Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Case Opened on 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 13:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Requests for comment

[edit] Statement by Duffer

Tommstein makes extraordinarily rude remarks and edits with little, or no, provocation. This has been brought to the Arbitration Committee for several reasons, some of which I mentioned above, but will now expound upon them and provide several more.

Administrator Kelly Martin investigated a Sock Puppet that had used multiple usernames to edit the Witness pages to "bolster support" for his position against Tommstein, during the course of the investigation Kelly noted Tomm's behavior; after asking both him and user:Central to "lay off the personal attacks" she stated: "CheckUser is not intended to assist with a witchhunt or with wikistalking, and I am concerned that you may be engaged in one or both of these activities." She did not respond to Tommstein's mocking of Wikipedia policies: "lest I be accused of being a witchhunting stalker again by the pro-jackass Wikipedia system ". Fast forward one week. The user who had been investigated for Sock Puppetry posted several of Tomm's NPA and CIV violations on several administrators' talk pages. One admin was kind enough to approach Tomm about his behavior cordially. Tommstein was subsequently blocked for 1 day (on January 1, '06) due to his persistent violations, and general disruption of Jehovah's Witness pages; he was then also asked by Administrator Turnbull to refrain from editing the Jehovah's Witness and related articles because "..it appears clear that you are incapable of maintaining common standards of neutrality and courtesy in dealing with such topics". In response, Tomm took out a revenge RFC against Administrator Turnbull. Also in response to that block Tommstein has collected some of my shameful civ violations and posted them on his talk page. Although they were only made in direct response to severe verbal abuse, I recognize I was in the wrong for returning fire (and it has been several weeks since i've made a comment that could be remotely construed to be hostile or provocative in any way).

When reviewing the list please note that a few of those "quotes" are in fact myself quoting someone else yet Tomm deceitfully attributes the words to me, and several of the quotes are several different responses all combined into one. I had pointed this out directly underneath the list but Tomm deleted my defence (twice). Also one of those: "what's the matter with you?" I had deleted not 5 minutes after I had written it, recognising it was inflammatory and inappropriate. One of the more heinous lies on that list of "quotes" is the one:"I accuse you of deceit, bias, prejudice, and rhetoric... direct provocation by you or User:Central... 'biased, prejudiced, ignorant', or 'stupid'". What I actually said can be found here (page 2, page was moved, direct link doesn't work).

Tommstein, and user:Central come to the table with the assumption that every Jehovah's Witness is lying to Them. They frequently (1, 2, 3, 4, or just go to talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and press ctrl + f and search the word: "theocratic") cite their misconception of the Jehovah's Witness "Theocratic Warfare" doctrine as self justification for such behavior and to generally malign the credibility of the Witness editors, regardless of the fact that their misunderstanding has been addressed by several Witnesses, including myself in a private discussion with Central. Their abuse is tiresome and the Witness Wiki Project has suffered greatly as a result. Instead of working together, I have been forced to take two seperate edit wars to mediation in order to stop the abuse (that has not stopped), and to stop the harassment (that likewise, has not stopped).

My final warning to Tommstein was met with mockery, but it was his statement: "I do not believe that I was uncivil" that has forced me to bring this here, and help him see his actions by peer review. Some of the most recent, and particularly distasteful violations (note that all of these are post-block):

  • "I'm currently dealing with the shenanigans of a bunch of Jehovah's Witness zealots on their religion's pages and the administrators that reinforce their stupidity, so I speak from experience. Run for the hills. Just make stuff up if you have to, you'll have basically the same thing as if you used Wikipedia." (Jan 2, '06)
  • "Why would we start paying attention to what people say instead of how they say it now, given that Witnesses that can't assault my arguments invariably do the exact opposite with anything I say all over Wikipedia? Some people have a bad case of 'my shit don't stink' syndrome." (Jan 4, '06)
  • "start preaching its glory when all six of the chosen English Wikipedia administrators ignore you because they have more important things to do than making sure that sockpuppeteers don't single-handedly compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia or they just don't care." (Jan 5, '06)
  • Edit summary: "reinserted deletion justified by the most asinine argument ever seen on wikipedia or, indeed, the world" (Jan 7 '06)
  • Minor edit dispute when Administrator Turnbull edited Tomm's inflammatory comments: "Contrary to apparently popular belief, the purpose of this RFC is not to confirm that people want to have NicholasTurnbull's baby or that they hate other editors." (Tom 1, Nic 1, Tom 2, Nic 2, Tom 3, Nic 3, Tom 4)(Jan 10-11)
  • "Beating Duffer1 logically isn't hard, getting him to stop causing trouble throughout Wikipedia is, and, unfortunately, there is no good system in place to treat trolls like trolls and get rid of such troublemakers." (Jan 14, '06)
  • "..what other logical option is there to explain when things have reached Duffer1 levels? It would be politically incorrect to outright call him an idiot, or to say that he demonstrates signs of having an IQ comparable to most people's shoe size" (Jan 15, '06)
  • Continued [1] brow-beating of Administrator Turnbull. (Jan 17, '06)

Please note that the above list is only post-block violations by Tommstein to underscore his total lack of respect for Adminstrator warnings, this does not include his previous POV and hostile edits (or user:Central's). Also, I know it was wrong of me to indulge their provocations, and I do sincerely apologize for the disruption this has caused, however, I have stopped (weeks ago). I believe this situation needs immediate, official, intercession.

[edit] Statement by Cobaltbluetony

I will rely on the linking provided by Duffer to support my own statements. My deepest concern regarding the user Tommstein and his ad hom methodology stems from his own experiences. From my experience as one of Jehovah's Witnesses (and having been removed from the congregation at one time in my past) I feel I can make accurate assessments as to the nature of disfellowshipped individuals with whom I have had passing contact, and identify two main types of disfellowshipped individuals within the JW realm. The first is one who still strongly believes in his religious convictions and accepts this discipline as part of his worship; the second becomes embittered, perhaps feeling unjustly disciplined, either because the action(s) in question were not serious enough in his own mind, or that he did not commit the action(s) in question, or that the action(s) was (were) justified by circumstances.

The user Tommstein claims to be a former Jehovah's Witness, and extremely bitter about his experiences while there, and/or the means by which he became and ex-member of the organization. Since his judgments about Witnesses do seem to come from these feelings, I am adamant in my assertation that he cannot be expected to provide NPOV edits, nor be fair with those whom he seems to feel did him some wrong. I make no attestations to any ill treatment that he might have received, but maintain that this most likely explains his belligerant, insulting, and divisive method documented by Duffer above. Wikipedians are continually reminded to assume good faith, but there is obviously a time when this approach simply no longer applies. His malice and bias is plainly evident, and his edits frequently use subtle language intended to paint Witnesses in a bad light; he is smart enough to realize that blatant lies would not work here.

Further, Tommstein accuses any editor who tries to counteract his POV edits and discussion with NPOV editing, discussion, and arbitration, with the very infractions he is accused of, does not work to end disputes but foments further division, and justifies his errant behavior on this forum by unyieldingly referencing real or perceived infractions on the part of others.

Tommstein has attacked Duffer uberpenguin, George m, myself, others I cannot recall, and DannyMuse, who wants nothing more to do with Wikipedia and the Jehovah's Witness project series of articles.

I submit that Tommstein should be prohibited from editing project articles until such time as he can demonstrate to this arbitration committee that he can make NPOV edits and hold productive and civil discussions despite his own personal bias. - CobaltBlueTony 12:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (edited 17:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Statement by uberpenguin

I have been asked by Duffer to say a few words here. I won't cover much ground that hasn't already been mentioned since I have purposely been totally uninvolved in JW-related articles for a little while now. I would like to affirm the validity of what Duffer and Tony have stated and add that the actions of Tommestein and Central have largely contributed to driving off several sincere editors from JW-related articles (here I'm not referring to Missionary/Retcon, who was quite misguided in his tactics). I have personally been accused of both outright lying (see Duffer's above comments on the "Theocratic Warfare" label) and being brainwashed, and have endured open mockery to myself, my intelligence, my beliefs, and those persons in my religious organization that hold some of my highest respects. The general tactic I have encountered involves Tomm or Central (and ocassionally others) flooding a conversation with a mass of quotes and demanding that his interpretation of said texts proves his point; accusing those with dissenting interpretation of lies, brainwashing, illiteracy, lack of intelligence, or at least bad motive. Tommestein has acted in approximately this manner ever since he began to discuss WP articles. See JW talk page archive 16 for my earliest (and really, only major) encounter with him as IP address 66.158.232.37.

Actions like Tomm's have caused myself personally and others to abandon hope of participating in the creation of a fair article on a subject that I am otherwise very concerned with. After realizing the futility of debates with so many pages of rhetoric that even I can't remember what the original points were, I decided to simply focus my attention on other articles that don't require a lengthy battle to make good-will modifications to.

Of course I, like Duffer and Tony, am an active JW and have my own biases. I have made statements and claims in past discussions that ranged from tactless to ill-drawn conclusions that I wish I could take back. However, I assure the concerned arbiters that the claims Tomm has made against the good faith of the parties involved pale in comparison to the utterly disrespectful way he treats others. I don't intend this to read as my sob story of why I stopped contributing to JW-related articles. I merely hope to have provided a taste of my own experiences in dealing with Tomm and the kind of difficulty to productive editing that he presents. -- uberpenguin 02:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Tommstein

In reply to the festival of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF attacks above, I will simply point arbitrators to the following list I have been forced to create and update over time documenting the provocation and other attacks that anyone who is not a Jehovah's Witness faces when daring to disagree with a member of said religion, starring two of the three responders above (Duffer1 and Cobaltbluetony), in lieu of arbitrators requesting more input: User:Tommstein/List of Personal Attacks, Civility Breaches, Good Faith Violations, etc. by Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe that this list is material for a couple arbitration requests on its own, if this request is somehow deemed valid. I also note that Duffer1 only listed Central and myself from 'our' side of the disputes while listing every name he could think of, even people that left these articles long ago, from 'his' side.Tommstein 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kelly Martin

I was asked to investigate sockpuppetry by Retcon. Upon finding clear evidence that he was, in fact, engaging in sockpuppetry to make his opinion appear to be held by more than just himself, I revealed this fact on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses [2]. Tommstein, in what appears to be a paroxsym of jubilation, took every opportunity to rub in that Retcon had been caught, despite a clearly contrite apology from Retcon. (Unlike Tommstein, Central backed off when I asked him to.) At this point, I asked on the IRC channel if someone else could look at the situation and take appropriate action; I believe this is when Nicholas Turnbull got involved, and it's also when I walked away. (I'll add more content to this statement later, and the Committee knows where to find me if they need to ask me questions anyway.) I recommend that the Committee take up this matter to address Tommstein's unremitting penchant for personal attack. From what I've seen, the other parties in this affair have conducted themselves reasonably well, with only occasional lapses for which apologies and remediation have generally been forthcoming, and to that end I feel that there is no need for the Committee to become involved in managing their interpersonal affairs. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)

  • Accept. I'd personally be tempted to block Tommstein for being a disruptive dick - the standard of behaviour is similar to that which has gotten others blocked indefinitely by admin disgust - but an arbitration is more final - David Gerard 21:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept, per the sentiments above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 04:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept. Charles Matthews 11:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Temporary injunction

1) Tommstein (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned, until the conclusion of this Arbitration, from editing any page except those directly related to Arbitration involving him, and his own User and User Talk pages. He may be blocked for a short time, up to three days, for any edit violating this injunction, and all such edits may be reverted by any editor without regard to the limitations of the three revert rule.

Passed 6 to 0 at 07:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

[edit] Principles

[edit] No personal attacks

1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality).

Passed 8-0

[edit] Edit warring is harmful

2) Chronic edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia. Excessive reversions may lead to imposition of a block under the three-revert rule or more substantial restrictions. See also Wikipedia:Edit war.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Assume good faith

3) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Disruption

4) Editors who are disruptive whether by edit warring or otherwise may be blocked. Persistent disruption with respect to a specific article or topic may lead to a banning from that area.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Community-imposed bans

5) Some editors are so odious that not one of the 800+ administrators will unblock them. Such an editor may be considered banned by the Wikipedia community. See Wikipedia:Banning policy.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Locus

1) The locus of this dispute is Jehovah's Witnesses and the editing of Tommstein (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Central (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Duffer1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Passed 8-0

[edit] Personal attacks and incivility by Tommstein

2) Tommstein has be uncivil and has made personal attacks [3], [4] [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]..

Passed 8-0

[edit] Tommstein fails to assume good faith

3) Tommstein fails to assume good faith with respect to other editors of Jehovah's Witnesses and Wikipedia admnistrators [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. For Tommstein's reaction to arbitration see [19]

Passed 8-0

[edit] Tommstein blocked indefinitely

4) On January 24 Tommstein was blocked indefinitely by NicholasTurnbull [20] see also Tommstein's reaction. He was unblocked to participate in this arbitration, but based on the extensive evidence in this case was reblocked on February 4 by Fred Bauder. No admin has seen fit to unblock him.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Edit warring by Duffer1

5) Duffer1 has engaged in edit warring [21], [22], [23], and [24].

Passed 8-0

[edit] Personal attacks and incivility by Duffer1

6) Duffer1 has been uncivil and made personal attacks [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], and [41], [42].

Passed 8-0

[edit] Personal attacks by Central

7) Central (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), a critic of the Jehovah's Witnesses has been discourteous and has made personal attacks [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], and [53].

Passed 8-0

[edit] Central fails to assume good faith

8) Central's strong opposition to the Jehovah's Witnesses extends to failure to assume good faith with respect to editors other points of views [54], [55], and [56].

Passed 8-0

[edit] Remedies

[edit] Tommstein banned by the community

1) The Arbitration Committee acknowledges and endorses the community's banning of Tommstein (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Passed 8-0

[edit] Central placed on personal attack parole

2) Central (talk • contribs) is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Central placed on Probation

3) Central (talk • contribs) is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Central must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any page from which he is banned from editing.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Duffer1 warned regarding incivility and edit warring

4) Duffer1 (talk • contribs) is warned to avoid making personal remarks about other editors, and instructed to remain civil at all times. He is also instructed not to engage in edit wars, and to discuss disputed changes.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement of probation

1) Should Central violate any ban imposed under Probation, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

[edit] Central

  • I, Sean_Black blocked Central (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for 24 hours following this edit, which I feel constitutes a violation of his personal attack parole.--Sean Black (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have reblocked, 55 hours, for this edit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've banned Central (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) from all Jehovah's Witness related pages via the probationary ruling above, because he's showing persistent poor faith towards other users (including myself) who are involved in this dispute, is continuing to insert misleading external links to critical POV sources within article text, characterising and reverting edits he doesn't like as "vandalism", etc. I thus feel his behaviour is unacceptably disruptive. My note on AN/I / My note on his talk page. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Central for a violation of his personal attack parole for this edit]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Tommstein_3486.html"