User:Tobias Conradi/RfC

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Tobias Conradi | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

I've been editting anonymously (no login) from time to time for a few years, and am fairly well known in Internet Engineering circles (Google is your friend). Due to recent controversy, I thought it would be best to sign-in, and be more public in my participation. I've found that comes with a plethora of unexpected pain.

The last straw (for me) was the minor defacement of my previous User:WilliamAllenSimpson page (which has kindly been deleted a few minutes ago). The text was 'stop you lies. thx' (2005-12-13 20:34:55).

In compiling the list here today, I discovered that s/he's been going through my recent contributions *everywhere*, essentially in the order I made them, and undoing them! What a waste! (I guess I should "watch" more.)

Although nominally about the page Naming conventions (subnational entities), on the Project talk page Conradi has engaged in personal attacks, name calling, comparing to "genocid", accused me of using sockpuppets, and name called and threatened User:Golbez (who I'm sure can take care of himself).

I've posted the levels of WP:VIP warning on her/his talk page, and presumably Golbez has done the same, but it's quickly deleted there.

(Mr/Ms) Conradi seem to know the rules quite well:
 * S/he always reverts exactly 3 times per 24 hours.
 * S/he edits the page with a flurry of a dozen or so minor edits, so that it is very difficult to find only the subtle inaccuracies that have been introduced to somebody else's text.
 * Repeated separate corrections of format and spelling probably indicate not using Preview before saving. This is editting in attack mode, not for accuracy.
 * S/he changed the names of proposals, and other Nasty editting.
 * S/he has been vandalizing.
 * S/he repeatedly moved the pages. Administrator action has made 8 deleted edits to correct this problem (so far).

A third party (User:Codex Sinaiticus) has reviewed Conradi claims of "lies" and decided there was no cause for Conradi to fork the page.

In addition, I've recently discovered that after losing a straw poll on the page in August, s/he has been vigorously moving the subnational entities all over the *pedia, contrary to consensus. This has resulted in roughly 250 deleted pages by administrators!

S/he's using some kind of bot, as these page moves are being done several per second, with thousands per day! There is no evidence that redirects and double redirects are resolved, leaving a mess behind. It's probably going to take months to fix!

S/he's involved in some kind of revert war on the Template:Subnational entity, too.

On a hunch, I checked against de.wiki as that's listed on Conradi's user page as a native language. It may not be a language problem. Possible personality disorder. S/he's got deleted pages there, too &mdash; although not as many as the 271 to date here.

I've tried the Mediation Cabal, but they are currently on hiatus.

I've tried asking for protection of the page, but was denied.

Please quickly suspend this user for several months, to prevent massive ongoing damage, and provide time to analyze and repair recent damage.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * revert 3
 * accusation
 * repeated baseless edits
 * revert 2
 * revert 1
 * "nonsense", "liar"
 * accusation
 * revert 3
 * "liar", "jihad", sockpuppet, etc
 * revert 2
 * revert 1
 * "arrogance", "ignorance"
 * accusations
 * moved main thrice
 * moved talk twice
 * removed VIP warnings
 * revert 3
 * revert 2
 * accusation, "lies"
 * removed VIP warning
 * "genocid", "helpless comment"
 * revert
 * revert
 * revert

This list is a sample, there are too many to give a complete accounting. See the relevant page histories, and the complete user list of so-called "contributions" for more. William Allen Simpson

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:CON
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~ )
 * William Allen Simpson 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Golbez 07:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC) - I could give a litany of links going back over six months over attempts to discuss things with Tobias and Tobias making unilateral changes, then insulting people who revert or challenge them. William has done an excellent job of the recent ones, though, and I'll hold my cards until they're needed. Tobias has a very long history here, and has undoubtedly many hundreds of sound, good edits - but his stubbornness in some areas really makes it difficult to even propose changes in areas in which he is interested. At the least, I'd like him to be more considerate of the community and consensus.

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.