This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tobias Conradi (talk | contribs) at 09:32, 5 July 2006 (→2006-07-04: *01:02 Pschemp adds to page User:Chrisjj2 <nowiki>{{sockpuppet|Tobias Conradi}}</nowiki> edit summary (socktag)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:32, 5 July 2006 by Tobias Conradi (talk | contribs) (→2006-07-04: *01:02 Pschemp adds to page User:Chrisjj2 <nowiki>{{sockpuppet|Tobias Conradi}}</nowiki> edit summary (socktag))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Dear Wikipedians, if your signature has a talk-link, I may be more inclined to answer at your talk page. Otherwise I may be more inclined to answer here. I don't like to allways click 2 times to reply only because you do not provide a talk-back feature.
thanks to an idea by User:Ral315 I use raw signature now, because the other way of signing stopped working today. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Old talk until 2005-08-08 23:03 at
2006-07-03 emptied page until section Berlin which was started 2006-06-06.
Berlin
You alright, man? You never called.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- you did not call me neither? Maybe we missed the once in a lifetime chance to see us. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Once in a lifetime? I much doubt it :) I liked Berlin, and hope to return one day. It's a pity, though, that things turned out the way they did. You are welcome to blank my userpage once as you promised—you now have every right to do so :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandal? First time I've been called that!
Tobias, I am appalled that you apparently did not even read my edit summary, nor did you take the time to realise that most of the changes to the Ubuntu article in the last few months have been done by me. Please see the talk page for further discussion, and please don't make me regret nominating the article for WP:AID, where I suspect you came across it! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Name calling
Please do not call people vandals when they are not vandalising, such as in the instance above. That is a personal attack and goes against WP:AGF. Consider this a warning. pschemp | talk 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- name calling? what's up? Do you have limited access to WP? Maybe read:
- I regard your personal attack on me as attempted censorship
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I regard your reaction as paranoia. Please try to be civil. This is your second warning.pschemp | talk 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- what to you mean by "second warning"? What of my reaction do you regard as paranoia? You may consider reverting your edit on russian mafia member page User:Ezhiki. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --InShaneee 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have now been blocked for 48 hours for creating nonsense pages, violating WP:POINT, and vandalising other user's pages. --InShaneee 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your block has now been extended for further incivility while blocked. Additionally, your talk page has now been protected to prevent further innapropriate removal of warnings while blocked. Keep in mind that more behavior of this sort following the experation of your block will simply result in reblocking. --InShaneee 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've now extended your block to one month for mass sockpuppetry and disruption. --InShaneee 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Since you have continued to user IP socks (see edit history of your userpage) after being warned, I have extended your block further. pschemp | talk 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've now extended your block to one month for mass sockpuppetry and disruption. --InShaneee 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
More socks
And for attempting to evade your block with User:Hauke, your block has been extended again. Have a nice day. pschemp | talk 23:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from referring to me by a diminuative. I was in two minds whether to comment at all after reading your history of incivility and anti-social behaviour above. However, I'll take your comment at face value rather than more mischief-making.
Eisenkappfl is located in Austria is not an article. It does not state whether this is a person, town, building or geographical feature, or where it is in that large country. To discuss whether it should deleted seems pointless, especially as it can hardly have been a major task for you to write one short contentless sentence. jimfbleak 05:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Block
Involved policies
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators&oldid=61349230
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=61363159
- violated 2006-06-30 12:36 by Admin User:Jimfbleak
- possibly violated 2006-06-30 20:30 by Admin User:Pschemp
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry&oldid=61176680
- not violated by no one
- used as accusations by Pschemp and InShaneee against Tobias
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection_policy&oldid=61034236
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy&oldid=60477850 more specific #Protecting_the_talk_page_of_a_blocked_user
- violated 2006-06-30 19:40 by Admin User:InShaneee
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Vandalism&oldid=60969971
- Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
- not violated.
- Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages
- not violated.
- The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.
- contextless phrase since user talk is not article talk and thus the above definition of Talk page vandalism does not apply anyway. It also contradicts the WP:Vandalism intro.
- Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
2006-06-27
- 11:55/12:09 add cats to Ubuntu page
- 13:18 Samsara removes cats (have we completely abandoned the idea of hierarchical categorisation now?)
- this despite the source contained :
- This notice is here because this article is believed to define the category . As explained at Misplaced Pages: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 , but in the parent categories of . Please do not remove this article from those categories unless you dispute that this article is a defining article of ; if you dispute this, please discuss the matter either at the talk page of this article or at the talk page for .
- this despite the source contained :
- 13:28 Tobias reverted Samsara edit summary (rv vandal rmv of cat)
- note: Samsara acted against Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes and did not follow the note to please discuss cat removal
- 20:18 Tobias adds to Samsara talk thx for coming to my page.... btw.. you are certainly not a vandal, by the criteria of WP:VANDAL ..
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.
- 19:30 Tobias replies
2006-06-29
- 18:22 Samsara adds to Ubuntu talk
- how about instead of destroying the hierarchical organisation of categories,
- no diffs for this claim.
- well done for your subversive editing
- how about instead of destroying the hierarchical organisation of categories,
- 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"
- 20:42 Pschemp adds to Ubuntu talk "Tobias, please attempt to be civil in your comments. You have already been warned about this."
- 20:47 Pschemp reverted edit by Tobias to User Ezhiki - no reason given
- 20:49 Pschemp blocked "Tobias Conradi (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalsim to people's user pages)
- 20:49 User:pschemp posted that Tobias is blocked for 48 h
- 20:53, 29 June 2006 Pschemp unblocked Tobias Conradi (contribs) (apparently had persmission)
- 20:53 Pschemp reverts and marks this as minor
- 20:56 Pschemp adds to talk Tobias "I regard your reaction as paranoia. Please try to be civil. This is your second warning."
- 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."
2006-06-30
- ??:?? Eisenkappl created as stub
- 12:36 User:Jimfbleak deletes Eisenkappl without using WP:AfD nor giving notice nor reason.
- ??:?? Tobias re-created Eisenkapp(e)l
- 19:07 Tobias Conradi moved Eisenkappel to Bad Eisenkappel
- 19:16 Tobias added This user is a deletionist to page User:Jimfbleak
- 19:16 User:InShaneee reverts
- 19:24 Tobias added to talk Jimfbleak "Little Jimmy likes deleting. But what is notable?"
- 19:33 InShaneee inserted Template:Npa3, Template:Test2, no context provided
- 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"
- 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
- 19:36 InShaneee re-inserted the 19:33 post, edit summary: do not remove warnings
- 19:38 Tobias removed the 19:33 post from his user talk again. edit summary Name calling - delete nonsense again you asshole
- 19:40 InShaneee: "m (Protected User talk:Tobias Conradi: removal of warnings while blocked )"
- 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
- 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
- 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."
- no vandal involved here. no diffs to dozens of pages. no stalk diffs.
- 20:03/18 IP edits to page User:Tobias Conradi Special:Contributions/84.190.64.160
- 20:20 InShaneee blocked "84.190.64.160" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandal sock)
- 20:22 InShaneee unblocked Tobias Conradi (extending block)
- 20:22 InShaneee blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 1 month (mass sockpuppetry and disruption while blocked)
- 20:26 InShaneee blocked "84.190.64.75" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandal sock)
- 20:27/30 IP edits to page User:Tobias Conradi Special:Contributions/84.190.31.104
- 20:30 pschemp
- deletes Bad Eisenkappel without using WP:AfD nor giving notice nor reason.
- deletes Eisenkappel redirect
- deletes Eisenkappl redirect
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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/search/?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
- 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 ".
- 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.
- 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 ".
- 05:17 Jimfbleak removed comment made by Tobias. edit summary: (→James Janderson - rm comment by known vandal)
- 05:33 Jimfbleak adds to talk Tobias
- Eisenkappfl is located in Austria is not an article.
- remember: Tobias created this as an austria-geo-stub, not as an article.
- Eisenkappfl is located in Austria is not 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.
- 'deletionist' templates on other people's userpages
- 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 Tobiasuser page may be reviewed.
- 22:37 Pschemp blocked "Hauke (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of user:Tobias Conradi)
- 23:37 Pschemp edits Hauke and accuses him of being a sock puppet of Tobias Conradi
- 23:33 User:Voice_of_All comments this with "Au no"
- 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/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=61760792&oldid=61759397 ???"
- 13:24 Ezhiki: unprotected talk Tobias 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."
- 13:54/59 Tobias cleans up his talk until around 2006-06-20
- 15:22 Jimfbleak adds to talk Ezhiki
- I can't remember whether I gave a reason for deletion in the deletion summary
- I don't think I have been uncivil to this user,
- 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 "
- Jimfbleak indirectly called Tobias " known vandal " which may be true but Tobias was at this point in time not a WP:VANDAL.
- 16:41 Pschemp replied on her talk page to Ezhiki
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. ..."
- 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"
- no policy showing why this is unacceptable was provided
- 18:36 Pschemp removes {{semiprotect|IPSockpuppets}} from user page of Tobias
- 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. ...
2006-07-04
2006-07-05
- 01:02 Pschemp adds to page User:Chrisjj2 {{sockpuppet|Tobias Conradi}} edit summary (socktag)
- no specific evidence provided
to do
- when was Eisenkappl first created?
- when Bad Eisenkappel?
FYI
Tobias, I have crossposted the following summary at the talk pages of all involved parties. Please review and comment if necessary.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The new stub on Bad Eisenkappel was deleted by User:InShaneee. No reason for deletion was given in the edit summary.
- 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.
- 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.
- A moment later, Tobias was further accused of violating WP:POINT—no details provided.
- Understandably, Tobias's aggravation grew.
- InShanee protected Tobias's talk page in order to prevent him from removing the warnings and extended his block for incivility.
- 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.
- In response, Tobias's user page was protected from editing by User:Pschemp and his block was extended for sockpuppetry.
- 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 Misplaced Pages administrator myself, I would not ask anyone to do something that I personally would not be ready to do in a similar situation.
Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ezhiki, thanks for the summary. The following is nonsense:
- and for failure to challenge his block through legitimate means (such as placing an unblock template request at his user/talk page when it was still possible)
19:36 i was blocked. around 19:38 i found out about this. 19:40 my talk was proteted. Between 19:38 and 19:40 I did not "challenge" my block by illegitimate as your post implies. I did not challenge it at all. I will have a look, when I started challenging it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The case was moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tobias_Conradi.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ezhiki,
- point 5 "While the latter is true" - (for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages) - userpageS - please review
- point 10 "anon IP campaign. While this was a direct violation of sockpuppeting guidelines," - which guideline? was it a campaign?
- point 12 "I asked Tobias to stop sockpuppetry on June 30, no matter how unfair the situation seemed to him, to which he agreed." - I did not agree. I could not agree to stop something I have not done.
Removing warnings
Just to be clear Tobias, the history shows you removed warnings: is one such removal, and there are others in the history as well. Do not remove warnings from admins without giving evidence that you have read, understood, and internalised them, (using an incivil edit comment as you did in several cases does not show you've internalised, rather it shows rejection) and when you're blocked, don't remove them at all, or in either case you may be subject to further blocking. Removing this warning, for that is what it is, make no mistake, a warning, will get you a longer block than you have now. If you want to lessen your block you have to go the other way, show that you understand that you have an issue to correct, and show that you intend to act civilly in future. ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- the history shows i removed context-free nonsense in the above mentioned case. Where did i vandalize? Please tell me.
- and there are others in the history as well. - please provide diffs.
- Do not remove warnings from admins without giving evidence that you have read, understood, and internalised them, maybe you make sure admins 1) write no nonsense 2) admins are marked as admins 3) make sure that everyone knows that removing a warning by an admin is forbidden by some policy XY.
- using an incivil edit comment as you did in several cases does not show you've internalised, rather it shows rejection - I reject admin right abuses. I reject a two class wiki-society. I reject deletions by admins without notification. I reject being acused of vandalism if i did not vandalize. I reject being told I made WP:POINT if I didnt. I reject being accused of sockpuppeting if I didnt. I reject promotion of physical violence, esp. by admins. As Ezhiki said: I am not an Angel. I am sometimes harsh. I am not proud of this. But I am proud not to do the things that I said I reject. And I am proud that I can settle things without being pointed to WP:CIVILTY by uninvolved 3rd parties. Sometimes things are settled allready, but the 3rd party stays and makes more trouble than originally existed. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- The removals are there in the history for you or anyone to see but here's another removal: A civility warning is not "nonsense", it's something to take very seriously. It is your responsibility to be aware of policy and when you get a warning, if you're unsure, ask politely for clarification instead of removing the warning with a profane summary. I think there's not much more new to say here but I'll repeat what I said before, you've shown no previous evidence of internalising what the issue is, and your words above show no new evidence. The block length seems justified to me, barring some change in your approach, I won't be supporting any reduction. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- the diff you bring is actually the same removal. The stuff written was nonsense to me. InShaneee could have provided more context instead of simply rv and post the warning again. You failed to provide 1) the policy that removing of a warning is forbidden 2) that I was aware of this policy.
- please provide diffs of other instances where I removed warnings. Should be easy for you since you wrote about their existene only short time ago.
- I disagree with your position that it is up to me to be aware of all policies.
- I think there's not much more new to say here
- bad that you are unable to do so.
- but I'll repeat what I said before
- you better would save your time and invent something new
- you've shown no previous evidence of internalising what the issue is
- the issue is me being blocked for creating Bad Eisenkappel. Did your brain internalise that? the issue is me being accused of vandalism. No evidene for this until now. The issue is me being accused of sockpuppetry - unproven. The issue is admins making false claims and promoting physical violence. The issue is admin right abuse. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- The removals are there in the history for you or anyone to see but here's another removal: 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)
Country subdivisions
- todo
- Governorates_of_Palestine add category:Governorates|Palestine, create at Subdivs of Palestine
- Local administrative unit add {{Subnational entity}}
- {{subnational entity}} add lau