Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tobias Conradi: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:45, 9 July 2006 editMtiedemann (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,523 edits Hurlingham← Previous edit Revision as of 03:50, 10 July 2006 edit undoLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,163 edits →[]: stop with that termNext edit →
Line 624: Line 624:


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

:Seriously, you need to stop calling people stalkers. There is no stalking here and to say so shows either bad faith or a lack of understanding of what admins do to carry out what they are asked to do. You've demonstrated a history that suggests that it makes sense for admins to watch your contributions and see what you're up to. That's not stalking, that's admins doing what the community asks. You are hereby warned to stop using that term, or other pejorative terms, when referring to admins carrying out their duties, or I will consider you in further violation of ] and ] 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. ++]: ]/] 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


== Hurlingham == == Hurlingham ==

Revision as of 03:50, 10 July 2006

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
    • violation of CIV (called tobias a vandal)
  • 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 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 , 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 Tobias user 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 the post of Hauke 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.

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
    • 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.
    • seems it has been good to repeat this, and prove Pschemp to be wrong, because Pschemp revealed news.
  • 04:23 Tobias edited tango.info
  • 04:25 Pschemp edited AfD tango.info - since when is Pschemp interested in Tango?
  • 15:05 Pschemp blocked "Tobias Conradi" with an expiry time of 24 hours summary: (personal attacks)
  • 15:09/12 Pschemp provides context
  • 15:10 Pschemp deleted what Tobias wrote on AfD page in reply to her. summary (remove personal attack)

I provided the diff where you called me a stalker. That is context.pschemp | talk 15:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

block to do

to do

  • Darma_valley fix Kali
  • policy violation by ShaunES? - 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 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)


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)

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

Oh well, we'd have to change all the pages linking to Arda River anyway. You mean something like:
“ Arda River redirects here. For the river in Italy, see Arda River (Italy). ”
This would be OK, though I don't think it makes more sense then simply having the Bulgarian and Greek one at 'Arda River'. I'd support both and I'm leaving it up to you to decide, but I still like my idea a little better :) Todor→Bozhinov 10:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Stories

Police department

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

...

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

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

Invasion

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

Moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I know you do not think much of me, given my previous block of you,
  • 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)
I will take a pass on that, sorry. I have, however, left a note for him letting him know that the section is here, right below this point.
Some more dialog, then.
Let me again stress that, IMHO, the WP:SOCK page needs to be updated. It makes no mention of IP address socking, and admins are using the term to refer to that situation. So, in general, the page no longer totally reflects how the term is being used. And on WP, in a situation like this, it's much easier, and cleaner, to update the page to reflect the new reality than to force people back to older behaviours. Especially when the new reality makes sense (back to the spirit of the page thing).
agree should be updated, if handled like you say. Otherwise Pschemp and InShaneee should be updated
And I want to again stress that your block was ultimately extended for the evasions, not the "sock puppetry" itself. Using multiple identities, by itself, is not an improper action. It's using those identities to do actions that are iproper that is the problem. And in that case you have an underlying action. In your case, the evasion.
wrong. It was also extended for edits by User:Hauke, User:Chrisjj2
Returning to the issue of "moving forward", I have to wonder what you currently want. Do you want to be unblocked? Because you've really done nothing positive towards making that happen. That's what I meant with my comment about you just raging here. I'm not telling you to stiffle yourself about the admins, if you truely beleive yourself wronged. And I did say that, as far as I can see, the original block came out of a misunderstanding of the "Bad" prefix you placed on that article.
what I want? Jusitice? Admin abuses stopped? Bad Eisenkappel and the redirects undeleted. I have done nothing positiv? If this is your opinion - fine, it's yours, and you can go to bed with it.
But that aside, where does raging here on your talk get you? As far as I can see, it gets you continued blocked for the next 8 weeks. And maybe raging serves to let you vent. And that's not necessarily worthless thing. But if that's all you do, then be prepared to enjoy your 8 week break from the project.
I wanna make people aware of unjustice within wikipedia by WP admins. That's why I collected the evidences of policy violations by three of the admins. Now, may I ask you: Do YOU do anything towards to stop their violations? Do you do anything that injustice against me stops? Spirit: Is it the spirit of wikipedia to block editors for 8 weeks because of violations of policies they did not know? I knew sock puppetry was not allowed. I did not set up any new user account. But I still get blocked for sok puppetry.
OTOH, if you want the break shortened, there are possibilities. First off, you really need to calm down. Don't lose the complaints you have against certain admins, but lose your current anger. In the long run, the anger is simply not serving you well.
right the anger is not serving me well. That's why I wrote something like "fight admin right abuses". I wanna stop these sources of anger. But it seems the admins stand united and give shelter to the abusers.
Then you need to understand what happened. And I really am referring to the block extensions more than the original block. Had it not been for the evasions, your block would be over already. Had it not been for the evasions, you might have been unblocked by one or more admins upon evaluation more fully of the circumstances of the original block. That's a "might have been", but I know that I for one see little improper in the extensions reguardless of the original block reasons. So once you earned the extensions, you made it a lot less likely you could be unblocked easily.
I violated a policy i did not knew. I am not an admin. But I am here, almost double the time the most abusing of the admins are (Pschemp, InShaneee). The admins should know the policies, they are admins. I will check how the policy were like when I joined.
And finally you need to learn how to work within the project to get what you want.
or leave
There are proper ways to protest deletions, to protest blocks, to seek sanctions for abuse of admin powers. You have used none of these methods. I will gladly tell you how you could/can use these avenues, if you wish.
i saw how protest blocks work. you may remember. where could I protest deletions. I am allways willing to learn.
Finally for now, I will go ahead and offer you a taste of a carrot. (The blunt way I've been putting my opinions is the "stick") If you show me that you can calm down, and that you are learning some positive lessons from all this (I know you've learned some negative ones. :( ), then I will take your current block to the admin notice page and seek consensous on lowering it a good bit (I'm thinking of 1 week, total, instead of 8). OTOH, IMHO I see little to gain from letting you loose back into the project while you are still in a temper. But if you are more calm about things, then we shall see. - TexasAndroid 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I will not run around and shout if i would be unblocked today. In so far I calmed down already. Carrot is very good, banana would be even better. A good carrot would be if you offer to help to change/update policies and improve some of the processes here. I think this would be needed. You are maybe more in the politics here than me. And you are more civil, as is Ezhiki. You can maybe better reach the goal of policy change. At the end: I never wanted to be an admin. I am a simple top 128 editor Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Ok. I was wrong again. I'm not done for the day.  :)
statements regarding future events are really another dimension. :)
Protesting blocks did not work on my block because the admin who responded to your unblock request agreed that it was a fair block. I know full well that you still disagree with that point, and I really do not want to reopen that old discussion at this point. But before you evaded you had a very different set of circumstances on the current block. IMHO you might very well have gotten unblocked this time by a truely neutral admin. We're back to "Might have beens", though. Who knows. You right now have at least two admins who don't think that the original block this time was correct. (Me and Ezhiki) So despite the impression you may have from your first unblock attempt, we admins are far from all in step with each other.
before evasion I might have been unblocked ... unfortunatly I only had less then 2 minutes or so to use this channel.
Protesting deletions goes on at WP:DRV. In general, if you are anti-deletionism, it might be a good place for you to hang out at. :)
don't like this. I would need a deletion abuse board. One click for Jim to delete and lots of keystrokes for me to undelete.
I do not want you leaving the project. For all that I have bluntly said against you today, I do consider you an asset to the project. That's one of the reasons I stepped in today to try to mediate with you.
fine.
As for how to deal with Pschemp or InShaneee, you will need to file an arbitration against them. The arbitration committee is the main one with the power to sanction admins. - TexasAndroid 20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
ok. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Pschemp

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

Your IMO false allegations and violations of policies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/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

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

untrue statement by TexasAndroid

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

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

what is bad, if you made an untrue statement? These things happen. But your statement put me in a bad light. The original fault was yours, not mine. Yes, you almost fullfilled my request anyway. And hey!!! I REALLY THANK YOU FOR THAT! - Will I get burned for yelling now?
the other thing I corrected today - it was really minor.
I think all you "be civil" people could relax a little. Maybe look why someone was uncivil. You can see from my user page that I collect admin rights abuses, especially speedy deletions just by discretion of an admin - if not covered by speedy policy. Jim was very nice to come to my talk page. Unfortunatly due to the block extensions made with wrong allegations by Admin Pschemp, I cannot talk with him. IMO it's allready bad that we have deletionists (as opposed to inclusionists), but admin speedies are another class. He came to my talk, that was really good. Pschemp on the other hand still did not explain to me what was meant by second warning. Instead Misplaced Pages:Second warning, a page I started which included what I found out about this term was speedy deleted. ... by Pschemp. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It was a combination of "untrue statement", and the fact that you decided it was worthy of memorializing in your timeline of this whole mess. Of anything that's happening, you choose a screw-up of mine to memorialize that way, with an edit summary like that. If this had been the only thing of this type, maybe I would not have gotten frustrated over it. But I feel I have to go over anything I write to you with a fine tooth comb before posting it to make certain I don't give you anyything to attack. And you still find ways. Enough. I'm worn out by all this for today. Let me know what you think of the rest of what I said, and I'll pick up again tomorrow. - TexasAndroid 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
maybe if we meet more often you can accept that I am nitpicking. Aren't you programmer? We have to be precise, don't we? I wonder in what you program. On the other hand I hope people can more trust in what I say. You are worn out? So am I by the admin attacks on me in the last days. Hopefully this will change during next days. I am still not sure whether I should leave all this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My offer

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

So you are denying that you used IP accounts to edit your userpage while you were blocked? pschemp | talk 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I now have a checkuser in hand that shows that you did use those IP's to edit your userpage while blocked. Still going to deny you did that?pschemp | talk 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Summarizing some of the lengthy back and forth I had with him earlier today... Conradi does not deny being the IPs. He does deny being the two other registered users that he was accused of being. He denies that using the IPs is "Sock Puppeting", and between that and the denial that he was the two actualy IDs is where he hangs his denial of SPing. And he does have a point on a technical basis. The page that defines SP makes specific mention of it being about multiple login IDs, and makes no mention of IPs being SP. My response was that, given how admins tend to view behaviours the same whether it's IDs or IPs, that in current usage IPs are just as much SP as IDs. But still, he does have a point on the technical denial.
He has not denied the block evasion, but says he did not understand it was improper. Is it likely that such a long term user would not know of this? Not really. Is it possible? Certainly. If you concentrate yourself on article work and have no interest in the administrative side of the project, then it is definitely possible.
And here is where it gets down to whether or not one beleives Conradi in his denials. And when you get right down to it, I do. He can be annoying. He can be extremely difficult to work with. But in the conflict I had with him a few months back over my blocking him, and in everything I see in this current confluct, I really have seen nothing to make me doubt the honesty of his statements (at least about his own knowledge/actions), and nothing to make me doubt that he has the best interests of the project at heart.
At this point I beleive the current dispute is pretty much over, and really don't see a reason for the extended block. His original block time is now several days over, and his extension os for things that either are very unlikely to be repeated (IP evasion) or things that are IMHO most likely not him (the two other involved IDs). IMHO the block should be reduced to a total of one week, including time already spent blocked, and let run out in the next several days. - TexasAndroid 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I will gladly do that when I get a statement from him saying that he did use the IP socks, and that he understands that was wrong. Also that an edit summary like this (calling someone as asshole) is not acceptable. Simple solution. The whole point of a block is so a user can take some time off to consider his actions, it isn't punative. So far though, I have not seen one iota of remorse on this user's part, just more claims of admin abuse, wikilaywering and protestations the he didn't do anything wrong. I posted my actions on WP:ANI. If they were so out of line, the community would have commented then. pschemp | talk 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Tex is right: I never denied to have used IP edits. Yes I did. Yes I will not do it in that way again. remember: I got blocked, and only few moments after realizing this, my talk got protected. I did IP edit outside my user+talk page. With the rules I see now, I should not have done this. I also see, by the block evasion policy I probably should not IP edit my own user page. I disagree this is right. What I edited there was not a blockable act from the content point of view. I will less likely remove warnings in the future. I absolutely had no idea that this was forbidden. I still do not see _why_ it is forbidden. I mean they are in the hist anyway and if you delete them you somehow confirm you read them. Furthermore remember: one of the warnings called my actions vandalism. I did not WP:Vandalise. No diff was provided. One is allowed to remove personal attack. But if it comes from an admin one is not? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok tobias that works for me. I have reduced the block. pschemp | talk 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think you have issues to work through if you want to be what I consider a good non-biased admin. An admin that before critisizing, critisizes fellow admins for their violations. I think Pschemp, InShaneee, Jimfbleak have issues to work through. But it seems you dont get this. Attacking my possible mistakes does not reduce yours.
I'm hopeful you will work through them and be a valuable contributor - well if admins keep on violating policies I am much more likely to quit being a valuable contributor. And it is really a shame that admins like you and Voice of All act like they did. At least you talk and this is really a good thing. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
sorry for being kind of unpolite. best Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

you were nice to me? you _partially_ corrected one of your mistakes (false sock puppet allegations - btw. Hauke and Chrisjj2 still are marked as puppets of mine and are blocked). I feel like stalking, what do _you_ have to do with tango? What a coincidend that _you_ go to a page _I_ made. If my free speech claim of stalking is a personal attack, your "vanity" accusation is so too. You should block yourself now. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
at 04:23 I updated tango.info. At 04:25 you are on the AfD page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Mate, please, there's no need for personal attacks on here, it's unproductive and only gets people blocked. If you have a real problem with someone, might I suggest avoiding them, and if you do cross paths, ignoring them? It's the best for the community, and for yourself (I imagine a 24 hour block is quite annoying). If you need any help in the future, you can email or hit me up on my user_talk page.
Some people have the AfD page on their watchlist to view current AfD's and vote on them, that does not mean they are stalking you.
In other words;
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! ShaunES 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC).
thx a lot for comming to my talk. It is stalking. I edited tango.info at 4:23, 4:25 Pschemp jumps in. Could you review the blocks of User:Chrisjj2 and User:Hauke ? Pschemp says the checkuser shows they are socks of mine, but Chris lives in UK and Hauke in Rostock. So I much doubt how this can be true. They are both tango dancing friends of mine.
And hey, thanks again for comming to my talk. You are the first I did not knew before and engaging here, not so much on the side of admin Pschemp. (Ezhiki and TexasAndroid that helped me where admins I knew before). Still you call me for civilty while free speech saying Pschemp is a stalker. If you would apply the same rules to Pschemp, shouldn't you critizes her for calling an article I created vanity article? It's her opinion, but so is that she is stalking. Both things are regarded a bad thing, so both are kind of accusations. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Baumfabrik

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

hi, i replied at

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

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

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

Hurlingham

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