Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Foreword
Since has been already indefinately blocked, and with the evidence regarding him already documented I will focus on the behavior of the other person named in my RFA, user:Central (though later I would like to address Tomm's libel). For the sake of brevity, I only really dealt with Tomm's behavior in the initial RFA; I would like to now explicate why I named user:Central as well. Duffer 12:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

First assertion
User:Central spends an unhealthy amount of time fomenting, and generally harassing, Jehovah's Witness editors. The /Evidence template states that I should show supporting diffs. Press ctrl + f and search for "Central" and/or "theocratic" in any of the above links (no joke). His (and Tommstein's) pervasive, and unabashed prejudice, makes for the single most hostile 'academic' atmosphere I have ever encountered. Anything a Witness edits is met with accusations of deceit, "theocratic warfare", "cognitive dissonance", and being "brainwashed""rank and file Witnesses"; quite often an assault of verbal abuse and (out of context) quote spamming relentlessly ensues until the dissenting editor just gives up. One of the clearest examples of this happening is found in Archive 16 (Unbelievers eternally destroyed), where uberpenguin was literally brow-beat into silence by Tommstein (then known as 66.158.232.37), and Central. It is important to note Tomm & Centrals relentless defamations despite uberpenguin's remarkable civility. This is only one of many examples, such behavior has significantly hindered progress of the article. Duffer 12:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Second assertion
Wiki Admin Kelly Martin stated that she had warned Central to "lay off the rhetoric" (Dec. 23, '05), which he did, but not for long. Not one day later he saw fit to add some fairly POV edits into the main article, and it just goes downhill from there. The exacerbation of some of these instances (including this one) is partially my fault in this instance as I failed to follow the Wiki guideline to avoid him (though in my behalf, I absolutely hate being called a liar). This spurred a discussion on my talk page to address some of Centrals' concerns, and some of his myriad of accusations against me. From this discussion came the discussion on user:Cobaltbluetony's talk page with the same goal, both of which I inevitably abandoned after he refused the offer of continuing the discussion via e-mail.

From a 12 hour block, to an Administrator warning (above), to mediation, to outright avoidance, to his friend (Tommstein) getting indefinately blocked, nothing has stopped his unreasonableness and outwardly hostile edits & comments (although he does keep himself in check, for the most part, only on the mediation page, but that's not saying much). Before the matter gets further out of hand, I invite you all to read some of the latest on the Witness talk page, specifically:


 * Here we go with the Duffer's wilful ignorance again. He says: "verification of the letters' contents, by any official Witness publication, simply does not exist". I asked you several times to write to the Governing Body about this letter, and you know this very well. You have cowardly shirked this because you are aware they will verify the letter and make you look even more foolish than you normally do. Here is the discussion I had with you (and was deleted by your devious friend that hope no one would notice) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cobaltbluetony/Discussion_with_Central&oldid=34361225


 * You go on: "I'm saying that it cannot be a CURRENT, official, doctrine if not even congregational elders know they must follow it. Indeed, not even the 1980 WT article it claims to cite mentions allowance of excommunication for merely believing differently." You fail to see the illogical claim in your post; I also liked the bogus "indeed" inserted by you as if you have proven something, when all you did was give a uniformed illogical opinion, and shouted "CURRENT". The letter was new material that was accompanying and an addition to currently existing material in a quoted Watchtower magazine. It has never been reversed in any later policies, unless of course you would like to show us from some Watchtower quotes? How would it be new if it had to already exist? I see you do not posit the same illogical stance with every other new policy, demanding they already exist in previous material. You have also blindly ignored the fact that these were private confidence letters on judicial policy to the Circuit and District overseers, not the automaton nobodies—the rank and file like you. We are all still waiting for you to write to your leaders and show us the letter they send back saying: "Apostate thoughts are fine and ok for Christian Witnesses and can to continue even after counselling has been given to stop or change them." Duffer, can't you afford the postage for you letter? I'm sure we can help you out with the price of a postage stamp.


 * For those who are interested in the account of the letter, see Raymond Franz's chapter :here on pfd. (This is not for your eyes Duffer, you might spontaneously combust or be possessed by a manic legion of demons according to common Watch Tower mythology. It's only to be read by the free thinking, spiritually mature, and those who are not under the control of fundamentalist religious brainwashing or mind control) Central 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This behavior is just unacceptable, even more-so in the light of the fact that I have been avoiding him, and that the above comment is made with zero provocation from me. Duffer 12:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Third assertion
This issue is the most recent. Central proposes the idea that nearly all scriptures be removed from the main Jehovah's Witness article. The reasons he cites for this idea are noteworthy. Of the list of 5, only points one and three could possibly have any encyclopaedic validity (it is my well grounded opinion that it is the other three reasons cited that he basis the majority of his edits upon).

I brought this assertion here seperately as he does have two valid points here (1 and possibly 3 depending on your scholar), and I would like the Admins' input on this suggestion. Is the inclusion of scriptural citations relevant, wanted, or encyclopaedic even if they are what Witnesses claim to be the basis for their doctrines and practices? If yes, then would this be un-welcome POV? The basis for any theology is inherently POV regardless of the source. Duffer 12:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Forth assertion
User:Central has recently posted personal information about me. What's odd about this is that I have not told him which congregation I attend, nor do I recall ever telling anyone else (Witness or not) which congregation I attend; how he has attained this information, and his subsequent public posting of it, is most disconcerting to me. Now they (Central and Tommstein) have the means to take their harassments beyond Wikipedia, just his mentioning that he knows could easily be taken as a veiled threat in itself. Duffer 07:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Update* - It turns out that I did disclose this information to a brother of mine several months ago; to him, and on his now archived talk page. I still hold that this information is not for Central to advertise .  I have now removed the information twice, but to no avail.


 * Looks like you are doing a wonderful job of advertising your personal congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses yourself! Maybe you should retract your malicious unfounded attacks, threats, and abuse of me before it gets out of hand, and you really reap what you're currently sowing! As the saying goes Matthew: What goes around comes around! (Galatians 6:7) The ball is on your court now; use it wisely! (Ecclesiastes 7:9) because you won't get another chance. Central 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fifth assertion
User:Central moved a MUCH disputed paragraph off of the main Jehovah's Witness Wiki to the Jehovah's Witnesses and governments Wiki in what appears to be an attempt to keep a rather hostile and POV paragraph on Wikipedia. I added a dispute tag to note that regardless of the paragraph's move, it is still very much disputed. Central removed the dispute tag under the entirely un-founded accusations that I am being "malicious, vindictive, harassing and spiteful." Despite all of this, it is still the consensus of Witness and non-Witness editors (with the exception of Central) that the paragraph in question is nothing more than POV propaganda. I must also note that it is the non-Witness editors who initially deleted the paragraph from the main Witness page. Duffer 07:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sixth assertion
Central posted this last week on the initial RFA itself, I feel the short discussion between Tomm and Central fully demonstrates the shockingly hostile and unreasonable perspective that they both edit Wikipedia from. Duffer 08:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Seventh assertion
Central has recently taken to advertising personal information about me that I do not wish advertised (see Forth assertion). He has recently provided my personal information (including phone number and address) to a user whom he knows has threatened to blackmail me regarding this arbitration. I know such threats are a violation of WP:NPA, I would assume that facilitation of those threats (on top of being shockingly mean-spirited) would be a particularly egregious violation of NPA as well. Duffer 12:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A review of Central's evidence

 * Claim: "Matthew McGhee (Duffer1)..is on an extensive hate filled harassing campaign against me"
 * I have done nothing more than present evidence that demonstrates the reasons why I named user:Central in the initial RFA. Apart from that, my contributions show that I have largely avoided User:Central for quite some time now.  Instead of even trying to support his insubstantial claims of "vindictive and malicious objectives" he sets forth the Jehovah's Witness doctrine of the events to take place (in our interpretation) of Armageddon in what can only be an attempt to malign my credibility.  I noted similar behavior in my initial RFA.


 * Claim: "I have criticised on occasion his.. ..apostate websites he sets up on the internet, and then he posts off-topic information from them here on Wikipedia trying to create some kind of new religious sect for himself"
 * Central is here refering to a website that I am a member of (not the proprietor of, as I've told him before) that I cited for support in a current mediation. I have produced the official teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses on a matter and garnered support for this by referencing brothers around the world who discuss, current, official, Witness doctrine on a website.  Our words contradict user:Central's unique, and inaccurate, views of our official doctrine.  As a result Central falsely libels the website as "apostate" from the Witness faith, but also, defames me by suggesting that I am trying to "create some kind of new religious sect", an insult that he knows is exceedingly mean (and quite serious) in Witness theology.  The subject matter is, ironically, the same subject that I noted in my First assertion where both Central and Tommstein brow-beat uberpenguin into silence.  Such behavior has driven off at least two civil, active, Wiki editors Danny Muse and uberpenguin; they have tried to do the same to me through various forms and degrees of harassment.


 * Claim: "He has got Tommstein banned, and now he's out for my blood"
 * This is apparently the same misconception that user:Greyfox has. I had nothing to do with user:Tommstein's indefinate block.  He earned that all by himself by unwisely (and repeatedly) harassing Wiki Administrator Nicholas Turnbull.  Since Tommstein had already been indefinately blocked, I chose to focus on presenting evidence in regards to the other person named in my RFA.  I must note that it was initially my suggestion to unblock user:Tommstein for this arbitration process.


 * Claim: "This page was for information about Tommstein, not me, but as you can see Matthew McGhee (Duffer1) has hijacked it and is now trying to incite hate against me by misquoting me and making up false and spurious reasons."
 * Everything I have claimed is supported by links, references, and accurate page diffs. The above claim is entirely untrue, this page is for evidence, not baseless, false, accusations.

About the list of personal attacks: I will be commenting on these later today. Please do fully read the "quotes" and the context, you will find many of the alleged "quotes" are in fact, not quotes, but lies that Tommstein decietfully attributes to me, or horribly butchered differing responses combined into one, highly misleading, "quote".

A Review of Tommstein's list of "quotes"
For brevity I will only review the most egregious falsehoods. For the rest, I recommend reading the preceding contexts, I am not proud of my previous 'venom-for-venom' attitude, and have not spoken like that in quite some time.


 * Tommstein: "you have perpetuated a tradition of one sided criticism... this crap should be deleted"
 * What was actually said: "I'm doing nothing more than adding a balanced view of this issue where you have perpetuated a tradition of one sided criticism, and you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me this article, the way it was, was fair or balanced. Personally I feel that all of this crap should be deleted."


 * Tommstein: "What's the matter with you?"
 * I removed this line not ten minutes after I had written it, recognizing it was inflammatory.


 * Tommstein: "if you want to alleviate your confusion on this matter... inept, prejudiced, and highly POV"
 * What was actually said:
 * "Perhaps if you want to alleviate your confusion on this matter you can contact the WTS (http://www.watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm) directly."
 * "As I've said from the beginning the whole concept of this paragraph is inept, prejudiced, and highly POV."


 * Tommstein: "Tomm has used quotes both out of context of the original source it was found in, but also, has used in context quotes to distort... Your misunderstanding... lets fill an encyclopedia with our misconceptions and rhetoric"
 * What was actually said:
 * "As Tomm has used quotes both out of context of the original source it was found in, but also, has used in context quotes to distort, not what Jehovah's understand as individuals, but what the WTS officially teaches; that is unacceptable."
 * "Your misunderstanding is the WTS's fault? Tough luck for them? Yes lets fill an encyclopedia with our misconceptions and rhetoric. We'll call it The Republicans Wikipedia."


 * Tommstein: "Vandalism, harassment, verbal abuse... a witchhunter and wikistalker"
 * What was actually said: "Vandalism, harassment, verbal abuse.. and suspected by another administrator to be a witchhunter and wikistalker..."


 * Tommstein: "I accuse you of deceit, bias, prejudice, and rhetoric... direct provocation by you or User:Central... 'biased, prejudiced, ignorant', or 'stupid'"
 * What was actually said:
 * "Yes I accuse you of deceit, bias, prejudice, and rhetoric but it's barely more than what Wiki administrators have said of you as well."
 * "CBT disagrees with me all the time, I have never called him "biased, prejudiced, ignorant", or "stupid" (something I have NEVER called ANYONE on this website)."

Taking the time to look through the full list, with contexts for each "quote", shows several things. - Most of the "quotes" are not personal attacks or civility breaches, alot will be characterizations of both Central and Tommsteins' absurd behavior. - Everyone of these "quotes" is in direct (and comparatively civil) response to the most outlandish accusations and provocative insults that Tomm and Central could muster (responding with venom is something I have stopped doing quite some time ago, opting instead to avoid, but to no avail). - Some of the "quotes" are intentionally, and demonstrably, fake (see above). For a brief list of some of Central and Tommsteins' more egregious, unprovoked attacks, look no further than the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page.

Regardless of the outcome of this Arbitration, I request that Tommstein's entire list of "quotes" be removed from his talk page (and the sub-page), as well as deleted from the page history. I do not know if there is a precedent to do this to user pages under Libel, but I contend, given the evidence above, that there should be one for extreme cases like this. Duffer 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Diffs
Accusations of deciet
 * (response); (response);,  (response),   (response);

Quote spamming


 * , ,

Use of Witness Talk page to distribute copyrighted material
 * ,, ,

General Harassment
 * (response); ; ; (scroll down); ; ; ;

-Central has recently provided the means for a certain user to carry out threats of blackmail (++; ++)(see also Assertion 7 above).

Duffer1's Harassment Record
I see Jehovah's Witness Mr Matthew McGhee (Duffer1) a public representative from of Jehovah's Witnesses, Eugene, Oregon, is on an extensive hate filled harassing campaign against me, demonstrating his vindictive and malicious objectives, and an interesting character for one who claims to represent the "only true Christians on earth", and that all others who do not agree with him will be eternally destroyed in a violent horrific death. As you see, you will not find a lot of love in his posts, but just a lot of bitter, vindictive, and a spiteful campaign against me, because I have criticised on occasion his less than Christian behaviour here, and his apostate websites he sets up on the internet, and then he posts off-topic information from them here on Wikipedia trying to create some kind of new religious sect for himself, which is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. He has got Tommstein banned, and now he's out for my blood, so he can block anyone from editing articles that his own bitter and intolerant religious views disagree with. This page was for information about Tommstein, not me, but as you can see Matthew McGhee (Duffer1) has hijacked it and is now trying to incite hate against me by misquoting me and making up false and spurious reasons. Please see the linked list below of his attacks. Central 11:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Personal Attacks, Civility Breaches, Good Faith Violations, etc. by Jehovah's Witnesses, especially Duffer1

Evidence presented by Rob Church
I don't care much for what the specific format is, but I would like to draw attention to some spectacular examples of the worst kind of behaviour I've ever seen:


 * "I had no idea that these fucknuts were so important in my life", in which he refers to other users as "fucknuts"; never mind which group of users he's talking about - it's not on
 * "As soon as the arbitrators stop insulting my sensibilities by being complete morons." - again, it doesn't matter who he's talking about so much as the sentiments he is expressing
 * "also much easier to delete lies than humoring them" - erasing a section of text in bad faith; implies bad faith from the community as a whole
 * - just, wow...again, insulting groups ad hominem; including completely unacceptable attacks against "Jehovah's witnesses" and "the arbitrators"
 * NicholasTurnbull asks Tommstein to leave him alone
 * and - NicholasTurnbull implements an indefinite block which was not challenged by a single admin
 * Yet another attempted put-down from Tommstein in which he makes comments about NicholasTurnbull's former involvement with Scientology-related groups, and refers wholly unnecessarily to his age in a manner designed to intimidate
 * Speechless once more as Tommstein makes more off-the-cuff attacks at NicholasTurnbull, but also Sean Black and David Gerard

Sprinkled amongst this set of diffs, notice also the comments from User:Greyfox which I find to be particularly distasteful. Rob Church (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.