Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

Statement by bainer
I haven't been involved with this editor before, or any of the disputes relating to him. However, I have read much of the recent discussion, and I would urge the Committee to accept a case relating to this user for two purposes: Arbitration would be a suitable venue for these issues to be investigated because it would offer a place for measured discussion with a focus on investigating matters completely, and paying full attention to the concerns of various editors.
 * to look into the disagreement among the community about the approach it should take to Tobias (whether it should move for a ban or some measure such as civility parole),
 * to look into the various concerns of Tobias which he feels have not been adequately addressed yet, and which have fed into the broader conflict.

Statement by Ligulem
I'm commenting here because Tony notified me on my talk page (and listed me as one of the admins issuing a block to Tobias). I can't remember the reasoning that lead to my block of Tobias. My comment in the block log mentions something about the AWB checkpage. However, I'm not interested in pursuing this case here or in defending my block, so I didn't dig into the histories and logs. What I would like to point out is that I added Tobias to the list of enabled AWB users and I didn't receive any complaint about having done so. --Ligulem 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by slightly-involved Sean William
Tobias is an excellent contributor. Banning him would do little good for the encyclopedia, which is what we are here to create anyway. He has always been quick to allege admin abuse and censorship (I've been accused of it, even with my barely-involved status). Perhaps some sort of parole would be good, but we can't forget the fact that Tobias has done a huge amount of work for our project. // Sean William 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Guy
Me too.. Tobias is certainly a valued contributor, but his recent actions in respect of Danny's RFA are too close by half to climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, and they follow a long-standing pattern of disruptive behaviour. Like many of us, Tobias has stonrg opinions, and like many of us he becomes frustrated when the tide goes against him, but his ability to shrug and walk away seems to be limited to non-existent. A ban would be harsh and he would be a loss to the project, but something needs to be done. Mentoring? Some kind of probation? If I had a ready answer I'd have suggested it before now. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Golbez
I sincerely want a positive resolution to this. Tobias obviously is a valued contributor, but he does need to understand things like consensus and respect for others. Mentorship would be ideal, I would strongly suggest against very strong punishments (like a ban) at this point. --Golbez 19:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional additional statement: It seems clear to me that Tobias has no intention of responding to the merits of the case, only responding to the various technicalities that, thanks to this being a Jimbocracy, don't matter. --Golbez 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Project page vs talk page - statements differ
Block log data as of 2007-04-18 12:28

I do not understand why we have some statements on th project page (p) and others on the talk page (t). While they were unified at the request page. If this is an error, can a clerk fix it? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there wasn't a specific list of involved parties mentioned, I used my own discretion as a clerk to keep the statements by users who I felt were more involved in the case on the main page and moved the others to the talk page. I assure you I did not have any ulterior motives or mean any disrespect to  any editor by doing this and I have no personal involvement in this case whatsoever. My apologies if my actions have caused any misunderstanding or inconvenience. Thanks --Srikeit 04:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to work here by hard facts and exclude decisions by feelings. IMO working here is much better if it is all done really structured. E.g. referencing amd reading is easier. Additional statements would go on the main page anyway without being clerk-side sorted. Could you copy all statemtns over? Maybe add the additional Golbez statement underneath the Golbez section? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally statements by editors who are party to an editing dispute go on the main page while comments by uninvolved editors go on the talk page. Statements by anyone identified as a "party" go on the main page as well.  It is sometimes tricky to figure out when someone calls himself "slightly involved," but generally arbitration is meant to address disuptes over editor behavior, so statements by editors who are not involved in disputed behavior are placed on the talk page.  Golbez put his additional statement here himself, you can ask him to move it. Thatcher131 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC is mentioned which I think was never accepted. Are therefore the prerequisits for the RfA fullfilled? Could someone clarify this at the project page, so that the reader who passes by sees no misleading info. (I think it could be misleading.) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only prerequisite for arbitration is that the arbitrators accept it. They will usually not accept cases without some evidence of prior attempts to resolve the dispute, but an RFC is not mandatory, other forms of dispute resolution such as discussion on talk pages and noticeboards are often acceptable.  The RFC was certified by two editors within the proper time frame, however there was very little participation so it may not be useful to the arbitrators.  Also, it is pretty stale, so they are likely to give little weight to issues more than 15 months old and give more weight to evidence of recent problems. Thatcher131 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Topic of the RfA
The RfA is named "Tobias Conradi", which I think refers to User:Tobias Conradi and not to the real live person i.e. an article Tobias Conradi. If there are issues with that editor so big that it had to go directly to RfA with possibly bypassing other WP:DR steps, I would suggest compiling a list as sortable wikitable, showing Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * date and time (IMO best in ISO 8601 format)
 * diffs
 * violated policies
 * comments


 * The naming of the case follows the general convention. You may present evidence on the evidence page in whatever format you feel is convenient and useful, as may any other editor. Thatcher131 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the general convention? And what is the sense of presenting evidence regarding User:Tobias Conradi sorted by the persons that bring them? Should the evidence not be readable by itself, independent of who brought it? I would prefer the wikipedia-system and not the wikinfo-system. Furthermore the subject is very unclear. Evidence of what shall be brought? If the topic is User:Tobias Conradi which is an editor of the Wikipedia, then shall it be evidence of that he edited? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC) / improve wording Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence, you'll see an evidence page and some fairly simple instructions on how to enter evidence. This is a format preferred by the arbitrators, and constructed for their use.  You can enter evidence there, or if you prefer you can send evidence by email. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw this already but it did not answer the above questions Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The arbitrators will not page through your entire edit history, or dig out the details related to your blocks. Some editors feel that your conduct has been disruptive; they will (and some already have) present arguments and diffs to support their arguments on the evidence page.  You may wish to argue that your past blocks were improper, in which case you need to tell the story of how they happened, with diffs.  You may wish to respond to other editors' complaints with argument or context or diffs showing that their interpretation is wrong.  The arbitrators will consider all the evidence and attempt to come to a decision. Thatcher131 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Will they start wording a decision step by step? Will I see this? I currently do not know what they think of the "evidence" for brought by others. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tobias Conradi, unfortunately arbitration is not necessarily designed to be convenient for editors, it is designed to be convenient for arbitrators. I would recommend participation whether or not it is designed under the "wikiinfo" system rather than the "wikipedia" system.  --Iamunknown 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see how a joint evidence list, a list we all work together on, would be worse for arbitrators. Especially if they will not dig into all the history as Thatcher said. I do not know, why you recommend participation. What for? I did not open the case. If Tony thought there is a case to be opened called "Tobias Conradi" and five Arbitrators agreed ... well, isn't it up more to them to bring evidence? (of whatever they want to evidence bring for.) If they would more clearly say what they want evidence for, than I could maybe help. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I recommend participation because, whether or not you participate, considerations against you and against those with whom you have interacted will be considered. It would be preferable, I would think, to be able to participate in proceedings which could directly affect your future participation on Wikipedia.  --Iamunknown 21:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to participate somewhere where considerations for the future of Wikipedia are made. Actions _against_ editors are not in my interest. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I understand the nature of your misunderstanding. This arbitration request is not designed to be in your interest necessarily, it is in the best interest of the project.  Your behavior has been identified by some as disruptive to the health of the project, and this arbitration proceeding is designed to determine a method of determining if the disruption is real, and if so, create a method to protect by stopping it (ideally in a way that retains you as an editor).  This is not a service being provided for you, this is something being done to protect Wikipedia.  I hope this clarifies things.  Your participation is not required, but if you have legitimate grievances, it's far more likely that they'll receive scrutiny if you do. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see how this ArbCom case named "Tobias Conradi" is in the best interest of the project. The whole design seems flawed to me. From what shall this ArbCom case started by Tony protect Wikipedia? Shouldn't he have started one named "admin right abuse" or "policy violations by admins"?Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As is shown by exhausted editors, multiple Miscellany for deletion and the recent discussion at the Community sanctions noticeboard, it is apparent that editors have become frustrated with you; this request for arbitration is a request for the arbitrators to, in part, impose a fair set of sanctions upon you which editors who are regularly engaged with you cannot provide. That you involve yourself in these proceedings is suggested if you wish to present evidence that would alleviate the sanctions that may be imposed upon you.  --Iamunknown 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tobias the reason that this has been listed at arbcom is you and that some editors consider your actions disruptive myself included. What ever the title you have the opportunity to present to the community your evidence of abuse by admins and to respond to the evidence already presented by other editors. You need to recognise that whether you take an active part in the case or not the Arbcom will make decisions some of which you may not be entirely happy with.
 * I also recognise that you may be having trouble understanding this process and I'm willing to set aside my position and assist you in presenting your side of the issues. Alternatively I recommend you contact WP:AMAREQ and get some assistance from an independant advocate. Gnangarra 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of this rule-lawyering, you should probably be answering the complaints and charges levelled against you, unless you have no intention to do so; if that is the case, please inform the arbitration. --Golbez 01:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is rule-lawyering? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the reference is to WikiLawyering. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: Existence of User:Tobias Conradi

 * 2007-04-04 Interiot lists 1751 articles as created by User:Tobias Conradi (not included are those that he created but where this creation edits where deleted. Some were deleted but never listed anywhere, just by arbitrary decision of some admin. Even if the articles exists now, it can be it is no longer contributed to Tobias.)
 * 2006-02-24 Golbez complains that after page move Tobias changes "every single link to that article"

Dab

 * destructions
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ichilo&diff=127187944&oldid=126234168
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eket&diff=prev&oldid=126169831
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nubra&diff=127187590&oldid=126538528
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pongola&diff=prev&oldid=125927290
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zweyer&diff=prev&oldid=125907858
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wambaya&diff=prev&oldid=125906632
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=125905695
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churchend&diff=prev&oldid=125900340
 * results of not dabbing early
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Nubra - Today's selected article with lots of wrong links

The pertinent issues
Conradi is clearly a major contributor to Wikipedia in that he has made billions of micro-edits. But whether they have made the encyclopedia a better encyclopedia seems to be unknown. His command of the English language is evidently poor; but on the other hand his edits are generally un-linguistic—page moves and the like—so maybe that doesn’t matter. Then he goes out of his way to muster what English he can manage in order to piss people off. That might be a good thing, or it might be a bad thing. On the one hand it might strengthen people’s sinews and make them better and more robust editors. On the other hand it might make good and potentially far more usefully productive people simply unwilling to contribute in such an unpleasant environment. We are all volunteers.

So the question is whether he is useful grit in the wikipedian oyster. On balance I think that he is not and that he is never likely to be. I think that what he contributes is negative grit. —Ian Spackman 07:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very often people run around and claim bad things about me. But very often they also fail to back their claims with diffs. If I make angry people that abuse their admin rights, this seems not to be the worst to me. The massive use of admin rights out of policy and the mobbing undertaken by admins that blocked me is certainly not something sensitive people like. Maybe the admins and people like you (don't know whether you are an admin) should think what environment they create. There are people that do not like lieing and there are people that don't care so much and are very pround of their super command of english and politeness. Abusing admin tools by out of process deletions and without the slightest try to contact the stub creator, then calling me "known vandal" and afterwards telling to others I don't think I have been uncivil to this user. You can beat people and if they cry because it's done repeatedly you can say - oh you cry? But crying is forbidden! Be civil! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No I am not an admin. Nor do I have an inkling of a desire to become one. Obviously my English is better than yours, just as your German is better than mine. So what? It’s not shameful to be weak in a particular language. It’s just a bit odd to want to write an encyclopedia in a language in which one can’t write more or less decently. You accuse ‘people like me’ of not caring too much about telling lies. Please retract that statement very clearly: it is a disgusting attack on me. You moan that you are made to cry. Think about the people you have insulted in the past (including me). Do we not also bleed? Can you be surprised that we don’t like you very much? Executive summary: retract that accusation very clearly indeed. —Ian Spackman 20:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have plenty of evidence; Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence is where it should go now --Iamunknown 03:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Among other things I referred to your "billlions of micro-edits", "But whether they have made the encyclopedia a better encyclopedia seems to be unknown." , "His command of the English language is evidently poor;" Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide diffs where I said that? I don't remember saying those things.  --Iamunknown 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * SORRY! I mixed this with Ian Spackman. Did not read the signature properly. I meant I would like to see evidence for Ian Spackman claims. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * SORRY! I don’t quite understand what you are asking. That could be because my English comprehension is poorer than I like to think. But in evidence for your command of the English language being at a lower level than would be required by any sane publisher of an English-language encyclopedia just re-read any of your edits to this page. Can you spot one where you demonstrate a basic command of moderately competent and idiomatic English? If so then give us the diff! Certainly there are useful editors (most of whom haven’t gone out of their way to piss people off) whose command of the language is less than would be ideal. They are worth cleaning up behind. Are you? if you are then provide the evidence. —Ian Spackman 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, setting aside your inability to to write in English to a reasonably required standard, when you make real edits, let’s look at one of your latest micro-edits.. Previously the rather important article Ladakh had a correct and unambiguous link to Nubra which at the time meant Nubra Valley. You turned it into a link to a disambiguation page between Nubra Valley and Nubra River. The latter is an article which currently does not exist. They may or may not become worth disambiguating at some point in the future. But what your micro-action has done in the present is to fuck up the encyclopedia. Did you fix the link? We are joking if we merely imagine the possibility. Do you plan to write the redlinked article? How soon? —Ian Spackman 15:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ian please remain civil, IMHO in this case Tobias' actions are reasonable the article Nubra was a redirect to Nubra Valley, this article was always at Nubra Valley. By creating the disambiguation page at the redirect hasn't altered the article Ladakh which should have pointed directly to the Valley article. Many dab pages carry redlinks for articles yet to be written, lets assume good faith with this edit that any article is about to be written or another article link refers to the river not the valley. Gnangarra 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I seem incivil? If so then I apologise wholeheartedly. (OK I exaggerate, for ‘whole’ read ‘49 and a bit percent’.) But you are wrong on the Nubra/Ladakh issue. What Conradi did (just as he has done so many, many times before to other articles) was to screw up the Ladakh by changing a page which it pointed to (the valley) into a disambiguation page. Which means that readers of the encyclopedia following the link are unnecessarily confused. That quite simply made the encyclopedia a worse encyclopedia. Had he fixed the incoming links to Nubra it would have been a different story. But in this case, as so often, he left a mess behind him for other people to clean up. —Ian Spackman 05:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I created the possibility that automated tools can generate links to DAB pages. It is not my fault that Ladakh authors make imprecise links. AWB users can fix links to DAB pages. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC) - (I corrected the spelling "autors -> authors" and "inprecise -> imprecise". typos happen, even if I write German.)
 * Of course it is not your fault that Ladakh authors make imprecise links. Because they made perfectly precise links to the article on the valley. It was your action, not theirs that messed the links up: made the Ladakh article worse. Why didn’t you fix those links?—Ian Spackman 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN - everybody can fix. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Seems we were both looking on different time horizons. You the shorter, me the longer one. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is a lot in what you say there, Tobias. Do you know the expression ‘You can’t make an omelette without breading eggs?’ It’s a good expression, and one with a lot of truth it. But perhaps not one to adopt with too much fervour as a personal motto. Cheers (for once)! —Ian Spackman 14:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lay off of him, this isn't the venue. If you have evidence to provide, please do so in the proper place.  This talk page is a meta-discussion about the Rfar itself, not a place to snipe without accepting the responsibility inherent with inserting yourself into the case. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 20:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I started off this section precisely as a meta-discussion, and one that was intended to be thoughtful. But nobody addressed the meta-issues which I raised: rather the discussion went down-hill very fast. And when I felt that I was being accused of lying I hit back. Still how does ars longa… finish? In a way that tells me to hit the unwatch tab. (Just don’t get me started on the ergonomic insanity of that being a tab. I could display a little righteous anger!) Anyway I suggest that you ‘lay off of’ me. —Ian Spackman 14:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tobias instead of discussing here that admins are abusing their tools, please list diffs at Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence the purpose of arbcom is to look at each parties edits and take action accordingly. You are also able to respond to any evidence already presented, given the amount being presented I think its wise to at least do that. Gnangarra 11:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * can you do this for me? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It’s very interesting that for years, and at every opportunity, Tobias has screamed that admins have been abusing and harassing him - even going as far as calling WP:OFFICE to complain . When the opportunity finally arises to make his case and have the claims resolved he stays as quiet as a mouse. No one has so far presented any evidence that admins are abusing and harassing him. ShivaIdol 21:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked several times what the topic of this RfA is. Per the title it does not seem to be about admin right abuses. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's about you, Tobias. So maybe you should respond to it. --Golbez 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The arbcom is not going to restrict their decision based on what the title of the case is. The title is just an easy way to refer to the case. Requests for arbitration/How to present a case is a good thing to read. The important bits are that the arbcom are very experienced Wikipedia users. Everything else flows from that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact of being "very experienced users" seen in the light of "empirical observation" that they judge by prejudices makes me wonder whether this experience you claim, is of great importance. For me it would be more important that they are fair. And that they do the best to have a good process of arbitration. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A relevant quote for Tobias from this document: Arguing about flaws in the arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make arbitrators look dimly upon you. Take the time that you could spend arguing about the details of process and apply it to trying to gather useful evidence. Pettifoggery is likely to create prejudice for your cause; a person will probably only wikilawyer when they realize they have no actual case. ShivaIdol 04:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great quote! ArbCom rules inspired by prejudices? That would be the FLAW No1.Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One has to wonder if you are suited to being a Wikipedian. You show contempt for editors who disagree with edits you make, with admins who try to moderate your behaviour, and for the whole arbitration process which attempts to sort out the mess which has resulted from your interaction with others. My opinion is Wikipedia would be more pleasant if you were not here. I hope Arbcom agrees. ShivaIdol 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pleasant for whom? And since when is the goal of Wikipedia to be pleasant? Isn't it to produce an ecyclopedia? Of course it is more pleasant for certain people if their errors are not made public. But do you know, how many people quitely leave? How many never engage? How many have been verifiable falsely accused of sockpuppetry? Like User:Hauke, User:Chrisjj2. These are the onces that I know about. But how many more are there? The last days I read several things in a forum on heise.de related to a news saying Wikimedia looks for more Arbitrators. - Lot of people there were angry about deletions and said they left because of this. And they reported to have received snippy comments by admins when they complaint somewhere. If the goal of Wikipedia is to be pleasant, then the policy pages or goal pages should say so! Pleasant - especially for admins! They can delete what they want, they can block for fun etc. Yeah, say so!
 * The issue here is you. Here's my favourite quote about driving people away from Wikipedia: At one time (several months ago) I briefly crossed paths with him [Tobias Conradi], and thought of engaging him in a Talk page conversation, but after viewing his previous Talk comments I decided I'd move to a different area. ShivaIdol 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (comment changed 12:12 )
 * It could be my favorite for illogical judgement. Just because someone received a lot of blocks this does not mean at all he should get banned (at least not by WP written policies). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You altered your comment, without saying so, which is kind of history-whashing. What you quote now is not an example of driving people away from WP but from talking with me. Well, some people do not like to look behind the scene. That's ok. What is IMO not ok, is to trick people into Wikipedia is project to build an encyclopedia and then turn it into being something that has to be pleasant for certain people. You should openly say, "We do not want admin right abuses to be reported." Then you would maybe have less an issue with people like me. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tobias Conradi
Procedural flaws:
 * (potential flaw - needs to be verifeid): empirical reasearch says arbitrators may use prejudices Requests for arbitration/How to present a case
 * topic undefined
 * admins present diffs that none-admins cannot read. None-admins have no possibility to digg within deleted material to present what they could think is important
 * wikinfo vs wikipedia (POV vs NPOV collaboration)
 * Evidence page says: "Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs; "
 * flaw: Number of people and their personal choice of evidences influences the diffs that show up
 * evidences and related evidences are not necessarily presented side by side, because parties may ommit certain stuff. If one party tries to be complete it quickly runs tothe diff limit and may duplicate diffs already presented by others -> waste of time and space
 * Solution(?)
 * use tables, e.g. User_talk:Tobias_Conradi/RfA

Post-closing clarification, May 2007
Is this section of Tobias's talk page within the scope of the prohibition of laundry lists of grievances as it stands now? If so, would it be outside of the scope if it were modified in some way? Sorry for not asking during the run of the case. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems marginal. Old anyway. I wouldn't do anything. Fred Bauder 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. James F. (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And regardless of if that is, *definitely* is. --Golbez 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted it, and stand by that, but I realize I am hardly neutral in this, so I could recuse myself from any further administrative actions. --Golbez 22:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See also : Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi (2nd nomination) The question of whether that page is or isn't a laundry list of grievances came up. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Defiance
Check out Tobias's contribs: He has ceased contributing at all and only carries out his little crusade against ArbCom. Perhaps something should be done about this. --Golbez 19:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[archived] Request for clarification: Tobias Conradi

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Ncmvocalist
I seek clarification on the recent principle that was passed (via a motion) in this case here - specifically, its application. It appears there is reluctance amongst administrators when it comes to enforcement - specifically with a comment/passage that appears on User:Bedford's user page:

I was a Wikipedian Administrator, but it was stolen from me without due process by a few fellow administrators who thought they should arbitrarily decide what should be and should not be on Wikipedia, despite WP:NOTCENSORED, and got me desysoped. I was once p.o.ed about it, but since then I've realized it is a greater honor to have been screwed of the status than to actually have it, as it just meant I am better than those behind the gangrape. Besides, it means I don't have to do as much as I did before.

No doubt, there are several problems with the ill-considered wording of the comment, as well as the cause for which it is written (if any). The page ended up protected amongst an edit war between User:Bedford and a few other editors. Bedford refused to change the comment when asked to, per the discussion at ANI at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.

I submit that even if it isn't necessarily BLP-related, the rule of thumb is to avoid harm. Unfortunately, there is a reluctance among admin-enforcement through full protection - the admins either seem to downplay the issue, or think greater consensus is needed - even in such a case of requiring more consensus-building, it's not unreasonable to remove a term such as "gangrape" (as an interim measure, even through full protection). I request the Committee to affirm this view and to effect such an enforcement action. Additionally, I request ArbCom to provide clarification on how the relevant principle would apply to the above passage as a whole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In case I miss noting it later, I wish to thank the Committee for taking the time to review this request. I respect and appreciate its views and reasoning so far, as well as anything further that may be forthcoming. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should've disclosed the fact that I'm practically uninvolved in this matter - what goes on between Bedford, Sceptre and anyone else involved is not something I paid attention to. I only looked at the merits of this complaint; particularly, making my own conclusions after seeing the above passage/comment for myself.
 * Re to Horologium

I've handled enough WQA complaints to understand when something is justifiable (and/or misrepresented in the hopes of achieving a certain outcome) - that's not the issue here. Also, this isn't a mere matter of disliking the use of the term; nor is it a matter of wikilawyering via dictionary definitions - the ordinary understanding of the word 'gangrape' or 'gang-rape' isn't something that 'readers' are going to be hopping off to a dictionary for, even in the context in which it is used here. The casual use of the term suggests a low degree of sensitivity, and a high degree of avoidability. I also think it's universally known that disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point is unacceptable. My primary concern at the moment is what appears on the user page - but I won't oppose ArbCom looking at the conduct of all those involved if this is required. Surely, the principles exist for a wider reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with what you've said in regards to Sceptre, or the userbox wars. However, I note that I didn't bring forward this clarification request with any particular attention being given to Sceptre/Mixwell/Bedford conflict - rather, I did bring it here in the hopes of clarifying if it was acceptable on a user page. As another admin noted at the ANI discussion: "While the complainant may have a prejudice towards the user, that does not make the report completely bogus. I see a few other users here who feel this issue has some stance and as such should not just be passed off." The official clarification from here will be useful for future enforcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium
I am the admin who protected Bedford's user page. While I don't agree with a lot of what Bedford has to say, and I dislike his choice of words in the paragraph that was at issue, the argument presented was ludicrous on its face. A user who has baited Bedford before comes sniveling to AN/I over a single word, clearly used in a metaphorical sense, on Bedfords's user page. (It is in the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph of a big chunk of text, not highlighted/capitalized/italicized/bolded.) Then another user, who was at the forefront of the effort to desysop Bedford, starts removing the entire paragraph from Bedford's page. After I warn him about edit-warring and 3RR, he stops, and the first user starts doing the exact same thing, at which point I fully protected the page. Note the edit summaries left by the editors seeking to remove the entire paragraph. one of Sceptre's is incivil; the first of Mixwell's is incorrect, and the second is snarky. I would encourage Bedford to change the word, but the arguments that have been presented so far in the AN/I discussion have ranged from the fatuous and sanctimonious to the inane. Sceptre's WP:IDONTHEARYOU attitude, in particular, is annoying. There is no assertion of rape, and therefore there is no personal attack. Bedford has not called anyone a rapist. I suggest Sceptre should consult a dictionary; My copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth edition) offers this definition for rape: 3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation. In that context, the word is justifiable.  Horologium  (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Re to Ncmvocalist

The reason I provided the dicdef was not to wikilawyer; in fact, it was quite the opposite. Sceptre has been spinning this as "Bedford called me a rapist", when in fact he didn't say any such thing. I think it's perfectly obvious in context that he's not using the word in the literal (sexual) sense. (Sceptre is being quite disingenuous here, as Bedford's page specifically cites a few fellow administrators; Sceptre isn't one, and wasn't when the Bedford desysop occurred.) I'm not fond of the use of the word, but it's not a personal attack, and it's definitely not a WP:BLP vio, which was the justification Sceptre was using when editing Bedford's page to remove the entire paragraph, not just the offending word. The disruption is caused not by Bedford, but by Mixwell (who brought the complaint in the first place) and Sceptre (who started edit warring over it without a clear consensus). And no, there is not a clear consensus to remove, although there appears to be a consensus that it's tactless. However, "tactless" is not a criterion for removing anything from a user's page without his or her consent. We already had that argument; you may or may not remember the "Userbox wars", which nearly pulled Wikipedia's community apart. We don't need a rehash of it, over a single word on a userpage which may or may not be divisive.  Horologium  (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you are looking at a general clarification, but the problem is that you are asking about a case which really doesn't have anything to do with the dispute which precipitated the request. (I realize that you don't have access to the deleted pages relevant to the case, so bear with me here.) In the Conradi case, the dispute arose over Conradi restoring pages that had been deleted through MFD, pages which were headlined about examples of "Administrator Abuse" and contained a laundry list of specific diffs that Conradi saw as abusive. The Bedford case deals with a single paragraph, with no links or names, that states that he feels like he got the pointy end of the shaft. One of the words he uses is an unfortunate choice (IMO), but there's nothing there that justifies its removal, under any of the policies that are in place, and certainly not under the remedy you have cited. If this had been congruent, I would have had no compunctions about removing it, but it's not; my reluctance is based on that difference, not an unwillingness to act.  Horologium  (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
If the committee wish it to be treated like a policy or guideline, they should, as respected members of the community, add such guidelines to WP:USER. A clarification on a year-old case is probably the worst place to put something that is expected to be enforced - if nothing else, people need to know the thing exists in the first place. I would encourage them, once again, to do so. Linking to policies or guidelines as why someone should change his user page would be much more effective than an obscure, year-old case in a system that many have probably never heard of.

But, beyond that, I think this is a poor case for the Arbcom to start with: a simple review of a few user pages would find much more egregious content, that better fits within the principles the committee espoused in that clarification. While the committee must not hold a vague statement of principles - which is what the version voted on explicitly is - as equal to policy, WP:USER contains principles that are similar, if less explicitl stated. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am not certain whether ArbCom intervention is necessary here, but Bedford's insistence on using crass language that he knows offends some of his fellow Wikipedians is churlish and reinforces why he is no longer an administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My analysis is that the statement in context would definitely be read as Bedford's own opinion put into a crassly extreme form, but that no-one would seriously read it as a literal statement. It is borderline but I would incline to the view that we cannot insist on its removal. This is partly because, in applying the complained-of remarks generally without naming the users, it is difficult to read it as personally insulting. Users unfamiliar with the dispute, intrigued by the use of such a forceful description, are far more likely to hold it against Bedford especially if they investigate the circumstances. I think in his best interests he should rephrase his remarks, but I strongly suspect that it is his own reputation that will suffer if he choses not to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Our newbie arb hats aren't fully on but we're being asked to comment...I agree with Brad and Sam. While Bedford's comment is highly distasteful to many in the community, it is not directed at anyone specific and is in his own user space. If it were a directed comment, I support removing it. As it is, it's primary negative affect is to the person that wrote it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Sam hit the nail on the head here. It's not a good statement to put in his userspace, and it hurts him to keep it in, but it's not to be a statement that needs a sanctioned removal. Wizardman  17:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bedford is reminded that such extreme hyperbole reflects mostly on his own character, and that he would be well-advised to redact it himself. However, I see no reason to forcibly remove the comment or to sanction Bedford for choosing to leave it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A few things need to be examined: Is this a serious violation of WP:NOT? Is this is a serious violation of the user page policy? If so, what enforcement measures are necessary and appropriate? These are questions for the community to resolve. Though there is some current disagreement about this particular case, we are a long way from the community exhausting its options to reach a consensus on this and related matters. Vassyana (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed with Bedford either, but this is not a case for ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.