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 Speedy Deleted by Alkivar as (*poof*... and in a flash it was gone). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put - if Tobias has issue with the work of an admin (and admittedly I am on there), then he can take it to true dispute resolution, rather than publishing it (and for a while he had a smaller section of this on his main user page, before he expanded this list). It adds nothing to the project, it does not contribute to resolving any dispute, all it does is further a wedge between the administrative community and Tobias. I am not an objective party here of course so while I am bringing it up for deletion, I will not myself vote. note: I asked, and was backed up by several admins, Tobias to remove this some weeks ago: [1] Golbez 12:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any backing ups by "several admins". Maybe a false claim by you? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, true, only one person did. I thought I saw a pschemp comment there as well, but I must have been thinking of a different section. --Golbez 22:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you start the RfC by yourself. For me it is very ok for now to only collect evidence. As can be seen on WP:AN/I there is a whole group of admins that violate policies and abuse their privileges. Since they also defend this corruption it is the first step to increase the awareness of this and how they attack regular editors. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If Tobias wishes to raise these matters, he can make a copy of the page and request dispute resolution on the basis of same. However, to just compile a list of grievances without indicating whether any action is even intended to be taken is pointless and will almost certainly exacerbate any existing problems. Badbilltucker 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes copy it to Wikipedia:AdminWatchDepartment Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As one of the admins listed, I've repeatedly asked Tobias to file a formal RfC to address his grievances with me, but he has demurred. If he is unwilling or unable to use the existing methods for resolving problems, then this becomes nothing but a "grudge list" and serves no useful purpose. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • as seen on WP:AN/I this is a larger issue. It's not only about you. There is a whole culture of corruption and admin rights abuse. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Badbilltucker. Naconkantari 17:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As one of the admins listed, I find this page, and the background about it, quite instructive in understanding Tobias's approach to editing here, which, in my view, is not completely constructive. That he prefers to have a page around with allegations that aren't defendable by others says a lot. Do I feel harassed by it? Well if I thought Tobias was a person the encyclopedia couldn't do without, maybe I would feel harassed. But I don't. I'd rather see this taken to RfC or RfAr and put to bed though. ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction, I'm not listed on the current version of that page but I've been involved in counseling Tobias to be more civil and issuing blocks when the counsel failed and I beleive he has said or implied he finds me an abusive admin. In passing: 30,000 edits is a lot of edits, to be sure, but there are no free passes. If you act like a prat, repeatedly, you should get warned, and that fails, timed out. That's not abuse. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply put, this page is contributing nothing to the writing of the encyclopedia. Use it for an rfc or lose it. pschemp | talk 18:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it does contributing to the writing. It shows how wrongly admins act and that this need to be corrected. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum due to Golbez's comment below. Delete this info no matter where it is, as long as its hanging out in any kind of userspace. pschemp | talk 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - instead of defending his page, Tobias has apparently decided to copy the material to his userpage, so this MfD, if successful, will ultimately be moot, and further measures will need to be taken. --Golbez 22:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A clear attempt to paint a dark cloud on the faces of fellow admins, if not slander them. We really don't need this. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 01:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • a clear attempt on your side to put reality into darkness and to hide all the violations commited. And worse, you are talking like as if there is esprit de corps among some admins. As if there is a two class WP, class one the admins. And if a conflict between a regular editor and an admin occures the admin has to be defended no matter what the things are. Admins are allowed to violate policies in your opinion, right? If it's for the good of the "fellow" admins. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reaons above (I'm actually kinda miffed I'm not on the list, considering my run-ins with TC in the past!) Grutness...wha? 04:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are not listed, because I am not aware of any policy violation by you, which is the case for the listed admins. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if the admins think there are false facts they can correct it. The table only shows the truth. Apparingly some admins have a problem with truth and revealing the truth. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Tobias, what if "the truth" doesn't happen to contribute to writing an encyclopedia, should we use our server space for it then? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bury it in userspace. The table does list the facts that happened, but serves no other useful purpose. I would suggest that Tobias goes through established DR procedures in future, as those, unlike this table, will have a tangible effect and visible results. If Tobias wishes to maintain this table as an evidence collector, it's his right, but there really no need to emphasize its visibility, and the entries should be removed once addressed and resolved via DR or when Tobias no longer has an intent of pursuing their resolution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table does list the facts that happened, but serves no other useful purpose. - Maybe you think again about the logic of your comment.
  • what od you mean by emphasize visibility? who did emphasize it?
  • Why shall entries be removed? There are history. The things did happen. So what? The stuff is in WP anyway, why dont let organize this.
  • Of course this is an evidence collector. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain statement of views, but relocate links off-wiki - Debates about pages like this come up fairly often and seem to have often inconsistent results. Like the 'keep past warnings on the talk page' philosophy, which paradoxically (to me) is supported and actively used by some of those objecting here, such pages have primarily two potential outcomes... the retention and organization of possibly needed information on past activities and the possible embarassment/annoyance of the users involved. Overall I think the 'aggravation factor' of data tucked away on a user sub-page has to be significantly less than such in enforced display on the user's own talk page, but it is worthy of consideration. Still, Tobias is entitled to have and express his opinion, and in at least some cases there has been widespread agreement that admin actions on issues he was involved in was questionable or incorrect. As such, while I don't think the page does any significant harm, to avoid a possible source of further conflict I would suggest copying the links to an off-wiki text file for future accessibility if needed/requested and replacing the list with just a general statement of belief on the perceived problem. --CBD 18:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disruptive and insulting. --InShaneee 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insulting? To call the murderer murderer may be considered insulting. But maybe the murderer then should avoid murders in the future. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparing admins to murderers is SERIOUSLY pushing the limits of civility. --InShaneee 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • since when is comparison insulting? I mean I could also compare you with a goat, and maybe realise that you and a goat have similarities and differences. Comparison != equating. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's always been incivil to compare someone to something infavorable, and if you keep doing it, you will be dealt with the same as everyoe who makes such insinuations. --InShaneee 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your threats are quite out of line and only seeming to further raise the hostility levels here. There was no equating anyway in the phrase "a murderer is a murderer", its a common expression derived from "a spade is a spade", its stating there is no need for comparison, they are what they are. You cannot "compare" John Lennon to John Lennon. --NuclearUmpf 00:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out which of the following facts are not true. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....(content deleted by several admins) ....

See User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse.. we do not duplicate pages up for deletion. Do not revert this again or you may well be blocked for edit warring. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, truth and civility are entirely different. Also, your comparison of any on wikipedia to a murderer is itself (1) not at all defensible on the basis of facts and (2) well over the line of civility. Please do not give any administrator any more reason to suspend your rights to edit than you already have. And your attempt to duplicate this material on your user page, as per Lar above, may well be a serious enough matter to cause your edit page to be forcibly rewritten. As it stands, your own behavior is probably worse than the behavior of any of the individuals you comment about on the page in question. Badbilltucker 20:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your innuendo of threats are kind of out of line here. Calling a spade a spade is not calling Wikipedians spades ... its an expression. Hence when he saying calling a "murderer a murderer" he was not call Wikipedians muderers, I would have thought that obvious but do not mind clarifying that for you. --NuclearUmpf 20:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never called a Wikipedian a murderer, I did not even compare them with murderers. But well, it's a good idea. Some here seem to try to _kill_ the truth. But they still did not suceed. And all is in the logs. They would have to empty the logs. Maybe they should use my page as pointing device to all the wrong doings that needs to be deleted from the logs to bury the truth about their policy violations. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ZOMG wikiadmin conspiracyz!!!111one Danny Lilithborne 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild keep. Not the only list of Evil Cabal Admins out there. In most cases, our response should be to rise above it. The list constitutes bad karma for Tobias, no reason why anyone else should care. The Land 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Everyone please relax a bit. WAS 4.250 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. We don't need to go manufacturing conflict. --CBD 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like, ZOMG, evil alien space nazis admins! -M^ask 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seriously, what is worse, manufacturing a bit of conflict based on a few diffs/log entries that people could find if they knew where to look anyway. Or completely making a fool of the XfD processes by deleting the page and then having a "mock trial" where only the admins (ie, subject of deleted material) can see the evidence. I personally think not making a mockery of the deletion process is a bigger priority for those wanting to show that wikipedia is internally what it professes to be externally. Ansell 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Its quite funny that the page is deleted before the MfD proccess finished, kinda goes to support the idea in the first place. Especially when some admins say the article should not be discussed on AN/I because MfD is the appropriate place ... So is it safe to assume that a MfD where only admins can see it, is quite out of proccess? --NuclearUmpf 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, it might be an idea for an admin to undelete it until a concensus is reached, so Tobias Conradi can add the deletion of the page to itself. Yomangani^talk 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.