying that he saw the topic of the stub defined and thus that there was enough context to get the stub expanded. IIRC I didn't saw the opposite neither. Maybe he can clarify whether he understood what the stub was about. BTW, what about Bad Eisenkappel ? And yes, if this gets undeleted, I will look how to expand it. IIRC I had some additional info but the stub got deleted the second time before I could insert it. No copy to my user space please. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bad Eisenkappel. --CBD 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, can you undelete the original Eisenkappl and Eisenkappel too? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

todo

Wizards of OS 4

I think this information works better in the main Wizards of OS article and so have redirected. The OS 4 article has so little information by itself it's almost a1 speediable. Thanks, NawlinWiki 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't speedy it -- I redirected. The Wizards of OS article itself is pretty short. Why do you say that OS 4 should have a separate article? NawlinWiki 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disamguation

moved: Talk:Kannada Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested link

(eom) --CBD 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re please stop...

Hi Tobias!

please stop, you are creating inconsistency

Have stopped for time being, but a period of inconsistency inevitable as I work my way through these articles. (Hopefully you've spotted that I've left those articles that address more than administrative divisions alone – at least, that's my intention!)  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan

move to Talk:Subdivisions of Azerbaijan Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tobias. See my response to your question on this issue here. --CBD 15:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Kangarli edits are in the history again. As to grounds for deletion, a case could be made under CSD 'A3' as the text there says articles consisting only of links (including links under 'see also') can be treated as 'empty'. Again, I think clarifying that there are different places with the same name is a valid goal - so just work around whatever quibbles come up to get to a 'methodology' of doing so which can't be obstructed. On the MfD... alot of pages like that have been deleted in the past. I recall a big stink when Kelly Martin was found to have one. I'd suggest just copying the wikitext to a local file. You can always cut and paste it into an edit window and use preview to add things / make updates and then have it available if you need it for a future discussion or DR process. You could probably also include some of the general text describing the problem with links to a few examples as a 'position statement' on your user page. Plenty of people have 'this is what I think needs to be fixed at Wikipedia' type commentaries. --CBD 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request your help

I have seen you interested in Indian geography articles. Can I request your help in merging articles in this page into the article namespace. They were created in the sandbox since a article with the same existed. It would really help speed up the process if more hands work on this. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, Thanks for helping out. You don't have to be an admin to do this. Let us take Bhadravati for example. Since the sandbox article and the main article are referring to the same city. You need to merge the infobox and other text from the sandbox to the article. Please do not move the sandbox article to the article space. Instead uncat it by adding tl before the stub template and : before the category. This procedure is explained in the header of the Not created page. If a town exists, but the sandbox article is a different town with the same name, you should create a disambiguation page as required. Please let me know if my explanation is not clear. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the sandbox article. We should not have redirects working across namespaces. User namespace should be kept seperate from the main article space. That's why. Here is what I did with Bhadravati article. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bot could do it. You mean like adding " - X" at the end of the article in that list? I work on the list using the state category. By doing "tl and colon" procedure, I see the sandbox article disappear right-away and I move to the next one in the category listing under U. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a bot is needed for the update, it will need the person to mark the item as complete (Like a " - X" at the end). If it finds the mark, then it could do the tl procedure on the sandbox article. If you feel we need it, I can write one. The intro already mentions two ways to work on the list, one go through each and the other to work on it state-wise. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A municipality is a governing body for a town or a group of towns. It is not geographic group, like the ones in the link you mention, it is more a administrative grouping. I found this URL that might explain it. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Kadayanallur. Looks good. Thanks for helping out. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a different matter

Tobias, I see you create articles as Article name, State name. I create it as Article Name (State Name) and some other people do too. What convention do we follow? Please advise. Looks like this is similar to our district name discussion. :) - Ganeshk (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the overview link. I will follow the guideline from here on. Here is what I understood, when disambiguating across states, use comma. When doing that across countries, use brace. Am I right? - Ganeshk (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. got it. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your AWB applicatoin

Your previous block logs bring concerns of your using of AWB and therefore I chose not to approve your application. --WinHunter (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP policy involved here (since AWB is not from the foundation), it is up to the discretionary decision of any admin to decide whether a user have sufficient experience to use the AWB and whether or not there is any concern of a user will follow the AWB Rules of use. --WinHunter (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Winhunter. John Reid 00:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move from Sultanate of Johor to Johor Sultanate

move Talk:Johor Sultanate Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget...

Hi Tobias,
In addition to here, I'd also appreciate your counsel here, here and here. Thanks!  David Kernow (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I am quite busy, can maybe only return to country subdiv during the weekend. suggestion: Can you try to integrate the hierarchy into the country subdivison article, or if you prefer put it in the talk there? ...
Understood; yes, there is more to life than Wikipedia!  I'll try what you suggest presently; in the meantime, perhaps with unfortunate timing, I've just entered a few categories at CfD to see what folk think about renames. Yours, David (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong disagree with this action. It is disrupting. We should get consensus _before_ the stuff is moved. Again: the word "nation" is not a good one to use. Again: the word subnational is for the same reason neither. Could you withdraw the CfD stuff for now? Let's _first_ work on our thoughts about the hierarchy...
But where might we find people other than ourselves and the occasional visitor to WP:WPCSub willing to contribute to finding a consensus...?  My feeling is that we need to take this issue to people, e.g. via CfD... However, if you're not able to contribute until the weekend, I'll freeze the CfD test for the time being, yes...?  Apologies for my unfortunate timing, David (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribs

Tobias, I was checking your recent contributions. You get distracted too often. :) Here is a barnstar for you. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The India Star
For your outstanding contributions to Indian geography and history related articles. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

Nah..I don't mind. Thanks for putting up the templates on the user page. I will try to use the userbox templates instead of the babel box that I have right now. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That MfD

Hi. The reason I removed that content was because it's already available in at least one prominent place. We don't, generally, need to reproduce all the material of a page that's under discussion for deletion. The Land 19:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a link right below your comment. It's also linked at the top. That is plenty. We do NOT as a rule reproduce material on the page where it is being discussed. which an editor with 30K edits ought to know. Reinsert it one more time and you will be clearly in violation of WP:3RR and you will be blocked. Stop acting in a way that many would perceive as immature and you will find things go a lot more smoothly. ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got it: I am interested that the abuses and policiy violations do go smoothly. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can't fault anyone else if they decide, based on your own abuses and violations, to make your affairs on wikipedia not go smoothly. And that may well happen. Tobias, this vendetta of yours would be better stopped now by your own ceasing it than later by other means, which might involve things you don't like. Badbilltucker 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my vendetta. It's the vendetta that the admins fight against policies and against truth. It's their fight for a two class society in WP.

BTW: you mentioned I "abused". Pls, where did I abuse admin privileges? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. One, I am not myself an admin. Simply an interested party. And no, you haven't abused admin privileges, simply the policies of wikipedia which apply to all users. And, believe it or not, I haven't made up my mind one way or another about your complaints, partially because I have seen from your own recent behavior how you do abuse the civility and other standards which do apply to you. And, if you continue in like fashion, I think you may well get someone so annoyed at you that you are suspended. I would not want to see that happen, as I don't know if you have a case or not. Honestly, as someone who has not yet taken sides on this matter, I think the best thing you can do right now is request mediation from disinterested third parties, and stop making these "comments" which only injure your own case more. Badbilltucker 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "hi", I can say this is offending and that you violated civilty policy. So what? Some people seem to interprete any word that I take against admin right abuses as a civilty policy violation. No, I don't believe you that you don't want me out of the project. I think you would be happy if I go. But hey, nobody can "suspend me". You have not taken side in that matter? I clearly have done so, and I invite you to join those that believe that admins should not be treated different to regular editors, and that they too have to respect policies. And that trying to hide abuses is not the right thing at all. The choice is up to you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you are still dodging the central issue. The central issue in this case is whether you are acting inappropriately. Bluntly, I think just about anyone looking at it from the outside would have to think that you probably are. And what good would it do you to be right on the issue and still be suspended later on the basis of your own actions which fall outside the norms of behavior? Again, if you can be bothered to listen, there are appropriate places to raise your concerns, and, so far as I can determine, you have failed to raise them there. Instead, you are stepping outside accepted behavior to make your case. You could make a request for comment, you could post a message on the community portal or appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or any number of other actions which fall within the norms of behavior. Instead, you are taking actions which any outside observer I believe would see as falling outside the norms of behavior. As such, I repeat, you are damaging your own case before it is even heard. Again, I suggest you seek arbitration or some similar means to raise these concerns of yours. Badbilltucker 00:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not fail. I could not have failed yet because I did not try to raise the issue in the places that _you_ call appropriate. And if you would read more carefully: I am not alone who thinks the little admin abuse overview should _not_ be deleted. But even _if_ I would be alone: _I_ don't need others to judge on right or wrong. I don't need to run with the majority. If you like to only support the majority this is fine. It's your personal way. But it's definatly not mine. You are free to go to ArbCom if you think this is the right way. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

Tobias, I got your message. I will take a look at it tomorrow if it is still pending over there. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogyakarta

move to talk:Yogyakarta. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article moves and disambiguations

Please do not move articles to new names without discussion. This is wikipedia policy and IMO it is also just good manners. I refer to Yogya, Jambi, and Riau. You never know, if you discuss, I might just agree with you. But please discuss and get some consensus first!! Thanks --Merbabu 04:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you write here without discussing it first? BTW it's very clear with all the wrong links around that the topics are clearly NOT primary at all. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your question means. Why did i write here and not the article discussion page? Because it is a message for you relating to a number of articles and i wanted to make sure you go it. Also, my apologies, i do not know what you mean by "tpics are cleary not primary". Article moves are important issues and need to be discussed first. The Yogyakarta page is up for discussion, this does not give you the right to move it until that discussion has finished. If you want to move the others, please put in a request as per Yogya--Merbabu 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I notice you are also moving other pages without consultation. Please stop. Violation of wikipedia policy. --Merbabu 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why do you write on my talk page before discussing first? Who gave you permission? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-one needs permission to write on anyone's talk page - in fact, that is the very reason why it was there. If i did require permission, how should i request it? Has everyone here asked you permission before using your talk page? How - by phone? Or did they send you a letter? --Merbabu 05:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same way no ones needs permission to move an article - in fact that is the very reason why the move button is there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Was watching this conversation and wanted to comment) Tobias, Not quite true. WP:RM states, "...In other situations a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus.". Contraversial moves do get posted on that page for a discussion. Please cool down my friend. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting me. This still does not make: "Please do not move articles to new names without discussion." valid to me. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, it is very clear from some of your comments that you know nothing about Indonesia, and yet you think you can just go around renaming every article to suite wahtever misinformed urge you have. Please stay away from moving and editing any of the Indonesian articles until you gain some knowledge about the country. (MichaelJLowe 05:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It may be due to your IQ or the processing power of your brain that I know nothing about Indonesia. But this is not so clear to other people. I suggest you increase your capability of logical thinking. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias - watch how you talk to people. Editors who continue in such an uncivil manner don't last as editors - if you know what i mean. I also suggest you compare Michaels contribs on Indonesia over a long time, and then compare them to your own. --Merbabu 05:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia decides to have people like MichaelJLowe that make absolutly illogical statements stay and me who points out the nonsense than I say: so be it. I am not here to be your or Michaels servant. Re-read what nonsense he wrote. That he made more contributions to Indonesia related articles may be true, but that does not make his wrong judgements right judgements. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, i notice you are continuing to make unilateral major changes despite this being reported to admins and you appear somewhat angry. I suggest your edits would be better if you continued tomorrow when you have a cooler head. --Merbabu 06:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, i notice you are continuing to make unilateral major changes despite this being reported to admins. Which I think is absolutly ok. No need for admins to go into the edit process.
I suggest your edits would be better if you continued tomorrow when you have a cooler head. - I don't think I would edit differently tomorrow. But who knows certain about the future? Best regards - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! The lot of you - knock it off. All this about who doesn't know what about Indonesia and who isn't thinking clearly and blah blah attacks on each other... without anyone on either side bothering to spell out clearly why they think one name is better than another. I don't know anything about Indonesia, and at 6:30am local time I am certainly not thinking clearly... but even so I know that you are never going to solve anything if you don't concentrate on what the real content issues are rather than ways to annoy each other. Merbabu, Tobias mentioned something about 'primary topics' without really explaining it (which you should have Tobias). Without looking at the disputed moves I can guess that he was very likely referring to this section of the disambiguation guidelines. Basically, standard Wiki-practice is that if there are multiple things with the same name and none of them are overwhelmingly more likely to be searched for by users of the English language Wikipedia than the others you should have a <Name of thing> disambiguation article which lists all the things with that name and links to each of those articles as <Name of thing (type of thing)>... we generally only have <Name of thing> go to one of several items with the same name if it is well known/overwhelmingly more common than the others... at which point there would be a link at the top of that article to a <Name of thing (disambiguation)> page for the list of the other items. Based on a previous instance I'm going to further guess that we are talking about 'regions' where there are also towns of the same name... most English speakers have likely never heard or had reason to search for any of them and thus there likely isn't a clear 'primary topic', but in many cases the town articles haven't been created yet. Correct? If so, I think it would be less confusing/disruptive for others if Tobias created the town articles first and then moved things to standard disambiguation, but it does make sense to clarify immediately that the 'region' article is not the only thing with that name in case someone was really looking for info on one of the other places. There are other ways to accomplish that clarification than a disambig page (such as listing the other locations towards the top of the existing article), but if it is going to end up that way eventually once the town articles are filled out is it really such a bad idea to disambiguate now? Or is there some other issue or reason not to disambiguate at all? --CBD 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - Looking further I see that there actually has been some discussion of these issues now on Talk: Yogyakarta (special region). It's an improvement over the above, but it would still help if everyone could lay off wholely unhelpful comments about IQ and who said what and who isn't qualified... et cetera. --CBD 11:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. I can't see anything particularly harmful in the recent pagemoves. However, it is often a good idea to have at least some discussion of a proposed move. And it is never sensible to have a massive row about article naming on Wikipedia. The Land 14:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input CBD & others. There was a discussion on the Yogya page until one editor didn't agree with the consensus forming, stated his opposition, and then made his change immediately. In fact, Tobias appeared to share the same view of the issue but his solution was different. Just for some context: Yogyakarta is regarded as the "cultural and emotional heart" of Java (pop 120m plus!), is one of the most historically important cities/regions to Indonesia (both modern and ancient) and probably the most significant tourist centre in Indonesia apart from Bali - thus, its significance to readers can be expected to be considerable. (it is also where I got married - he he).
Given it's significance i think we can all agree that Yogya needs more work. I agree we all stop any name calling but i also request that given that it is clearly a sensitive area that the changes are slowed down and are discussed FIRST with time for responses (Tobias, what do you think?). In return, the rest of us should be careful to only strongly object or even revert changes if they are not just wrong but significantly so that they just can't be lived with. Ie, work out what is most important and what isn't. is this fair to all? let's work together --Merbabu 01:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of controversial issues in advance is always a good idea, but it is not always possible to tell that something is going to be controversial until you do it. In any case... we are where we are and should be discussing the current situation. But what is that? On Yogyakarta one of the objections seems to have been that the 'city' article was very short... but after info on the city was transferred out of the 'region' article and both filled out a bit more they now look like two viable articles with different info. So is the idea of 'merging' these (and the 'sultanate' article) or ignoring the city in disambiguation evaluations still viable? Should the city article be cut down? Should links/searches on 'Yogyakarta' go to one of those three pages or a disambig page, and why? Try thinking about where you want the Wikipedia info on these places to 'wind up' rather than where it is or was. Long term if 'Joe Wiki-user' types 'Yogyakarta' into the search box what should happen? Is he probably looking for info on the sultanate and should be directed there or is it unclear which he is looking for? Do each of the three areas have enough notable information, distinct from the others, about them to justify an independant article or are one or more really minor topics which would never have more than a paragraph which can be merged into another article? What is really 'in dispute' at this point? --CBD 11:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing messages from your talk page

Man, what are you doing? Somebody points out that you are involved in a revert/edit war, and you just remove their message because they forgot to sign it? Please read WP:3RR, because you and your edit war foe are both violating it. And next time, you can use unsigned template instead of just removing my message. --King Bee 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC) I did not remove it here because it was only unsigned, but because there was no 3RR violation. Sorry, but I am little lazy to respond to every stuff that others come posting here. It's a little bit too much. Hope you understand, that I deleted it in that case. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opština

You created this article, now it has gone to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opština. Punkmorten 08:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it exists is not quite MOSDAB-compliant—I can see how it can be mistaken for a dictdef. Anyway, I voted to keep it, but it should really be re-formatted, even though it means having a bunch of red links.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded; I guess this page will have its day as WP:WPCSub passes by...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to a comment on my talk page

Well, it starts with "Opština... can refer to", so if you don't want it to be mistaken for a dab, I suggest rewording the intro and replacing the list of meanings with narrative.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Subnational entity"

move to Talk:Country subdivision Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country subdivision

I've begun trying to "tighten up" this article per your suggestion; work in progress to be found here. Yours, David (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template 'Audiovisual works' contains red links

move to Template_talk:Audiovisual works Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iso

move: Template_talk:user iso15924 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forging on

moved to: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Country_subdivisions/Naming Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO complete

Tobias, I was not sure you noticed. Your request at WP:BOTREQ has been completed. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium: Please, stop reverting article moves

Talk:Provinces of Belgium

CfD: "Subdivisions of historic countries" to "Subdivisions of former countries and empires"

Hi Tobias,
Just seen you've already noticed the country subdivision CfDs!

rename per nom, except Subdivisions of historic countries to Subdivisions of former countries and empires

Any specific reason...?  Something I overlooked...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Please stop readding this. You have done this numerous times already and it was rejected. If you continue readding it, I will block you without further notice. --Ligulem 15:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24h for disruption on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. --Ligulem 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which edit do you regard as disruptiv? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tobias Conradi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no diff provided, how can my edits in discussion section be reasons for block?

Decline reason:

Quite clear disruptive behaviour, disruption to wikipedia can occur on any page. --pgk 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Admin User:Pgk claims "Quite clear disruptive behaviour" , no diff provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=81444174&oldid=81439406 This is pure mobbing. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 2 weeks for repeatedly causing disruption at various AWB pages, and harassing the AWB developers, despite multiple warnings from me and others. When your block expires please consider editing more collegially. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"causing disruption at various AWB pages" one more false claim (intended?) by User:Lar. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, that block was in error, the edit Ligulem refers to was made before my warning. I have unblocked you with a note that it was a block made in error. The warning still stands though. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no inconvience caused. And I have no problems with errors. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial edits marked as minor

Removal on talk page with an empty edit summary

As you know, I readded the comment I deleted by accident almost imediately, though I'm sure the point of this is just to try and make me look bad. Martin 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You missed some text when readding. It's your edits that makes you look bad. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I deliberatly removed the other text, as I (and others) have done repeatedly. Martin 10:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enabled for AWB on a trial basis

Hallo Tobias. I partially understand your frustration, but I cannot accept your behavior. As such my block stands.

However, I'm willing to add you to the list of AWB users on a trial basis [102]. Once the block expires, you may use AWB. However, I urge you to use it wisely and would like to propose that you consider using a less combatant behavior in the future. --Ligulem 22:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened your block by lifting it and cleared the collateral autoblock of your IP address. --Ligulem 10:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, hopefully we can now put bad feelings behind us and move on productively. thanks Martin 10:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response on Nepal changes

See User_talk:CBDunkerson#Nepal --CBD 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

District naming

move Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Indian districts/Naming - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Blacksmith Institute

Done, but I wonder if this organization is even notable. Have you heard of them before?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know them longer than that—a whole day :) Anyway, they get 16,000+ Google hits, which seems pretty notable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nahiya

From what I see, Nahia should be a redirect to Nahiya. Is there something else I am missing?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Will do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need deletion/undeletion priviliges to do something like that. Feel free to let me know if you find a similar situation, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way...

moved to talk:village Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia

move to talk:Provinces of Mongolia Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!

  

Aspect ratio (image)

I just thought that it would be proper to inform you that I've reverted most of your recent edits to the article. I've discussed why on the talk page - please feel free to comment there or on one of our user talk pages if you want to converse further on the matter! :) Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 19:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About moving Hyderabad (India) to Hyderabad, India

Created the Straw poll to change/move it back in the talk page. As per WP:RM. Thought you should know. --hydkat 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

moved - Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#India Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Han Chinese templates

Thanks for your help - I've added the Chinese old and new-style characters for "language", which is probably one of the more appropriate ones. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page Sinhala

move Talk:Sinhala - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO dispute

I have offered a solution on the talkpage. Please read it and offer your input. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Concerns of admin abuse

Hello, Tobias. I notice that from your deleted WikiProject you have concerns about administrators abusing their power. Remember that most admins mean no harm, but since they're only human they can get aggravated. If you're concerned that an admin has overstepped their boundary, you should calmly take it up with them and explain why you believe they've done something wrong. Don't forget to remain civil. Additionally, you can report the misuse to WP:AN where it can be discussed. If admin abuse by a certain user gets out of hand, you can file a request for comment. I am sorry that you've had to have negative experiences with admins; if you react calmly, then your opinion will be respected more than if you run in shouting at everyone and threatening left and right (remember -- admins are only human). ★MESSEDROCKER★ 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's not the first time that I see admins abusing their rights. I do not think I was threatening. Remember that most admins mean no harm - I don't care what they mean. I care what they do. And some do abuse their rights repeatedly. There was at least on big discussions at WP:AN/I - which revealed that quite a lot of admins have esprit de corps, defending "fellow admins", not defending WP policies. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked II

You have been blocked from editing for violation of WP:NPA here. Naconkantari 20:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But admin Nandesuka is abusive. If I am not allowed to say it by some WP rules so be it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the admins don't like it when this stuff is documented outside a dispute resolution page, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I don't know why that is, but once you're unblocked you can start a request for comment. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my impression is that they do not like their abuses to be documented. See [103] [104] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, because they're not conventional mediums like a post on the admin noticeboard or a request for comment. I don't know why people don't like logs of misuse, but if you wish for your word to get out, something like a request for comment will suffice. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"if you wish for your word to get out, something like a request for comment will suffice" - so does collecting it in a project or special misuse/abuse collection page. The latter two with the additional benefit that they are easier to edit, that they are collections, that they therefore will provide a broader picture of the misuses. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every admin who comes anywhere near you is immediately accused of abuse. I would now expect to be added to the list. You are very close to exhausting the community's patience (you have a block log the length of my arm) and this is likely to be the final short-term block you receive. A permanent block will follow for disruption if you don't stop the personal attacks and the shouts of "abuse" every time someone fails to agree with you. Use the remaining time of the block to cool down and reconsider your editing patterns, please. Thank you. -- ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Redvers, so you expect you will be added to my list of observed abuses? Why should I? Certainly you are now on the list, because you use your admin rights to support an abuse. I don't know why you are garnering your statement with false claims like a lot of the other people that recently called me vandal etc do. Please provide evidence for

  1. ...you don't stop the personal attacks and the shouts of "abuse" every time someone fails to agree with you.
  2. Every admin who comes anywhere near you is immediately accused of abuse.

If you stick to these claims without providing evidence, I will regard them as lies. You write You are very close to exhausting the community's patience what do you mean by community? The community of admins that abused their admin rights? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, this is getting ridiculous. You can't keep attacking people then innocently batting your eyelashes and asking 'What did I do?' Someone with your number of edits and experience should know better. Please reconsider the nature of your contributions, it'll be necessary if you want to stay in the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Where did I attack people?
  2. Why do you write ...it'll be necessary if you want to stay in the project.? How do you come to this conclusion? Or is it only a threat? What has my number of edits to do with my observations of repeated admin right abuses? Do you mean after having the experience that a lot of people here make false statements and a lot of admins abuse their admin rights I should know better that this is not going to change? I don't know what the future brings, but certainly for now I do not want to be in the camp of people that closed their eyes in front of abuses. I address abuses. I do not make corrupt deals with admins offering me something in exchange for me stating stuff they would like to hear. I am for now very serious and decided about that. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a formal legal system to be gamed. You will either stop behaving disruptively, or you will be banned permanently. That's not a threat -- it's a prediction. Nandesuka 20:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you may think about your words and find out about the relation of so called predictions and threats. Can you apply some more logic to your so called prediction? Do you mean disrupting the abuses will lead to me get blocked permanently? Isn't it more likely the other way around? Will not all the admins that disrupt WP with their admin right abuses get blocked permanently instead? Or at least get de-admined? Since they are the ones severly violating WP policies. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no they won't. Sorry Tobias, but I don't think there is any chance of things coming out that way. What you never seem to get is that having a valid point (and you do have valid points) is not good enough. This isn't like a court of law where you can cite 'Nandesuka protected a page she had been involved in editing' and 'Nandesuka removed and altered talk page comments' and have an automatic outcome once evidence of such is provided. That's just not how it works. It is far more like a collection of little 'high school cliques'... people far too often react based on who they like, or just take a superficial look at who is being loud / incivil and assume they are the problem. You shoot yourself in the foot over and over again by yelling about abuse and editing conflicts... not because you aren't right or at least have a reasonable argument, you always do, but because that's not how things get determined when the decisions are made by 'ordinary people' rather than a 'formal system of laws'. Having valid arguments is a good thing, but if you can't avoid incivility (and saying things are 'abusive', 'lies', or 'could be lies' is incivil regardless of whether it is true or not) alot of people won't care. Paradoxically, every time you make an accusation you are decreasing the likelihood of anything being done about the thing you complain of... because the decision isn't going to be made by a judge bound to procedure, but by the people you accuse, their friends, and largely dis-interested bystanders. Sorry, but that's the reality of how Wikipedia is structured and fighting against it doesn't work. --CBD 14:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your great comment. I would like all the admins that abuse their admin rights and act like you describe would read and then sign it if they agree with that description. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having made a personal attack against me - as predicted - by accusing me of abuse and lying, I now put you on final notice: the next accusation you make against anyone of abuse, the next personal attack you make, the next stream of insults you let off, we will block you from editing permanently.

I ask you, once again, to take the remaining time of your block to cool down and reconsider your editing behaviour. If you cannot do that, let me know and we'll end this here, sadly. The choice is entirely yours. Thank you for your time. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Who is we? All the admins that abused their admin rights? 2) Where did I make a personal attack against you? I only asked for evidence of your claims and told you if you stick to them without providing evidence I will regard them as lies. False statements made while you know they are false. That constitutes lieing. Provide the evidence or say that you do not stick to your claims.
3) you wrote:
I now put you on final notice: the next accusation you make against anyone of abuse ... we will block you from editing permanently.
can you provide the policy covering this action? Or would this be the next abuse of admin rights by you and the other admins that don't respect the WP policies?
What do you mean by "reconsider my editing behavior"? What is wrong with my edits? That I don't let go censorship? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:BAN, specifically the section on "community ban." Regards, Nandesuka 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. but this seems to be only part of what I asked for. Or does it mean that pointing out abuses results in "the community" being exhausted and then me getting blocked? This would truly be interesting. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

Removing comments from own talk

false, unproven statements, lies

abuses of admin rights

Vandal calling

block threats, announcemets

Deleting, altering comments from article talk

Controversial edits marked as minor

describing users

misc

Witchhunt

I can't think of another user who has not yet been banned who is so consistently disruptive to both community and project. I dislike witchhunts but when and if you decide to file on this user, please ask for my help. John Reid 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
.... and I will take part in that witchhunt (?) ....


What can I do?

Tobias, I would like you to do me a favor and take a short break, read what I've got to say. I realize you and I have had words in the past but that's all over. I don't even remember what it was about. Right now, I'm only concerned for your well-being.

You're a valuable editor. You've made a great many more edits than I have. Everyone says you are an outstanding contributor. But right now, our community is debating whether to ban you permanently from Wikipedia. We're not planning to hold an RfC or discuss it with you; we're simply going to block your user account and ban you from creating another. If you come back, we'll block that account, too. This has not happened yet but it does look to be going that way to me. If you escape this ban, expect an RfArb. I can pretty much guarantee that ArbCom will ban you. This is just my personal opinion. But I think you're smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing.

I'm not an admin, Tobias. I'm interested in the administration of this project but I don't even want to be an admin. I like editing; particularly, I like uploading graphics and writing policy. I don't want to tell people you've been bad or i just deleted your article, ha ha. Somebody has to do these things but it's not for me. I don't even have any close friends who are admins. Nobody listens to anything I say; I just speak my mind and hope I make sense. I am running for a seat on ArbCom; it's not because I enjoy the thought of it. I'm just afraid that ArbCom may become abusive of good editors such as yourself and I want to sit in that room, too, and do what I can to be sure that only just remedies come out.

Now I will tell you what will happen if I do get elected to ArbCom and you show up on the short end of an RfArb. I will recuse myself from the case, because you and I have had some sort of conflict in the past. I can't say what it was but it makes me an involved party. That means I will not be able to vote on any of the proposed findings or decisions. If you are banned by ArbCom, it will not be me who does it. Instead, I will sign up to the case as an involved party and I will argue against banning you. Your conduct certainly merits a ban but you are also an extremely productive contributor. The question I will ask -- the question I ask now -- is: Why has nobody been able to salvage this editor?

I have been blocked, Tobias. I have been blocked twice; and neither time do I think I did wrong. For that matter, other editors, even admins, have suggested I be unblocked. Still, there it is. I'm blocked. On top of this, I've been insulted, had good things I've done deleted. I'm 46 and people have spoken to me as if I were a small child. I've gotten angry about it once or twice. When this happens, I take a break. I do something else and let Wikipedia go for the day.

I have had to learn that Wikipedia is full of people -- not just some people, not just my friends, not even just my enemies -- but everybody. Not every single one of 6 billion human beings is editing but everybody is represented here. That includes people I simply do not respect, people with fanatic religious agendas, people who are really -- in a literal sense -- very stupid, people who are very intelligent but can't see their own shoes to tie the laces. What's worse, some of these people are in charge. I've had to learn to work with all of these people one way or another. Sometimes, that just means being ready to lose an argument.

Perhaps you just don't care anymore. Maybe you are thinking, Well, they can just go ahead and throw me out. I don't care. I'll blow up the whole thing on my way out. I'll come back tomorrow and blow it up again. They'll never get rid of me. They'll be sorry -- I'll make them be sorry. We've all had this kind of thought once or twice. But the truth is that Wikipedia is bigger than you -- bigger than anybody. Wikipedia is bigger than Jimbo; if he tried to blow it up, he couldn't. Wikipedia may not be forever but if it comes apart, it will not be because of any one person. Not only will Wikipedia roll on without you; nobody will even remember you were ever here.

There are a lot of people in our community who are ready and willing to help you in almost any way. I know many have tried. I will try. I'm not your friend but I will do whatever I can do to help you work it out. I think it's important. We can't go around throwing away our hardest-working editors. But I need you to work with me, too. I can't do anything at all for you by myself. Give me a chance, Tobias. John Reid ° 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. You really spent some time to write it down. IIRC you once violated WP:AfD that how we met. I did not know you but later in the course of me getting blocked I took a look at your edit hist and found that our edit pathes crossed in earlier days. By this I mean that I found an article we both did edit.

If you succeed to get into ArbCom I hope you apply written rules. I hope you defend these rules. I hope you will not treat different admins, new contributers, long standing contributors - except if this is laid down in the rules. I hope you will support users and projects that have a firm stand against corruption and false claims. I hope you support activities to transparently document admin specific policy violations. I hope all your decisions will be made with the main goal in mind: creating a high quality GFDL encyclopedia.

I allways tried to follow the rules. If you say that you are going to perm ban me without formal procedure than I think you are the one violating the rules.
♦ Perhaps you just don't care anymore. Maybe you are thinking, Well, they can just go ahead and throw me out. I don't care. I'll blow up the whole thing on my way out. I'll come back tomorrow and blow it up again. They'll never get rid of me. They'll be sorry -- I'll make them be sorry. We've all had this kind of thought once or twice. ♦
Me not. My way of thinking is different. Best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about this business of written rules and formal procedure. This may be at the heart of your troubles here.

Wikipedia began as a small, informal group of people who hate rules and formal procedures. Most of the people who came in shortly after also hate these things. Some of the people who came later like rules and formality but they have had to go along with our community on this. By now, Ignore all rules has become firmly established, even to the point of having a "rule" page written about it. You need to see why this is so. We've learned, from experience, that rules are very easy to evade. The smarter you are, the easier it is to find a loophole or use the rule against itself, like a karate fighter. The bigger the rule, the more rules there are, the easier it is to do this. Look outside in the Real World; there are entire professions that specialize in poking holes in laws and regulations. Some people are evil predators, stealing money from blind men's cups; but they have found a legal way to do it so they cannot be stopped.

IAR is about the most basic policy we have. It says you can do anything -- anything at all -- regardless of any other policy. There is only one other policy that is more important. That is Don't be a dick. And since if you IAR you are very likely going to be a dick, you need to think about both together.

Read that page about being a dick. I've said, elsewhere, that the definition of a dick is somebody who finds out where the line is, separating dickness from non-dickness, then goes ahead and does something dickheaded on the "good" side of the line. Perhaps the most interesting thing on that page is Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself...

In the context of your impending ban, IAR means that we don't need to bring your case to ArbCom -- or anywhere else. Admins don't even need to discuss you on AN. One, single admin can permaban you, right here, right now. If nobody thinks he's being a dick, that permaban will stand. No rules, no procedures, nothing to argue and nobody to argue with. It will just be the end.

Essentially, Tobias, editors have been spending a lot of time telling you that you are a dick -- and you're not happy about it. But there's something else on that page -- please read it over, at least a couple of times: If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. That doesn't mean that they are right; they may be dicks, too, and quite likely are. It does mean that people have stopped listening to you.

We are not here to make you a better person; we're here to write an encyclopedia. A lot of people have taken time out to do what we can to help you with your problems. You need to work with us. You cannot insist on rules or formal procedures; at this particular moment, you cannot even insist on basic courtesy -- or anything else at all. The time is coming when somebody is simply going to blank your user and talk pages, slap a big, ugly tag on both, protect them both, and block your account indefinitely. You need to avoid that and the only way you can do that is by getting along with other people.

If you survive this latest expression of community outrage and continue to edit without incident for a few months, you may very well be able to raise all sorts of concerns and work to change the things that upset you. But not now. John Reid ° 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

I used to endorse Requests for Adminship for editors who had never been blocked; I would never do so again. John Reid at User:John_Reid/Q4ArbComminee

I did indeed write that, Tobias; not on the redirect page but on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for John Reid. I'm quite serious; look a bit further down the page. Blocks should not be handed out lightly; they're no big deal but it's easy to take offense when given one. So, I've decided nobody should be given the big red button who has not felt the other end of it.

I see that you think some admins are frequently abusive of the tools they've been given. You're right. Nobody disputes this, really. We have a seriously broken adminship process. Some think we need a more effective, faster, community-based process of de-adminship. Some think we need admin term limits; that's what they have on Swedish Wikipedia. Some think we need to improve the RfA process. Some just think ArbCom should take on more cases, hear them faster, and de-admin more often. One way or another, a lot of community members are working on this and almost everyone is concerned.

The best way for you to share your concerns is by working with us. This is not easy to do. If I'm the only person in the room, all I hear is my own voice. If there are two of us, I have to listen half the time. If three, I have to listen two-thirds of the time, and so on. With 100 people in the room, I have to spend 99% of the time listening and only 1% talking. This can be very frustrating. This is a very big community and I can almost guarantee that no matter what I say, I will not even be heard. Not only that, but if I want anybody ever to listen to me, I need to spend far more time listening to everybody else. Of course, most people, myself included, are full of bull most of the time, so it's very tiring.

I need you to keep in mind that the harder you try to get people to listen to you, the worse it goes for you. Right now, you could completely turn the situation around for you, Tobias. All you would have to do is leave a short comment on your talk page, right here, and say something like, Hmm. I need to think about that. Then, take a break for about a week. Don't edit at all; do something else. Play ball, make some money. See a movie, eat a pizza. Don't even read Wikipedia for the week. When you come back, start out by putting another comment on talk, right here. Ignore whatever's been written in the meantime -- really. Just write, Well, I've thought about that and I'm sorry. Try to say something that will make people happy. That may not seem entirely sincere to you but this is the way we grease the social axle. Then, you might want to go back and read over talk page comments -- then maybe take another week off and really think about them.

If you take some time off and relax, you'll come back stronger than ever. You can work very hard to bring down abusive admins and make our community better. But first, you need to gain people's respect. This is not easy, but some of us are rooting for you. John Reid ° 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I need to think about that. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Evertype

ISO 15925

Recommendation

I saw the thread on whether or not to permanently block your account, and the impassioned post of John Reid, and I must say I think neither are the way to go. Taking a break would be pretty pointless. I recommend you keep on editing but avoid whatever sensitive subjects led to the current state of malaise with these administrators. As you're continued stay could end abruptly in the event of another incident - whether or not you are right - I recommend treading lightly. If you would like I am willing to act as a wikimentor - in the sense of helping you regarding any questions on policies and an advocate for your continued stay here on Wikipedia. I can be reached at my talkpage. All the best, KazakhPol 04:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentinidad

Los invito a participar de Argentinidad, un proyecto wiki que usa el mismo software que wikipedia, y por ende funciona exactamente igual. Es una wikipedia de la argentina con un punto de vista patriótico-nacional.

Aquí se podrán crear artículos sobre la cultura, geografía, economía, historia, gente y demás de la Argentina, con la condición de que el punto de vista NO sea neutral, sino argentino . Este no es un lugar para la militancia política o social, sólo para escribir y "hacer algo". Para eso estamos, para los que nos cansamos de que insulten al País y ver como el mundo de nosotros ríe. Siempre se dijo, "hay que hacer algo" pero nadie lo hizo. Es dificil hacer algo, nadie por sí solo va a levantarse un día y transformar a la Patria en una potencia mundial, o expulsar a los ingleses de las Malvinas, pero no por eso se va a "hacer nada". Espero que te unas al proyecto, cordialmente

Andrés 02:10 19 nov 2006 (CET)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Antofagasta, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

FL nom

Hi, Tobias! If you have a few minutes of spare time, I would appreciate your comments here. Please bring your critical attitude with you :) Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku Reservoir

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Haiku Reservoir, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. BlankVerse 05:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy note to let you know that I deprodded Haiku Reservoir for the reasons given in the edit summary. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for disruption. This is to allow admins to debate your edits to Wikimedia Foundation in particular. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and we have strictly limited patience with those who choose to pursue grievances, legitimate or not, through disruptive means. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPW newsletter

The Writing systems WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - December 2006
News
  • Welcome to the newsletter of the Writing systems WikiProject, everyone. Our project currently has 29 members.
  • Any questions or requests for assistance on writing system articles can be posted at WT:WPW.
  • Our Article Assessment Project is currently underway. Feel free to contribute by assessing and improving all unassessed articles according to the assessment page. Any help is appreciated. We would like to bring all mid-, high-, and top-importance articles to at least B class by the end of the year.
  • We are working on implementing writing systems templates into appropriate articles. Try to help out!
Writing system articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
FA 1 1 1 3
GA 2 3 3 3 11
B 17 82 96 191 1 4 391
C 15 74 87 214 4 10 404
Start 5 138 361 1,020 2 29 1,555
Stub 3 22 459 31 515
List 2 12 13 411 5 443
Category 340 340
Disambig 1 1 10 12
File 28 28
Portal 2 2
Project 6 6
Redirect 9 29 59 187 284
Template 2 3 11 408 424
NA 32 1 2 1 36
Other 13 13
Assessed 43 323 647 2,371 996 7 80 4,467
Unassessed 1 1 57 59
Total 43 323 648 2,372 996 7 137 4,526
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 13,676 Ω = 4.75


To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to edit the next issue, please drop a message on the discussion page.

This is the project's first newsletter. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas about it, feel free to post it on WT:WPW. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Also Sysops should respect WP policies, pls dont run your own agenda

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThebainer&diff=112802056&oldid=112789273

Re: Angela Beesley

What encyclopedic value does this edit have? --wL<speak·check·chill> 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution is highlighted in green. The value depends on the reader, i.e. whether he understands what is written, is interested in the topic etc. This is true for every content in an encyclopedia. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baoruco Mountain Range

moved to Talk:Baoruco Mountain Range

Renaming ethnic groups

move to Talk:Madurese

Rejang Lebong Regency

Out of curiosity, why did you (6 April 2007) rename Rejang Lebong as Rejang Lebong Regency? Nothing else that I am aware of is named Rejang Lebong. Is there a policy that I am missing? Should Kelut be renamed to Mount Kelut? --Bejnar 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC) User Talk:Bejnar[reply]

you mean like Mount Merbabu? I would only see benefits of such a move. What do you think? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, what a coincidence. You are interested in Mount Merbabu right after I question aspects of your editing. regards from, well, Merbabu. Merbabu 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

As I've suggested in this recent message on your talk page, I have some concerns over your lack of consultation. All I am asking is that you discuss and wait for responses before you move pages. there are many such moves in your contribs - my particular concern is with Indonesia related articles. You are making a large number of moves, you can't do this without consultation. Merbabu 14:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [uppercase changed to italics][reply]

Tobias, Indonesian articles have been subject to alot of disruptive editing by trolls, particluarly pushing anti muslim sentiments during the last couple of months. When you move pages that relate to indonesia even though your actions are just reasonable bold edits, this is causing a lot of unnecessary heart ache for the regular editors. Please take the time to talk first, thank you for understanding Gnangarra 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gnangarra, which move(s) are you concerned with? Which would you undo? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&oldid=121438521"