Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 03:02, 14 December 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
- (Tobias Conradi | talk | contributions)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.) I've since learned this is called "wiki-stalking".
Although nominally about the page Wikipedia: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.
- S/he always reverts exactly 3 times per calendar day, although this may be more than 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!
- Example: 2005-11-02 (Antioquia moved to Antioquia Department). The actual Columbian name translates to Department of Antioquia (matching ca.wikipedia.org), and it was August consensus that the local/official form should always be used! While doing this, s/he created a disambiguation page for Antioquia, but never fixed the ~100 references, and didn't even move the interwiki links to the new page.
Lately, 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 — although not as many as the 271 to date here.
I've tried the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, but they are currently on hiatus. (Since then, a mediator was assigned, and immediately began another RfC, as the problems were so egregious.)
I've tried asking for protection of the page, but was denied. (Since then, the mediator protected the page, although in a damaged state.)
[edit] 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 template
- revert template
- revert template
- "genocid", "helpless comment"
- removed VIP warning
- accusation, "lies"
- revert 5
- revert 6
- revert 7
- removed VIP warnings
- moved talk twice
- moved main thrice
- accusations
- "sockpuppet"
- "arrogance", "ignorance"
- revert 1
- revert 2
- "liar", "jihad", "sockpuppet", etc
- revert 3
- accusation
- "nonsense", "liar"
- revert 1
- revert 2
- repeated baseless edits
- accusation
- revert 3
- revert war begins again after 3 day pause
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. This user doesn't appear to make substantive contributions to articles. William Allen Simpson
[edit] Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
[edit] 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 am only signing in re the issues with the proposal, Tobias's constant renaming of it, disregard for the opinions and proposals of others, etc. Most of these issues have ceased but still warrant an RfC as they could be indicative of wider and future issues with Tobias disrespecting consensus and proposals. I do not agree that he should be banned for any amount of time (which is impossible through an RfC anyway), I simply would enjoy further comment and mediation on this front. I also question where William got his number of 250 deleted pages from.
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
[edit] 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 ~~~~):
[edit] Outside view by karmafist
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.} Ok, i'm the mediator stated previously. I'm checking the links above, and here's what i'm seeing.
- 1,2 not a big deal.
- 3, kind of strange,(a few edits not shown here are a little abrasive), but also not really a big deal.
- 4, more of a problem, although understandable given that disputes can make things less civil than we want them to be.
- 5,10 That's his talk page, so he can do what he wants with it per WP:TP, although deleting content from talk pages is often frowned upon. Also, vandalism doesn't seem to apply since Tobias made the edits attempting to improve the template from what i've seen.
- 6 Not good, but this was in response to an unproductive response and fairly hostile response from William, so it's understandable why he'd be angry.
- 7,8,9,16,17,19,22,23,27 This was around December 9th and the following week, and Conradi did break 3RR there. However, this was not vandalism.
- 11,12 I don't understand Conradi's reasoning here, it's disruptive.
- 13,14,15,18,21 Seems like an unfortunate byproduct of a dispute that's grown larger than it is. 14 is a borderline WP:NPA vio, which could have been avoided with a CheckUser.
- 20 I'm curious what this is in regards to, i'll check it out later.
- 24 Conradi is hostile here, cancelling out any insight he might have had, and he does seem to have some insight there.
- 25 This leads to this[1] fairly bizarre fork of the naming policy that's the crux of the dispute.
My assessment is this...
- Conradi is a user in good faith trying to help the project. Unfortunately he has poor English skills and has lost track of things since he was in a particularly ugly dispute. He sounds like a newbie, but that can't be assigned here since he has over 17,000 edits [2]
- Golbez and William may also be acting in good faith trying to help the project, but in the zeal of the disagreement at the naming conventions policy, they created a dispute that wasn't necessary and ultimately counterproductive.
- The policy itself will never become official unless the two sides can bury the hatchet and work together. I'd probably be better off just deleting the thing if that doesn't happen.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- karmafist 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Solutions
[edit] Proposed Solution by William Allen Simpson
Deleted pages by actual count (today up to 279, the additions are all related to this RfC). The vandalism began again today. William Allen Simpson 12:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Please quickly suspend this user for several months, to prevent massive ongoing damage, and provide time to analyze and repair recent damage. I'd have asked for permanent banishment, but the general thing seems to be for some limited period of time.
Conradi should be prohibited from future alteration of such placenames, and/or related templates and categories.
I never imagined that a single user could do so much damage so quickly without prompt action, and would continue after warning! In the mundane world, there'd be a torte action and permanent injunction.
This kind of extreme behaviour and lack of comity is the very thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name among professionals, along with the unreliable content among educators. It should result in the strictest sanctions, especially as s/he has been around awhile.
Users who endorse this solution (sign with ~~~~):
- William Allen Simpson 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Solution by
Users who endorse this solution (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Proposed Solution by
Users who endorse this solution (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Proposed Solution by
Users who endorse this solution (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] 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.
