Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull

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 sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

protecting and unprotecting pages
deleting and undeleting pages
blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

(NicholasTurnbull | talk | contributions)

Note

Please comment regarding the alleged violations of Wikipedia:Blocking policy mentioned in the section Applicable policies, and only that subject, as that is the topic of this RFC. In particular, statements about liking or disliking people are not topical here, and personal attacks are not topical anywhere on Wikipedia, including here. Thank you.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Description

At 06:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC), NicholasTurnbull posted the following on my talk page: [1]. To make a long story short, after I had reported a sockpuppeteer, said sockpuppeteer saw fit to then go through my entire editing history since I joined Wikipedia and try to find anything they could, usually single words or small phrases completely out of their context, to try to get me in trouble, and posted the list on the pages of every administrator that I had made a CheckUser request from. When every single one ignored them, they reposted it. When they were ignored again, they emailed it to a bunch of administrators, figuring someone out there would bite. Enter NicholasTurnbull. In the edit mentioned above, NicholasTurnbull busted onto my page from out of nowhere threatening to block me, for vague, unspecified sins, only providing links to policies. At the time, not only was I involved in content disputes with the above-mentioned sockpuppeteer's party of Jehovah's Witnesses, we were actually in dispute resolution (still are, in fact), which made the threats to block me even more fishy. I then took some time to compose the list found in the following edit made as a reply to NicholasTurnbull: [2] (the list has since been augmented). The list consists of massive amounts of violations by the party of Jehovah's Witnesses that was trying to get me blocked (take a look at it, it's quite impressive), showing what I was typically responding to, and a request that NicholasTurnbull please also warn them, threats of blocking and everything, instead of just me. I made some more edits and logged out, and when I came back, I found that NicholasTurnbull had blocked me, notifying me with the following edit that also contained no specifics of anything I had done that was blockworthy, only a demonstration that he knows the names of various Wikipedia policies, while also requesting that I "refrain from editing articles or talk pages relating to Jehovah's Witness articles, or other related subjects": [3].

Shortly after I was blocked, Konrad West made the following edits in my defense, the former on my Talk page, and the latter on NicholasTurnbull's Talk page, pointing out that I had not engaged in any attacks since I was warned: [4], [5]. NicholasTurnbull posted the following reply on Konrad West's Talk page: [6]. Despite having no reservations regarding coming out of nowhere and warning and blocking me in the middle of content disputes and dispute resolution and requesting that I immediately and completely abandon all related pages and subjects, NicholasTurnbull said that he would deal with those who were the subjects of my list "as and when time permits." It has been a week, and my list consists of links that allow instantaneous verification, so his continued refusal to warn even a single one of these other editors is inexcusable at this point, not to mention eyebrow-raising. Besides the fact that he didn't think my response to him coming out of nowhere and threatening to block me for unspecified actions was nice enough for him, he provided three reasons for blocking me. One was "This edit was a reinsertion of an unsourced POV claim that non-JWs were widely considered to be beyond redemption. I warned him regarding NPOV issues." The second was "This talk page post seemed a rather sarcastic response to a series of borderline-uncivil posts by other users. Regardless of their behaviour, I had asked him to desist" (note that he admits that I was responding "to a series of borderline-uncivil posts," but doesn't seem to care at all since they didn't come from me, only being concerned with my horrible, horrible sarcasm in reply). The third was a vague assertion of me being "argumentative" in posts during the mediation case I was then involved in, without actually providing links to this allegedly "argumentative" behavior; I'm not sure what adjective he thinks should apply to the concept of presenting arguments, but that's for another day. He then accused me of "POV crusading," "blatantly POV pushing," and being "incapable of being neutral" (yes, you might note some irony, considering that he was on my case regarding personal attacks; we shall also ignore the mountain of dozens and dozens of supporting quotes on the Jehovah's Witnesses Talk page, which there was no way for NicholasTurnbull to completely miss during his 'investigation'). Konrad West responded with the following on NicholasTurnbull's Talk page: [7]. After my block was over, I also posted the following in reply to NicholasTurnbull's reasons for blocking me on his Talk page: [8] (there is a typo at the end that should read WP:ANI, not WP:BP, and which has since been fixed).

My response asked NicholasTurnbull three questions regarding his behavior: 1, how he "personally determined that insertions into an article that are massively documented to be accurate on said article's Talk page are in fact not only POV, but block-worthy POV;" 2, "how mild sarcasm has now become a blockable offense;" and 3, why he "broke Wikipedia policy on a very serious issue, user blocking, by not noting the block on WP:ANI." Konrad West's response on NicholasTurnbull's Talk page also mentioned that "The so-called POV edit was in fact largely accurate," similarly asked him "how did you establish that is was unsourced and POV?" (since NicholasTurnbull claimed that it was "unsourced POV" despite also claiming to have carefully examined the situation, which includes literally dozens of supporting quotes on the Jehovah's Witnesses Talk page), and also brought out that "You warned Tommstein, and he stopped making personal attacks." To date, almost a week later, NicholasTurnbull has not seen fit to dignify either response with a reply. Since then, Central, after posting the first of these next two links on his own Talk page, has posted the second one, an excellent response to NicholasTurnbull's actions, on NicholasTurnbull's page, which NicholasTurnbull has similarly not deemed worthy of a response: [9], [10].

Thus, I am seeking redress for what I (and others) deem to be my invalid block from Wikipedia by an administrator abusing his powers, something that now goes on my 'permanent record' at Wikipedia regardless of its rightfulness. Blocking users is very serious business. I am not sure to what extent either his still being a minor (in the United States at least) or his being involved in another fringe religion that is very well-known for trying to squash criticism (Scientology) have caused him to be so thoroughly biased for Jehovah's Witnesses in this case and caused him to resort to acting the way that he has, but I don't really care. We (and especially I, being the blockee here) care about this administrator's flagrant abuse of power. User blocking is one of the most serious actions that an administrator can take.

Since the subject of this request involves invalid blocks by NicholasTurnbull, while people are in dispute resolution at that, I request that administrators please check that I am not again invalidly blocked while this process is ongoing. Thank you.Tommstein 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powers misused

Blocking (log):

Tommstein

Applicable policies

Blocking policy

Disruption: "Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks." No allowance is given to block users when an administrator deems that the response to their threat to block editors is not nice enough.
Disruption: "Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks." No allowance is given for blocking editors for making verifiable contributions.
Disruption: "Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks." The crime of "a rather sarcastic response" is not listed as a blockable offense, especially in response to an admitted "series of borderline-uncivil posts."
Disruption: "However, blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits." That I make useful edits is indisputable. Thus, policy says that a block should not have been used regardless, even if the above three reasons hadn't been bogus.
Disruption: "Admins should note the block on WP:ANI." NicholasTurnbull did not do so, feeling no need to inform other administrators of what he was doing.
When blocking may not be used: "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute... are specifically prohibited." The warning and subsequent block were placed as a result of complaints by members of the other side of a content dispute, and NicholasTurnbull refused to so much as warn anyone on that side despite being provided with a nice, organized, clickable list of policy violations. Members of the other side of the content dispute now use my invalid block as some kind of justification of their rightness and my wrongness, and have now even started lobbying to get me "banned permanently," using this invalid block as a basis ([11], [12]).

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

There are no replies to post regarding the last four edits by three different editors, because NicholasTurnbull has simply ignored them.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

Tommstein 06:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~El_C 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

First off, let it be known that I have no objection to the seeking of outside opinions on my actions; however, I consider it greatly discourteous that Tommstein did not see fit to notify me of this RfC (as of the time of writing). In addition, he decided to inform users who were sympathetic to his point of view (Central, Greyfox, Jeffro77, Konrad West and Mini) but neglected to inform its subject, which I find quite reprehensible. I find his fallacious ad hominem insinuations that my actions were motivated by an aim to gain advantage in a content dispute, my Scientology background and my age, to be quite outside the boundaries of acceptability - a non-sequitur attempt to impugn my motives and judgement. However, I am more than prepared to participate in this discussion nonetheless, and I shall explain events as I understand them to have transpired from my point of view.

Via the #wikipedia IRC channel, I was requested by Kelly Martin to look into a series of talk page messages regarding a dispute between Tommstein and another user, Retcon, which had been left on her talk page. I performed a cursory evaluation of the contributions of Tommstein, and determined (in my judgement at least) that his behaviour was frequently uncivil, pushing an anti-Jehovah's Witness point of view, and was generally unpleasant and not conducive towards cooperative editing on Wikipedia (both in editing Jehovah's Witness-related articles, and on the talk pages pertaining to those subjects) including the making of personal attacks. I thus placed a talk page message to Tommstein, requesting (politely, in my view) that he refrained from making personal attacks in the future, reminding him of WP:NPA, and also reminded him that his contributions were required to conform to WP:NPOV.

Tommstein made what I consider to be an uncooperative, unpleasant and uncivil message in response to my warning on his talk page here where, in addition to insulting me a number of times, enumerates a huge list of actions he alleges to have been perpetrated by the opposite side of the dispute. Later on I received an e-mail from another Wikipedia user informing me that Tommstein was continuing his pattern of conduct. I reviewed his contributions since my warning, and decided in conjunction with his response to my message that he had ignored my warning and saw fit to set a 24-hour block on Tommstein, to attempt to prevent him from replicating such behaviour in the future. I also left a talk page message to this effect, also asking him not to involve himself in other Jehovah's Witness related articles (since these are the nexus of his misbehaviour on Wikipedia, and indeed he appears to edit little else). I had later had some dialogue with Konrad West where I enumerated my rationale behind the blocking; Konrad continues to consider my block was inappropriate, and Tommstein and Central have done likewise (with varying degrees of civility).

Considering I spend my working days writing software or managing software teams, and many hours practising pieces of music which I am to perform, it leaves me with only a very limited time to carry out Wikipedia tasks. My time on Wikipedia is similarly limited, since my duties in managing the Mediation Cabal have taken up a significant portion of my time. For these reasons, I have so far not looked into the allegations that Tommstein made. In part, this is why I have not responded to Konrad West, Central or Tommstein's most recent messages on my talk page; secondarily, there is not much to say in response to the phraseology of their posts, although I do promise to look into the whole matter in the fullness of time.

In closing, I must also point out that Tommstein has used "blocks" (plural) on a number of occasions; it was merely the one 24-hour block that is being disputed here, which has of course long since past. Tommstein neither requested via e-mail that I remove the block (and had he done so politely, agreeing not to make personal attacks in future, I would have removed it) nor gave his agreement to my polite request to stop his actions. As a consequence, I do not believe I was in error. I put it to the community to decide. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nick's willingless to listen to feedback of all natures is commendable, and this is, I feel, too far a step in the entire dispute resolution process. We are now at sad risk of a mud-slinging match arising from a misunderstanding. I'm confident it wouldn't have got this far had the users in question attempted proper dispute resolution via mediation or similar routes. Invoke then, please, the classic Wikipedia culture of darting to the section edit link, smacking the hash key and slapping four tildes under the summary you agree with, without sparing the merest thought for the hassles of the respondent, and indeed, the person to whom we owe this bloodfest. To Nick; you are a good editor, and a fair and impartial admin. To the aforementioned bringer of this...thing...you brought us to this accursed battlefield...now you will stop the hordes from trampling us all. To the rest of you; either by action or inaction, your beds have been made, and in them, you shall now lie. Rob Church ^Talk

Response to this summary by Tommstein

This does not in the slightest address the points raised regarding violations of Wikipedia:Blocking policy in the Applicable policies section. I also wish to point out that I only used "blocks" once, at the very, very end of my description, excepting direct quotes from Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I also wish to point out that this is the first RFC I have ever filed, so if I am not following any particular procedure correctly, I would definitely appreciate being informed.Tommstein 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Personal attacks which place users in danger

Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have been made or actions performed (including actions outside the Wikipedia site) which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. In such a case a block may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why. See No personal attacks.

I have never seen Tommstein do this and this is the only time persolnal attacks should be blocked.

Response regarding alleged blocking policy violations

Tommstein: The "Applicable policies" section usually refers to policies applicable to both sides of the dispute, and is not usually the place in which the RfC initiator brings allegations of misconduct. Usually material to be commented on should go in your main statement. I'll respond to the matter here, although to be perfectly honest I am not really sure what remains to be said.

Firstly, I think I would do well to point out to you that on Wikipedia, neither administrators nor users work on the basis of the precise letter of policy; they work on the spirit, not the wording, of policy documents. In addition, a great deal of what has become Wikipedia policy by default is not written down in formalised policy, it has merely been adopted as common practice.

Your analyses of my actions against Wikipedia:Blocking policy basically are formed on the premise that where my actions fall outside of the specifications of that policy, I am thus violating it. This is not the case (and indeed I am confident that others in the community would agree) because policy documents are not treated like that on Wikipedia, and nobody is expected to only do what is written down in policy. If that were true, nobody would ever get any work done.

There appears to me to be a significant precedent towards the setting of short (as in, 24-48hr) blocks in cases of persistent incivility and personal attacks, since these are set by a wide range of different administrators. Regarding my lack of noting the block on the Administrators' Noticeboard - if you compare the block log to AN, you will notice that many, many blocks are set without noting it there on AN, and indeed noting such routine, short blocks would be quite useless and a waste of administrator time.

I do hope this addresses at least this issue satisfactorily. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another related note, from your RfC statement:

... I am seeking redress for what I (and others) deem to be my invalid block from Wikipedia by an administrator abusing his powers ...

I must remind you that RfC is a request for comment, not for redress; indeed, we do not operate on the principle of redress here on Wikipedia, we work in a spirit of collaboration and cooperative discussion. Even the purpose of the Arbitration Committee, the final step in the dispute resolution, is to bring disputes to a close, not provide redress where parties have considered themselves exposed to an injustice. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template that one is instructed to use in creating an RFC in this category says regarding the "Applicable policies" section, "explain violation of blocking policy here" (and similarly for the other two categories of violations). That should definitely be fixed if that is not the intended place to list violations.

If blocks don't have to follow Wikipedia:Blocking policy, but rather what any particular decides for himself to be the 'spirit' of blocking people for whatever he personally decides is proper, I fail to see the point of having a blocking policy. A policy that does not have to be followed isn't much of a policy, and, if so, a disclaimer should be added to the blocking policy page to the effect that, while the official policy sounds good, it is just a placebo intended to make editors feel that they actually have some rights and administrators can block whoever they want for any reason that they decide violates this unwritten and extremely subjective 'spirit'.

Indeed, this is a request for comments, so I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "redress" in a request for comments, but, if there is in fact no penalty to administrators doing whatever they want, that should be made explicit to editors when they sign up to volunteer time to the project, and would definitely be hardcore, to tone down what I really think of such nonaccountability.Tommstein 09:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tommstein: No, no, I quite disagree; it is certainly not the case that administrators are non-accountable to users, since if that was really true I would not be participating in this RfC - you will note that as per the RfC policy, it specifies that the two certifying users must have both tried and failed to resolve the dispute, which was not really the case (Greyfox did not address the dispute with me). Also, this highlights my point about Wikipedia working on the spirit, not the letter; in the spirit of open discussion and collaboration, that is why we are here.

Administrators most definitely cannot block whoever they want - and they certainly cannot do whatever they want. The arbitration committee, the final step in the dispute resolution process, may strip myself (or any other administrator) of their privileges if they consider that the user has abused their powers. Indeed, I cannot see any respect that I have not been accountable to users in this or any other matter. If I went around blocking people for the sake of it, I am sure I would have my administrator privileges revoked very rapidly indeed - perhaps, rather, I would be blocked very rapidly, and if I subsequently unblocked myself I would be in serious trouble. It is more whether or not there is community consensus that an activity has been harmful or not to Wikipedia, as opposed to whether people have followed or not followed policy. Policy on Wikipedia is, after all, a guideline; of course, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is enshrined as a tenet of Wikipedia's functioning, but that doesn't mean "Ignore all users" (as in, behave as you wish, regardless of keeping to common decency).

Policy is not a placebo as such, since it was never there to provide anything but a mere basis on which to operate, which is not the same as gospel truth. Indeed, if anything, administrators are more accountable to the community, since they are duty bound to be both civil and open to discussion in matters regarding the questioning of their actions. (I sincerely hope I have not failed in either of those respects; if I have, my apologies). Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does Wikipedia:Blocking policy have a nice big box on top that says "This page is an official policy on Wikipedia" and that it "is considered a standard that all users should follow?" Style points? A realization that actually saying what you are saying above is not conducive to people staying and donating their time to such a rule-less project?Tommstein 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The box reads that "all users should follow" the policy, yes, but I have not failed to follow it; my actions merely fell outside its specification. The box does not read "all users should only do what is specified here in relation to blocking", because, as I elaborated above, the act of following a policy is not adhering to its letter, and nothing else, but rather following the intent and principles - the spirit, if you will - of the document. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

"While our policies continue to evolve, many Wikipedians feel that written rules are inherently inadequate to cover every possible variation of disruptive or malevolent behavior. For example, a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies might be reprimanded even if the letter of the rules has not been violated." --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Aranda56

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Let me make this quick, This looks like a revenge or a bad faith RFC in my opinion. I don't really see disruption on those blocks.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by Central

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

This block on Tommstein certainly does not look like a mature decision nor a reasonable one, and I noticed a specific reason has still not been given for this block. This does smell of bias, and abuse of power. The block only appears to have been made either in gross ignorance of the long history of the discussions on the JW talk page, or out of revenge for Tommstein daring to disagree with NicholasTurnbull. I don't know why NicholasTurnbull is picking on Tom, but it is certainly a biased focus, and apparently total blindness to the abuse from JW posters. Whether Nicholas Turnbull has a religious agenda is for him to know, but regardless, he should not be abusing free speech for such petty reasons, and I believe he has clearly being doing that in regard to Tom's posts and deliberately ignoring abuse from JWs who vastly outnumber him. Central 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary: (sign with ~~~~)

Response to this summary by Nicholas Turnbull

Please remember this was a single warning, followed by a 24-hour block after the user ignored that warning, and this user had been warned by multiple other editors prior to my involvement in the matter. What is biased? I merely came across this user and found him to be behaving unacceptably. I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and indeed have no interest in becoming one. What power did I abuse, other than to uphold basic civil conduct on Wikipedia using my administrator privileges? And you say "in gross ignorance of the long discussion.." relating to the JW articles - that has to do with what? I did not look over them, it is true, but the conduct of other editors does not excuse people from behaving nicely here on Wikipedia. I also will not countenance yourself and Tommstein insinuating I have some kind of religious agenda here - I do not, and have never edited a Jehovah's Witness article. I would point out that "... abusing free speech" is also equally fallacious, since Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in free speech (see WP:NOT) and just because we have an open editing environment here does not mean that users have the right to post what they like. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Amended --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary: (sign with ~~~~)

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--I have posted more of Tommstein's post-ban violations on your talk page Nic, I endorse your relatively mild disciplinary action against user Tommstein, and this summary. Duffer 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could debate all day about who provoked who first, but the fact is that Tomm has been asked several times by other users to tone down the sarcasm and personal attacks, to no avail. I support Nicholas' summary and his rationale for the 24-hour block in dispute. -- uberpenguin 20:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What utter nonsense the above summary is. Get some good faith, and get a grip. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not push points of view, and if a bunch of editors can't stop a simple squabble, then it's quite right that an administrator should hold the pair apart until both have settled down. Kicking and screaming, and making unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims after the fact will be to no avail; you run the risk of betraying your inner nature. Rob Church ^Talk 01:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Greyfox

Yes tommstein uses sarcasm I see as an attemp to blow steam when faced with hard headed indviduals who won't listen to reason or read sited proof because it's not the other sides approved source of information.--Greyfox 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--Greyfox 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly prepared to accept this as a possibility; yes, perhaps Tommstein was acting as he did due to having been faced with the pro-JW editors. But I still maintain that in itself does not permit him to behave poorly, as per "Wikipedia is not a battleground" in WP:NOT. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tommstein 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Central 10:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Greyfox

Funny you say the following:

I am certainly prepared to accept this as a possibility; yes, perhaps Tommstein was acting as he did due to having been faced with the pro-JW editors. But I still maintain that in itself does not permit him to behave poorly, as per "Wikipedia is not a battleground" in WP:NOT.

This is just a battle in the war that is the JW page.

Funny also that tomm is the only one punished for this. When I have seen him provoked backhandedly might I add by others and these people have had nothing done against them. Maybe because tomm drops it after a while. --Greyfox 21:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jeffro77

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

It does indeed seem to appear that the blocking action was "to gain advantage in a content dispute". There has been sarcasm from both sides on the JW-related Talk pages, and it seems inappropriate that a user be blocked as a result of another user 'flaming' all of the administrators with complaints until someone responded.--Jeffro77 08:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~:)

Response to this summary by Nicholas Turnbull

I must vehemently aver that this is not the case. I have no interest in the Jehovah's Witness dispute, and indeed had not been involved in this matter until this occasion of dealing with Tommstein. To date I am yet to edit any Jehovah's Witness related articles, so thus I have no advantage to gain, and I am not involved in the content dispute. Just because poor behaviour was perpetrated by a number of individuals does not mean that the person responding in retaliation has any immunity from common standards of decency. From Wikipedia is not a battleground in WP:NOT:

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same unto them ("he started it!").

Thus, I still maintain I was not in error. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~:)

Outside view by Konrad West

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I am currently overseas so I missed the start of this RFC. My only concern is that Tommstein was warned to stop making personal attacks or he would be blocked. Since being warned, he stopped making personal attacks, and was blocked anyway. Therefore, he was blocked without cause.

Admins make mistakes like everyone, so I don't think Nicolas should be desysoped. I just think it would be good for him to recognise the block was inappropriate and apologise to Tomm. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~:)

Response to this summary by Nicholas Turnbull

Firstly, I would like to thank Konrad for his civility, since he has been reasonable and polite throughout this matter; I would respectfully recommend that Tommstein take his lead and please edit his RfC statement accordingly.

Tommstein, let me stress that I mean the following in the sincerest way possible. I apologise most deeply for having blocked you against your wishes, since it is clear that it caused you some degree of displeasure in having done so, regardless of whether the block was right or wrong. I do not relish blocking users (indeed, I generally seldom place blocks, as can be seen from the block log, since I consider it to be rather un-wiki) however in this circumstance I do maintain that I was not in error by placing the block. I would suggest the best way to proceed from now on would be for us to agree to disagree on this point; if you promise to make no further personal attacks, and engage in no further incivility on Wikipedia, I promise not to place any further blocks against you and shall leave other administrators in the Wikipedia community to enforce standards of conduct on you. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your offer to not block me again if I never, ever break another Wikipedia policy again, as opposed to whatever the alternative might be.Tommstein 09:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to this summary by Matt McGhee (Duffer)

Since the warning, and subsequent block of user:Tommstein, not only has he not stopped making personal attacks, his civility violations have only become more frequent and more bitter. His, and user:Central's hostility has only grown even with NO provocation. It seems their hostility increases when the reaction of those they are hostile towards decreases. The Jehovah's Witnesses that edit Wikipedia have been nothing but courteous (in most instances), and I have personally curtailed my own harsh reactions to their abuse over the past few weeks, yet Tomm and Central's hostility has grown more frequent and uncivil. Tomm has even taken to lying about things that I have said in a list of "quotes", that he has placed on his user page, by taking several different responses of mine and making them into one quote, or he attributes to me words that I was only quoting, and he edits it in such a way as to make it look like I was the one actually saying them. His and Central's behavior is entirely uncalled for, yet it doesn't stop even in light of mutliple administrator warnings (for Tommstein), and literally countless warnings by the editors of the Jehovah's Witness wiki project. Even a cursory look at their user contributions (Tomm's, Central's) is enough to make all of Wikipedia rethink it's general aversion to permanent user bans. Duffer 13:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

I agree with this as I can personally recall having asked both editors to be more civil before, to the result of either a rude reaction, total non-compliance, or both. -- uberpenguin 14:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Tabor

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

As a general priciple, I would like to ask that administrators who feel they only have enough time available to look at one side of a dispute would consider leaving the matter to another administrator who has sufficient time to address both sides. --Tabor 07:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~:)

Tabor 08:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, hallelujah, praise the Lord, and all that other good stuff.Tommstein 09:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duffer 09:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OK, I am inclined to agree. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Greyfox 03:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Nicholas Turnbull

Tabor is quite right here; administrators should only deal with disputes where they can properly handle both sides. However, I must add that in this particular circumstance, it was never my intent to have anything to do with the ongoing Jehovah's Witness dispute - indeed, I did not at first observe the direct relationship - and the dispute which I was handling was the Tommstein/Retcon dispute. From that perspective, there wasn't anything left to handle aside from Tommstein (the sockpuppet issues had already been dealt with by others, I think) and so the dispute which I did set out to handle was not beyond my capacity. Consequently, I don't think I was amiss to get involved, but I do agree I perhaps would have done well to have looked into it a bit more, and dealt with it as a coherent whole rather than piecemeal blocks on individual editors who I happened to come across. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.