Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was blank. The user should know better than to campaign against the ArbCom ruling against him and against administrators on his user page and on this MFD. The content is quite incivil, so it can't be kept outright, but there hasn't been any clarification from ArbCom on whether it would violate the ruling. Besides, 3RR can come into play if there is an edit war over the blanking of the user page, and therefore I have opted for blanking rather than deletion per the suggestions of some of the participants in this MFD. --Coredesat 06:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tobias Conradi

Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, WP:USER and Jimbo Wales: using userpages to "campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". This page has previously been deleted for the same reason - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

•  :-( I agree that the content is inappropriate, but I'd prefer it merely be blanked. No need to delete, right? --Iamunknown 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• I would say the content violates the arbitration against him. --Golbez 01:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But you should not. Read the ruling. No grieviance, no list. Just a technical report. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, unless it becomes a laundry list of greivances, it does not violate his ArbCom. Not a soapbox doesn't apply any more than it would to many essays and userboxes, WP:USER doesn't apply because it isn't especially polemic. This user has enough punishments. Atropos 01:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain how this page is not a list of grievances with the Arbcom decision? When the user shows some contrition for their past behaviour instead of continuing to flaunt their disregard of Wikipedia rules I'll believe they have had enough punishment. ShivaIdol 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would not prefer thinking of the sanctions of the Arbitration Committee as "punishment", but as "prevention" (in particular, prevention from disrupting the usability of Wikipedia for other editors and administrators). That said, I argue that this page is in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Arbitration Committee's sanctions (that is, preventing Tobias Conradi from inadvertently disrupting the usability of Wikipedia for other editors and administrators). I would prefer it not be deleted, but blanked and made clear that similar content should not be added again. --Iamunknown 05:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being blanked, though its best done by an admin. Now I think of it thats probably easier since he's on 1RR anyway and so can't easily engage in a revert war. ShivaIdol 06:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Blank. No reason to delete as such, but it appears to me that this is clearly not going to the direction that ArbCom intended. Either way, I believe user pages that basically say "Come and see the violence inherent in the system - help, help, I'm being repressed" just don't work and just perhaps there's better ways of reaching out. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not about, "help, help, I am repressed" but about "see repression and admin rights abuses happen". And ArbComm fuels this by denying people gathering facts about that. Please note the difference. I would also like a project about admin right abuses. We need to watch what the admins do. We need transparency on their actions. Such a project I once started was immediatly and out of policy deleted. I am not interrested in specific "bad admins", I am interested to see why errors and abuses happen and to see the underlying factors changed. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • (Apologies in advance for a long-winded, somewhat sarcastic response - it's late in the night and I couldn't let these weird images that came to my head pass =). Let me put it this way: I'm mighty disgruntled because Jimbo completely me*d up the Attribution policy earlier this year. Yet, I felt the best course of action was to voice my policy concerns in a calm and olderly fashion in the public discussion when folks started to make sense of the Giant Policy Mess-up of 2007. Never ever did it occur to me that it'd be better to use my user page to boldly exclaim "Jimbo eats more babies a day than Shuttleworth does[1]" and presenting a few shreds of information, with gusto and authority (especially gusto), pretending they're the conclusive proof that Jimbo and Mark are in it with Theo de Raadt to build the baby mulching machines. Anyhow, as far as this page here goes, we have a two-fold problem: First, we already have our tons of ways of managing user conduct in general; admins don't (or aren't supposed to, if you're feeling cynical) get any special treatment. We have quite a bit of transparency already; all we need is a way to complain about the worrying things. Oh wait, we have them. Secondly, if you want the admin's heads on silver platter, please do start a Admin Heads on Silver Platter Resolution Board that is up to the standards of the rest of the dispute resolution mechanisms - because I'm seriously doubting the way you're handling this on the user page, in its previous and current form, has any chance to work. We need a balanced board with input from everybody, not something greatly resembles - pardon for comparison - yellow journalism. In summary: We may need a noticeboard for this stuff. We may not. However, if a new board is needed, it's not going to work as one user's hobby project, without commonly agreed rules and at least some cooperation. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I once started a project on admin right abuses, but this got deleted out of policy. Whether reporting the stuff or collecting it in my user space is helpfull by itself does not matter. It simply is wikpedia related material that everybody can comment on. People can talk about their cats on their userpages, you maybe talk about baby eating, I talk about admin right abuses, censoring of evidence collecting, ArbCom corrupting fueling decisions etc. IMO ArbCom should better go and stop the abuses than the reports about them. You mentioned Special:Log - this does not have the abusive actions marked as such, you mentioned WP:ANI a board frequented by lots of the abusers, to go there does not help at all, in a discussion there, admins attacked an admin, telling him in "esprit de corps" manner that he should stand united with the other admins. These attacks lacked "esprit for justice/truth/written WP policies". You mentioned WP:RFC - what shall this help? How can one use RFC to collect evidences? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • (It's just my sincerest hope that advance apologies will soften the blow and hopefully convey the intent that this is not meant as an insult even when it may appear as such. You know, if it genuinely was an insult and there was no way to avoid making apologies later, I'd definitely have the tact to shut up entirely. As for long-windedness, there's little I can do about that. =) Anyway, to the point: I really don't see the problem with "collecting evidence" in user space. All I'm questioning is what you're doing with that evidence. Filing a random noticeboard comment, a RFC, or even an Arbcom case? Sure thing, go right ahead. But keeping it up there just because it seems like a good idea... well, the end result is a matter of perspective: you could and probably would describe it as samizdat but I'd describe it as a scandal rag. You're trying to come up with a new process for handling oppression: exposing one side of the story in the most incendiary way possible without resorting to actual libel and hoping something happens. The end result is probably going to be exactly the same as in real world scandal news: everyone gets randomly mad at everyone else and there'll be a riot. Our dispute resolution processes, in contrast, at least try to avoid the anarchy and bloodshed. You may work on that. Sorry I won't be around to respond to rest of the questions today, it's 02:36 here =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I had the intention to do something with the collected evidences of admin right abuses. That it is on my user page itself is only because one of my talk archives got deleted. I also read through the RFC guidelens back last year, but it seemed all pretty complicated. I also was not very interested in filing an RFC "against someone", as others did, but I wanted to talk about the underlying problems. Same with ArbCom. But for that I need collecting stuff. And it is not the biggest fun to do that, it is more fun to edit articles. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep because this user page does relate to wikipedia.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a simple report on the ArbComm pro censorhip ruling. I.e. the ruling that users are denied gathering evidences of admin right abuses. The ruling is like commiting a crime and when the victim gathers evidences to change the criminal situation he is further abused by being denied gathering the evidences. The ArbComm ruling is corruption fueling. Also interesting that the ArbComm put Tobias Conradi on 1RR per week without saying which of his edits could support such a thing. He never violated 3RR/24h even if he once was blocked for that. Which was the very first in a series of admin blocks he received out of policy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, WP:SOAP does not apply, as the page is neither propaganda, nor advocacy, nor self-promotion, nor advertising of any kind (besides, WP:SOAP primarily applies to articles, not to userspace). I don't believe WP:USER is violated either, because the page is related to Wikipedia and does not contain polemical statements (only statements of fact). Furthermore, the ArbComm ruling prohibited Tobias from keeping a "laundry list of grievances", but no definition of what constitutes such a list had been given (is it a list of annotated diffs? a list of diffs with no comments? any list? grievances to whom? about what?). I, for one, don't understand how admins (me being one of them) are supposed to uphold a ruling which is so vaguely defined.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nod. I did try to get some clarification by example (see my comment below for the pointer) but failed so far. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep mostly per Ezhiki. I guess the laundry list is a list of diffs not a single reference to the Arbcom and statement that he is unhappy about it. Anyway it is easier to ignore whining than try to fight it by administrative measures Alex Bakharev 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, wouldn't it be better to wash the laundry instead of deleting the references to it or ignoring it? Wouldn't it be best to analyse which admin actions cause the laundry? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Ezhiki & Bakharev. Carlossuarez46 17:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• If you feel this page is a list of grievances and subject to deletion on that ground, this is the wrong process! Take it to ArbCom... They already said (since archived to the case talk page) that a somewhat similar page was not such a list. The case has been made, unsuccessfully, that this sort of a page is an out and out attack page. Hmm... Clearly it's not helpful. Clearly Tobias has been repeatedly counseled by many that his approach is not workable. Clearly he should take his issues to dispute resolution instead of letting them fester this way. But I'm not sure that deleting this page, in or out of process, by itself, will solve this. Also, it's not really "fair" to blank the page, knowing that Tobias can't revert it more than once. Not that we're fair, we're by definition not a system of justice or fair, but it will just tend to enforce in Tobias's mind that people are picking on him. I say leave it, not because it's a good page, but because the real solution is for Tobias to change his ways enough to want to take it down himself, (desirable) or for things to deteriorate to the point where he's permanently blocked, and it can be deleted then (UNdesirable). ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Close discussion. I feel that this is not for us to decide. There's no obvious violation, and if ArbCom disagrees it's their job to enforce it. YechielMan 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  ARBCOM don't really enforce their remedies, it's down to the enforcement provisions which normally means admins. If someone feels this is probably a violation but not strongly enough to act, then they should probably request clarification at WP:RFAr --pgk 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  That has been done, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Tobias_Conradi (or this version once it archives: [2]) ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Blank or delete. Looking for new and different ways to test the limits in service to his obsessive crusade IS disruption. He should simply drop the stick and back away from the horse. --Calton | Talk 08:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• disrupting admin right abuses is productive for WP? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Tobias, we have a dispute resolution process. You need to use it. You had a great chance to make your case during the recent ArbCom case but you chose not to... you could still do so by starting an RfC, or by any of the dispute resolution mechanisms. That you choose not to, but instead climb the Reichstag dressed in a Spiderman suit is really too bad. Why not participate productively? ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide evidences and more sources for your above statements, including the implicit ones? Which recent ArbCom case are you talking about? The one titled "Tobias Conradi"? But wouldn't that be an ArbCom case about "Tobias Conradi"? I am not aware of anything that would justify an ArbCom case with this topic. And now back to my topic: "Admin right abuses". I want to stop them. I do not want "request comments". I have seen enough comments about that, how abuseers defend the abuses, how admins engage in calling me a vandal, how they block me out of policy, how they delete pages out of policy, how defend all this, how they attack admins that tries to put more light in the matter, in best "esprit de corps" telling him that admins should stay together, obvously missing esprit for WP policies and for justice and for truth. I am not interested to get more those comments. For now I simply want to collect evidences. Like a normal investigator would collect evidences before acting. I am, (explicitly me, not all users in general) denied collecting evidences of admin right abuses. By an ArbCom ruling I am not allowed to keep annotated lists of admin actions. ArbCom engages in censorship, is acting against transparency of admin actions, acting against accountability. Even my report on the ArbCom ruling is out of process deleted

User_talk:Tobias_Conradi/2007-05_ArbCom_pro_censorship_ruling

2007-06-06 13:15 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Tobias Conradi/2007-05 ArbCom pro censorship ruling" (fol de rol)

2007-06-06 13:15 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Tobias Conradi/2007-05 ArbCom pro censorship ruling" (fol de rol) )

Via the block log the admins can maintain a list of lies - and I am not allowed to maintain a list of diffs that reveal admin actions. This is truly a two class society and further step of admin right abuses. See all the false information given by admins in my block log . Start with block number 1. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Can you provide evidences and more sources" ... Can I? Most certainly. Heck, I already have. Will I? No. not here. This is a deletion discussion. As you have been told repeatedly, we have dispute resolution processes. People have explained to you how to use them. People assisted you during the RfAr with what you would need to do to make your case. You did not do so. Your choice. Not the communities problem. We have processes. Use them...

"I am, (explicitly me, not all users in general) denied collecting evidences of admin right abuses." No, you are not denied that ability. As has been repeatedly explained to you, you can make your case using our processes, or not, but you cannot use WMF webspace as your private hosting space to continually hurl unfounded accusations. That is what you are denied, but you are as free as anyone else to use our processes. Properly used, they give satisfaction to the vast majority of people, and resolve the vast majority of issues.

Your current approach is disruptive and it needs to stop. Seriously. You need to internalise that and move on. You need to stop this disruption and return to being a productive contributor. ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly YOUR process does not allow collecting evidences. And YES: Explicitly denied collecting data is Tobias Conradi. And NO: If my process is disruptive to YOUR abuses - it has to stay. Your penetration attempts are evil.

you cannot use WMF webspace as your private hosting space to continually hurl unfounded accusations. - you are missing the fact that I was collecting well sourced evidences, lists of diffs that clearly show admin right abuses That is what you deny.

And NO: The ArbCom process is very dubious. It is not a great chance, etc. It is biased. It helps admins. And: The ArbCom case was about "Tobias Conradi" not about "admin right abuses". And no: None of the ArbCom people showed up to answer my questions during the first days. But some admins telling different things. Explaining me ArbCom is very clever etc. If they are very clever - how come they put someone who never violated 3RR, on 1RR per week - without explaining this ruling. This seems to me pretty abusive again. Because I moved Karo (people) to Karo people, which was what made User:Merbabu attack and run amok? It's all abusive. And you support the abuses. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No need for any censorship here. --MichaelLinnear 08:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.