Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tobias Conradi

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 6 July 2006 (→Moving forward: Some response.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:34, 6 July 2006 by TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) (→Moving forward: Some response.)(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)

Vandal? First time I've been called that!

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

  • 2006-06-27 20:18 replied at

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)

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)

More socks

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

Eisenkappl

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

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

Block

Involved users

  • User:Tobias Conradi 2003-05-06 , contribs:24183 main 17472
  • User:Jimfbleak 2003-02-03 , admin, contribs 23954 main 20367
    • violation of deletion policy
  • User:InShaneee 2004-11-10 , admin contribs 8530 main 4037
    • violation of block policy
    • violation of protection policy
  • User:Pschemp 2004-09-27 , admin, contribs:9119 main 5856
    • violation of deletion poliy
    • violation of semi-protection policy
    • violation of block policy
  • User:Voice of All 2005-07-15 , admin, contribs 12926 main 3350
  • User:Lar 2005-06-08 , admin, contribs 6524 main 909
    • defended unjustified block of Tobias Conradi
  • User:Ezhiki 2004-03-01 , 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
  • 13:18 Samsara removes cats (have we completely abandoned the idea of hierarchical categorisation now?)
    • this despite the source contained :
  • 13:28 Tobias reverted Samsara edit summary (rv vandal rmv of cat)
  • 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
  • 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)
    • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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
      • remember, he gave no reason.
    • 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. " - 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 "
      • Jimfbleak indirectly called Tobias " known vandal " 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
    • 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
    • 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. ..."
    • 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

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

2006-07-05

  • 01:02 Pschemp adds to page User:Chrisjj2 {{sockpuppet|Tobias Conradi}} edit summary (socktag)
    • no specific evidence provided
  • 01:10 Pschemp delets Misplaced Pages:Second_warning
    • no context provided.
  • 12:40 Ezhiki mailed Tobias and made him aware of Misplaced Pages: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.

to do

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 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)

Country subdivisions

todo

Arda River

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)

Stories

Police department

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

...

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

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

Invasion

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

Moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I know you do not think much of me, given my previous block of you,
  • 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)

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/search/?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 Misplaced Pages policies, look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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/search/?title=Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry&oldid=61176680 sock puppetry policy].

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