Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Ligulem

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by slightly-involved Sean William

message: <AOL>Me too.</AOL>.  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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:JzG|Guy]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Additional statement by Golbez 

message: 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 . 
User:              	rights    	case involv     	Statement                                	p/t	b	u
Tony Sidaway       	editor    	2007-04-18 15:09	Statement by Tony Sidaway                	p  	-	-
Chairboy           	admin     	2007-04-18 16:22	Statement by Chairboy                    	p  	-	-
Lar                	admin     	2007-04-19 01:10	Statement by Lar                         	p  	4	2
MacGyverMagic      	admin     	2007-04-19 08:48	Statement by MacGyverMagic               	p  	-	-
Alex Bakharev      	admin     	2007-04-19 10:35	Statement by Alex Bakharev               	p  	-	1
Gnangarra          	admin     	2007-04-19 11:33	Statement by Gnangarra                   	p  	-	-
Golbez             	admin     	2007-04-20 09:19	Statement by Golbez                      	p  	-	-
Thebainer          	admin     	2007-04-18 15:47	Statement by bainer                      	t  	-	-
Ligulem            	admin     	2007-04-18 18:04	Statement by Ligulem                     	t  	1	1
Sean William       	admin     	2007-04-18 20:03	Comment by slightly-involved Sean William	t  	-	-
JzG                	admin     	2007-04-18 20:18	Statement by Guy                         	t  	1	-
ShivaIdol          	editor    	2007-04-18 20:59	Statement by ShivaIdol                   	t  	-	-
Ezhiki             	admin     	2007-04-19 16:07	Statement by Ezhiki                      	t  	-	1
UninvitedCompany   	b, c, o ,a	2007-04-18 16:40	Accept                                   	   	 	
Kirill Lokshin     	o, a      	2007-04-18 19:36	Accept                                   	   	 	
Jpgordon           	c, o, a   	2007-04-19 03:05	Accept                                   	   	 	
Charles Matthews   	o, a      	2007-04-19 18:16	Accept                                   	   	 	
Morven             	c, o, a   	2007-04-20 04:04	Accept                                   	   	 	
Golbez             	          	                	Additional statement by Golbez           	t  	-	-
Zscout370          	admin     	                	-                                        	-  	1	-
Naconkantari       	admin     	                	-                                        	-  	1	-
Pschemp            	admin     	                	-                                        	-  	7	3
InShanee           	admin     	                	-                                        	-  	3	2
DragonflySixtyseven	admin     	                	-                                        	-  	-	1
TexasAndroid       	admin     	                	-                                        	-  	1	-
23skidoo           	admin     	                	-                                        	-  	1	-
If this is an error, can a clerk fix it?
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Project page vs talk page - statements differ

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: RfC

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems marginal. Old anyway. I wouldn't do anything. Fred Bauder 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur. James F. (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And regardless of if that is,  *definitely* is. --Golbez 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Post-closing clarification, May 2007 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Defiance 

message: 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 Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bedford_blatantly_breaking_policies.... 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Ncmvocalist 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Horologium|Horologium]] 

message: 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's Holiday (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]]